I would love to have heard Gonzalez', Clemente's, Root's and even Castle's opinions on these issues...Who?
Exactly. My bad for not putting up any links, but then again it's a sad testament to the election process (or should I say the media's coverage of said process) that links have to be provided.
|
She won the debate, so far, on the Drudge Report poll.The little bit I watched was not indicitive of that. I really wished she, or anyone besides me for that matter, had pointed out to Sen. Biden that Article 1 of the Constitution deals with the Legeslative rather than the Executive branch. That is a rather big gaff on the part of someone who is a member of Congress and wants to be in the White House.
Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.
I think it's interesting that he said everyone should understand something that he clearly does not.
She won the debate, so far, on the Drudge Report poll.The little bit I watched was not indicitive of that.
The CNN coverage is really interesting. They have a bunch of commentators giving points in real time as the candidates say stuff. Like watching Debate-Basketball. You can easily tell who the Republicans and Democrats are with the scores they give to each candidate. In response to the quote above, Dems say Biden won. Reps say Palin won. In the end, I think they both achieved what they set out to achieve:
Palin: "I'm not a rambling small-town fool."
Biden: "I'm cool and John McCain sucks."
I think it's interesting that he said everyone should understand something that he clearly does not.
Unfortunately, I don't think many pundits are gonna look it up and call him on it.
She won the debate, so far, on the Drudge Report poll.The little bit I watched was not indicitive of that. I really wished she, or anyone besides me for that matter, had pointed out to Sen. Biden that Article 1 of the Constitution deals with the Legeslative rather than the Executive branch. That is a rather big gaff on the part of someone who is a member of Congress and wants to be in the White House.Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.I think it's interesting that he said everyone should understand something that he clearly does not.
U.S. Constitution - Article I, Section 2
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. "|
|
She won the debate, so far, on the Drudge Report poll.The little bit I watched was not indicitive of that. I really wished she, or anyone besides me for that matter, had pointed out to Sen. Biden that Article 1 of the Constitution deals with the Legeslative rather than the Executive branch. That is a rather big gaff on the part of someone who is a member of Congress and wants to be in the White House.Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.I think it's interesting that he said everyone should understand something that he clearly does not.U.S. Constitution - Article I, Section 2
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided. "
But the point is, that it does not mention the Executive Branch, which is what Joe Biden said. Note that I never disputed that Article 1 dealt with the Vice-President's role in the Senate, I disputed that Article 1 dealt with the Executive Branch.
But the point is, that it does not mention the Executive Branch, which is what Joe Biden said. Note that I never disputed that Article 1 dealt with the Vice-President's role in the Senate, I disputed that Article 1 dealt with the Executive Branch.
I can see how you're interpreting what he said to imply that Article I talks about the Executive Branch. But if you read the quote, I don't see him saying that Article I defines the Executive Branch.
|
|
Exactly. My bad for not putting up any links, but then again it's a sad testament to the election process (or should I say the media's coverage of said process) that links have to be provided.I would love to have heard Gonzalez', Clemente's, Root's and even Castle's opinions on these issues...Who?
QFT
|
|
But the point is, that it does not mention the Executive Branch, which is what Joe Biden said. Note that I never disputed that Article 1 dealt with the Vice-President's role in the Senate, I disputed that Article 1 dealt with the Executive Branch.I can see how you're interpreting what he said to imply that Article I talks about the Executive Branch. But if you read the quote, I don't see him saying that Article I defines the Executive Branch.
See I look at this:
The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch.
and see him saying that Article 1 says that the Vice president is part of the Executive Branch. When he says that Article 1 defines the role of the vice-president and it is the Executive branch, I don't see how it can be interputed any other way.
Quyite a debate. Did you know that Palin said 'mavrick' 16 times?! Then Biden got sick of it and made it clear that McCain was not a mavrick.
Incredible debate, in my opinion.
I watched it 2x because my GF missed it and wanted me to watch it with her.
I am a registered independent but vote democrat more often then not.
That said I thought biden would make a fool of himself and Palin would look like a complete buffoon with no clue what actually was going on.
Biden did VERY well in my opinion. He controlled himself and answered the points concisely and didn't let palin pigeon hole him with her characterizations.
Palin though I find her to the one of the biggest accidents in political history which is evident by her lack of knowledge on the topics and the fact that more often then not is sounds like she is spouting talking points from Rush Limbaugh, Shawn Hannity, Glenn Beck etc she did gain some respect in my eyes. She held her own though she was definitely unprepared to deal with the issues on a meaninful level.
All in all both VP picks were elevated in my eyes but Biden showed me that Obama definitely has a solid chance of winning the presidency. As for Palin in 2012 I am not so sure about that, I see lots of years for her to add to the already mounting controversies.
Only time will tell on all fronts.
|
Is it more like the British Parliament in Canada?Heh well I'm a Canadian who taped the Canadian debates and watched the American one so.. maybe it's the allure of the exotic.
To be honest, I know nothing of Canadian politics (like you needed an American to admit that to you.) I do like watching Parliament in action much better than our politicians.
Yep, lots of yelling and juvenile behaviour, it's like middle school, but it controls the operation of our country.
I thought it was hilarious that the CBC actually had several articles on what they're trying to do to keep Canadians interested in our debate and not Palin/Biden. It was even mentioned by the moderator in our debate: "Look, I'm just trying to keep viewers from switching to Palin/Biden."
I don't see how Canadians could lose interest in our debate! We have one party leader who has only one seat and doesn't take guff from anyone. It's pretty entertaining to watch. And let's not forget the guy who can't actually run for Prime Minister, but is just there to complain about everyone else.
It's great TV!
Once, just once, I'd like to see a debate where someone, anyone, actually answered the questions asked, and also where it was actually a debate instead of two people reading stump speeches to the camera.
Biden was better about answer questions than Palin was, but he was still off topic by 15 seconds into any given question.
Once, just once, I'd like to see a debate where someone, anyone, actually answered the questions asked, and also where it was actually a debate instead of two people reading stump speeches to the camera.
Biden was better about answer questions than Palin was, but he was still off topic by 15 seconds into any given question.
Yes, it was a-Palin!
Yes, it was a-Palin!
My brain hurts now. See what you've done?
Could someone please tell me what was going on with Biden's eyebrows last night? He came off as a grey-haired Ming the Merciless.
Maybe it was done on purpose, so that people would be focused on his eyebrows instead of the babbling that leaked out every now and then...
Could someone please tell me what was going on with Biden's eyebrows last night? He came off as a grey-haired Ming the Merciless.
Maybe it was done on purpose, so that people would be focused on his eyebrows instead of the babbling that leaked out every now and then...
His eyebrows are always like that. I dunno why.
His eyebrows are always like that. I dunno why.
Hmm...guess I never noticed before...weird...
Yes, it was a-Palin!My brain hurts now. See what you've done?
I was Biden my time on that one. But, glad to be of service.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Not the debate that I would like to have seen. Substance goes to Biden, who at least made a token attempt to answer the questions. Palin frequently completely ignored the question, leaping in to canned campaign statements. But ultimately, Biden (probably wisely) ignored Palin for the most part, so it wasn't really a debate, just a sampling of stump speeches.
It's pretty clear Palin has absolutely no command of national issues, a pretty crippling deficit when you might have to assume the duties of the president. Also IMO she puts on the whole rural act like a hat - I'm surprised anyone buys it.
The only way this can be called a Palin "win" is by buying the "lowered expectations" trick the Republicans trot out every debate. Certainly her performance mainly played well only with her base, not with the moderates that McCain so desperately needs.
I was pretty offended by the constant "don't look back" rhetoric. Yeah, when you're a Republican trying to run as a Democrat, you might want people to ignore your past. But how we got here is pretty key to how we fix it - with the economy, with the war, and with climate change.
Just my 50 cents.
It was awesome when Palin flatly refused to answer questions, misquoted and misidentified leaders in Afghanistan or in lieu of answering directly talked about how she isn't a "Washington insider" and made appeals to middle class stereotypes.
Totally pwned him. I know my fears have been put to rest.
Obama's gonna win. You can relax until 2012.
Because. Palin's coming.
And here I thought the Republicans might start setting the bar a little higher after the last eight years. Different strokes, I guess.
My favorite Palinism:
"I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people."
Will someone with a decoder ring please explain this one to me? I think mine got lost in the mail.
|
Once, just once, I'd like to see a debate where someone, anyone, actually answered the questions asked, and also where it was actually a debate instead of two people reading stump speeches to the camera.
Biden was better about answer questions than Palin was, but he was still off topic by 15 seconds into any given question.
I heard some guys on the radio going over the factcheck.com (I think that's what it's called) lie/misrepresentation list (from BOTH candidates)
and he quoted one by Biden (I'm not calling him the ONLY liar of the two, I'm just calling him a liar. They both woulda Pinnochio'd a nose there if it worked that way, who cares which one was longer).
and then the radio guy said, "why would I trust Joe Biden to educate me on anything John McCain ever did? He's not exactly a neutral witness over there."
And I'm voting for McCain, so I don't want to sound like I'm jacking around with this, but so Sarah Palin does it too, with the troop count thing.....I mean, 17,000 is a lot of troops to get wrong I reckon. And Obama didn't really vote to raise taxes 96 times or whatever....
Their point was the debate is just a big smoke-blowing-up-your-butt exercise; you need to like look at their policies, and figure out which one of them is in league with where the U.S.A. needs to be going. They're all full of bullox, and I honestly feel like this: who lost the debate? I f~!@ing did.
I thought the lady who hosted the debate, though, I thought she did a good job regardless of her book deal she's got going there. I don't have a problem there. She's a class act A+ #1.
Good stuff.
Here I agree with you almost completely. America is the one who loses. I do accept that, to get your points across, you do sometimes have to take the "answer the question that you wished they'd asked" approach, but our polys are taking it to a whole new level. And the misinformation: Smokeupthebutt, indeed.
Rightly or wrongly, our entire system has now rejected the idea that an educated, informed electorate will make the best decision for the country by having a competing marketplace of intelligent ideas. Is it too late to go back to that? Perhaps.
|
|
I don't know if it ever existed; it's a pipe dream like King Arthur.
I'm hoping, though, that in the future with the internet and the ability to damn-near instantly get the entire debate factually corrected, that some kind of compelled veracity can finally take shape.
I don't have a lot of hope for this, but I do hold out some.
|
|
Yeah, it was like when I first realized how high John Kerry's forehead was.
Dude looked like Frankenstein without the neck-bolts. I couldn't even look at him.
Then again, my favorite leftie is Dennis Kucinich, and he's a tiny little man with a big shiny forehead and bat-ears. I hate how superficial I can be. I try to remind myself that I'm voting for someone's *ideals,* not how pretty they look (or how slick they sound).
My favorite Palinism:
"I know that John McCain will do that and I, as his vice president, families we are blessed with that vote of the American people and are elected to serve and are sworn in on January 20, that will be our top priority is to defend the American people."Will someone with a decoder ring please explain this one to me? I think mine got lost in the mail.
I know. I was wondering if anyone else noticed that she suddenly lost the ability to speak English about halfway through the debate. The words were English, but they didn't make a damn bit of sense.
Still, she did better than in her interviews, probably because she knew in advance what questions were coming...
Im voting Commander/Destro for 08!
I'm starting my own campaign, and plan to win the election due to the millions of posters on Paizo. Think that would work? Maybe a little late..
Still, she did better than in her interviews, probably because she knew in advance what questions were coming...
She didn't know what questions were coming. No one did (other than a few educated guesses.) She simply had memorized a few speeches to read regardless of what the questions were.
She didn't know what questions were coming. No one did (other than a few educated guesses.) She simply had memorized a few speeches to read regardless of what the questions were.
Fair enough. The point being she had some (mostly) memorized answers to give. I still have to chuckle over her whole idea of "gotcha" questions. Isn't that the point of journalism, to ask the questions you want answers to?
I was pretty offended by the constant "don't look back" rhetoric. Yeah, when you're a Republican trying to run as a Democrat, you might want people to ignore your past. But how we got here is pretty key to how we fix it - with the economy, with the war, and with climate change.
Equally annoying is the whole, "a third term of Bush" b.s. that gets said by the Dems.
Seriously, I wish one of the Reps would step back from the podium for a second and look around the stage questioningly and then say, "You do know this is 2008 and you are running against McCain and Palin and not Bush and Chaney right? I'm just asking because you keep bringing them up, so I want to make sure you know when it is and where you are."
What pisses me off is when Palin has her twitters, her stupid smiles, her "okie-dokie joe"s, her "six-pack joe"s, her "say it aint so, joe"s... Shut up! this isn't a fun, little social gathering. You are running for VP! Act like it!
I was pretty offended by the constant "don't look back" rhetoric. Yeah, when you're a Republican trying to run as a Democrat, you might want people to ignore your past. But how we got here is pretty key to how we fix it - with the economy, with the war, and with climate change.Equally annoying is the whole, "a third term of Bush" b.s. that gets said by the Dems.
Seriously, I wish one of the Reps would step back from the podium for a second and look around the stage questioningly and then say, "You do know this is 2008 and you are running against McCain and Palin and not Bush and Chaney right? I'm just asking because you keep bringing them up, so I want to make sure you know when it is and where you are."
Except that on a tactial level, it is working. The Democrats have been largely successful in linking a very unpopular President to the Presidential nominee of the same party.
Of course, the fact that McCain has supported 91% of GWB's proposals does help the Democrats in that effort.
Of course, the fact that McCain has supported 91% of GWB's proposals does help the Democrats in that effort.
Only within a very narrow timespan. Heck I could claim that Obama voted in line with Bush 100% of the time (as long as I narrow it to the last vote on the bailout plan). Of course, perception and reality when it comes to politics are very different things.
Of course, the fact that McCain has supported 91% of GWB's proposals does help the Democrats in that effort.Only within a very narrow timespan. Heck I could claim that Obama voted in line with Bush 100% of the time (as long as I narrow it to the last vote on the bailout plan). Of course, perception and reality when it comes to politics are very different things.
How narrow is that time span for McCain, b.t.w.
In any event, the point is that the Democrats have been very successful in their effort to link McCain to GWB; fairly or otherwise.
What pisses me off is when Palin has her twitters, her stupid smiles, her "okie-dokie joe"s, her "six-pack joe"s, her "say it aint so, joe"s... Shut up! this isn't a fun, little social gathering. You are running for VP! Act like it!
Of course, the fact that McCain has supported 91% of GWB's proposals does help the Democrats in that effort.Only within a very narrow timespan. Heck I could claim that Obama voted in line with Bush 100% of the time (as long as I narrow it to the last vote on the bailout plan). Of course, perception and reality when it comes to politics are very different things.How narrow is that time span for McCain, b.t.w.
In any event, the point is that the Democrats have been very successful in their effort to link McCain to GWB; fairly or otherwise.
According to this McCain has voted 90% of the time in line with his party since Bush took office. To put that into context, Obama has voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006. Also, Obama's votes were in line with the president's position 40 percent of the time in 2007.