VP Debate: The Palin substantial points thread

[Oliver]

While I didn't hear anything substantial coming from her:

I'm reading the transcript of the VP Debate right now to find any
substantial Point in what Palin said that didn't came out of McCains
campaign and would show that she has any basic knowledge about
the issues that came up during the debate.

Did someone spotted one of those substantial Points that reflects
any deeper knowledge of her? Seriously.

 

[corplinx]

Here's Biden's first point of the debate:

If you need any more proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild, I don't think you needed any more evidence than what you see now.

The rest of the debate showed about the exact same grasp of facts, substance, and honesty as the first point of the the debate. Singling out Palin is just confirmation bias. Neither of them were very substantive in my opinion. It was campaign spin in debate form.

 

[R.Mackey]

I beg to differ with that assessment... For example, when asked, late in the debate, the question of nuclear arms control, Sen. Biden responded with a fairly deep (given the limits of the format) reply remarking on the Test Ban Treaty, and the actions of certain key figures in respect, as well as remarking on the European approach to talks with Iran, and how our foreign posture should change to create a better working climate. Gov. Palin, during her turn, responded with word salad. I'm almost dreading reading the transcript.

Debates are shallow, always have, always will be. But I believe there was indeed a signficant difference in the quality and depth of the two candidates' answers. Look no further than Gov. Palin's frequent evasion of questions for verification.

 

[corplinx]

I beg to differ with that assessment... For example, when asked, late in the debate, the question of nuclear arms control, Sen. Biden responded with a fairly deep (given the limits of the format) reply remarking on the Test Ban Treaty, and the actions of certain key figures in respect, as well as remarking on the European approach to talks with Iran, and how our foreign posture should change to create a better working climate.

Maybe its ivory tower syndrome. It seemed fairly pedestrian fare to me.

 

[Oliver]

Here's Biden's first point of the debate:

The rest of the debate showed about the exact same grasp of facts, substance, and honesty as the first point of the the debate. Singling out Palin is just confirmation bias. Neither of them were very substantive in my opinion. It was campaign spin in debate form.

Biden sounded as if he understands the issues all the way along during
the debate. Plus he provided facts regarding foreign policies and circumstances,
what McCain voted for or against, regarding environmental and financial
facts including figures and some other things I have to read up.

Palin didn't provide much of that - if at all. I'm currently trying to find
at least something that she didn't "learn on McCains Website", so to speak.

 

[Wangler]

But I believe there was indeed a signficant difference in the quality and depth of the two candidates' answers.

Of course there was a difference in the quality and depth of the two candidates answers....Joe has been a US Senator for around thirty years, and has run for president more than once.

If he didn't have more depth to his answers compared to hers, I would have been deeply, deeply concerned.

The fact that she was actually able to stand on the same stage with him, and not be overwhelmed completely, is a minor victory for her.

 

[corplinx]

Palin didn't provide much of that - if at all. I'm currently trying to find
at least something that she didn't "learn on McCains Website", so to speak.

She didn't read about the statements Biden cited about Afghanistan on McCain's website. She also stated her disagreement with McCain on ANWR.

 

[Wangler]

Biden sounded as if he understands the issues all the way along during
the debate. Plus he provided facts regarding foreign policies and circumstances,
what McCain voted for or against, regarding environmental and financial
facts including figures and some other things I have to read up.

I would expect no less from a long-standing, respected US Senator.

 

[R.Mackey]

The fact that she was actually able to stand on the same stage with him, and not be overwhelmed completely, is a minor victory for her.

So I take it you agree with me?

Whether her performance was good enough to earn your vote is your business. The question was on depth of answers. Personally, I think whether or not Gov. Palin is ahead of the curve, given her age, given her experience, whatever, is of far lesser importance than who actually has better command of the knowledge and discipline required. Maybe she has potential. Maybe not. The future will tell. But it's today that matters.

 

[corplinx]

I think part of the problem is, if we assume that his knowledge of issues like the nuclear test ban treaty are insightful and broad, then how are we to connect that to his position?

What does it say when someone has all that backstory on an issue and still gets it wrong?

Maybe that's why I don't find it "substantive" as much as "informed". The problem with the nuclear test ban treaty is that the nuclear powers we are worried about aren't going to comply even if they sign it. I don't find naivete substantive (which heavily applies to Palin as well).

 

[Wangler]

So I take it you agree with me?

Whether her performance was good enough to earn your vote is your business. The question was on depth of answers. Personally, I think whether or not Gov. Palin is ahead of the curve, given her age, given her experience, whatever, is of far lesser importance than who actually has better command of the knowledge and discipline required. Maybe she has potential. Maybe not. The future will tell. But it's today that matters.

I agree that some of her answers were obviously scripted. Some were not, IMHO.

But if we are honest, how could it be otherwise?

I think that we likely differ in our opinions on what is required, in terms of knowledge and discipline. I think that she is smart, and had a good grasp of policy on the state level as governor. Her rapid rise was not by happenstance. She can learn fast, and I place some of the blame about her poor press outings on her handling by the McCain campaign.

[my opinion alone]

Truthfully, we need change in Washington, and we can't have it both ways: a person with exceptional depth who is also an outsider.

So, on McCain/Palin we have as close to an experienced outsider as possible(McCain), coupled with a sharp outsider with no DC experience.

When I add that to my evaluation of policy stances (my primary factor), and social stances, my choice is clear.

McCain/Palin are the true change ticket.

[my opinion alone]

 

[R.Mackey]

Maybe that's why I don't find it "substantive" as much as "informed". The problem with the nuclear test ban treaty is that the nuclear powers we are worried about aren't going to comply even if they sign it. I don't find naivete substantive (which heavily applies to Palin as well).

I believe you'll find that Iran has already signed the Non-Proliferation and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty... North Korea is another matter, as is Syria, but frankly your answer is wrong. Sen. Biden's response during the debate is not naive at all in my opinion, nor is it an incorrect viewpoint.

 

[Tricky]

I think Palin did a wonderful job because, after all, there are almost surely some people who could be worse.

 

[SnuggleSmacks]

I was very impressed with Palin's performance, but only because I was expecting a train wreck. She far surpassed expectations. I don't think she deserves a cookie for that , however, because expectations were so very low. The only thing she spoke "substantively" about was energy (although I don't agree with her views), and she continued to speak on this one subject in answer to questions which did not relate to energy, making it appear (probably correctly, but I won't speculate) that this is the ONLY subject she knows anything substantive about.

 

[Baylor]

Palin's expectations were a lot like the Detroit Lions'. It's hard to get any worse than the previous performance, so nearly any performance will "exceed" expectations.

 

[geni]

Here's Biden's first point of the debate:


The rest of the debate showed about the exact same grasp of facts, substance, and honesty as the first point of the the debate. Singling out Palin is just confirmation bias. Neither of them were very substantive in my opinion. It was campaign spin in debate form.

There is no reason to expect Biden to inhabit a reality where your messed up interpritation of various acts has any significance.

 

[davefoc]

I like the topic of this thread but I don't feel like actually combing through the debate transcript to find a Palin substantial point that wasn't some sort of canned, folksy, simplistic aphorism. I do look forward to seeing what people come up with though.

In a different thread I said that I didn't think the effects of this debate on the presidential race would be measurable. I expected both candidates to do reasonably well and that people's pre-debate leanings would determine how they felt about the outcome of the debate.

I was wrong. Palin's simplistic grasp of the issues particularly foreign policy made her the clear cut loser. The only people who are going to see Palin's performance as the winning one are the people leaning strongly to McCain already. And I was wrong that the debate would have such a small effect on the presidential race that the effect would not be measurable. I expect that McCain's poll numbers will drop enough as a direct result of this debate to be measurable.

 

[varwoche]

Of course there was a difference in the quality and depth of the two candidates answers....Joe has been a US Senator for around thirty years, and has run for president more than once.

If he didn't have more depth to his answers compared to hers, I would have been deeply, deeply concerned.

The fact that she was actually able to stand on the same stage with him, and not be overwhelmed completely, is a minor victory for her.

Agreed.

But the parts I highlighted in this next post don't sync at all with the universe I inhabit:

[my opinion alone]

Truthfully, we need change in Washington, and we can't have it both ways: a person with exceptional depth who is also an outsider.

So, on McCain/Palin we have as close to an experienced outsider as possible(McCain), coupled with a sharp outsider with no DC experience.

When I add that to my evaluation of policy stances (my primary factor), and social stances, my choice is clear.

McCain/Palin are the true change ticket.

[my opinion alone]

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I didn't see this thread, so I'll repeat a post that I made on the other thread.

I personally thought that Biden showed remarkable personal restraint when Palin talked about not being a Washington insider and not understanding how you could be for something before you were against it.

Personally I would have turned to her and said:

“It’s really very simple. Remember that “Bridge to Nowhere?” First you were for it, then you were against it. This has been a fundamental aspect of politics for as long as politics has existed. If you claim to not understand this, then your are being either incredibly naïve, or incredibly disingenuous.”

It’s probably good that Obama didn’t tap me to be his running mate.

 

[pgwenthold]

I only saw one exchange in the debate, about diplomacy with Iran. Palin went on about how McCain is all about diplomacy, and Obama just doesn't know how to do it.

Biden went after her, correcting some claims she made about what Obama said to do, but then going after the claim that McCain is all about diplomacy, "He has said he wouldn't even sit down with the leader of Spain, our NATO ally who has troops in afghanastan. That to me is unacceptable."

Big time burn, there. Palin can have no response to that shot. What is she going to say? Well, to be fair, McCain didn't know the guy was president of spain? We don't have to like our NATO allies? Remember, she is the one who said we'd have to come to Georgia's defense if they were in NATO, so she can't dismiss a NATO ally.

Fortunately for her, she was not given a chance to respond. She wouldn't have anything to say.