VP Debate: The Palin substantial points thread

[XBoxWarrior]

It's all about the "Energy" Joe...I will answer every question posed with the "Energy", says Palin.

I wish Gwen would have asked her to answer the question that she actually asked, but Gwen let Palin drive every topic into the "Energy" hole.

Katie Couric did a much better job.

I can find no 'substance' in what Palin said.

p.s. Did I mention that Alaska has a lot of "Energy"?

 

[varwoche]

p.s. Did I mention that Alaska has a lot of "Energy"?

You did. But not folksy enough; not perky enough.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The standard seems to be that because Palin didn't fall flat on her face, she was successful.

Sorry, I need a higher standard than that for V.P.--especially given the age and medical history of her running mate.

She seems fine as governor of one of the smallest states (by population). As Biden said, I applaud her for giving the citizens of Alaska a slice of the oil revenue windfall, but too bad her ticket and party are opposed to windfall profit tax nationally.

 

[pgwenthold]

I didn't watch the debate (outside of seeing the exchange mentioned above) because I didn't expect much. Given how they are mostly about show, I did not expect her to "fall on her face" at all - in fact, I expected her to do just fine. At least, she would appear just fine.

If the debate depended at all on substance, it would be a different matter. But it doesn't. So even Biden's burn that I mentioned above doesn't mean much in the end.

OTOH, from the statements I've heard, it sounds like Biden did VERY well. No, Palin didn't fall on her face. And Biden really shined. Both will consider that a win.

 

[Cicero]

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.

You have the right sport, but the wrong teams. "Say it ain't so, Joe," was supposed to be the New England Patriots, and Palin was supposed to be the Miami Dolphins. I do not think she crushed Biden like the Fins did the Pats, but she stood up to the supposed best debate in the U.S. Senate and gave him more competition than he , or the JREFer libs, expected.

But even if Palin cleaned "Say it ain't so Joe's" clock, would they then be voting for Mcain? Would they be voting for McCain if he had any other person on the ticket? Of course not. What possible difference does Palin's debating prowess, or lack there of, have to do with their selection of a candidate that was made over a year ago?

The JREFer libs prefer the traditional Washington lawyer/politician that expresses himself in the same dour tone throughout the debate, while his opponent showed a completely different persona. Considering how the Biden type of politician has occupied D.C. for decades, and they have preserved the status quo, how does he represent change?

"Say it aint so Joe" got emotional when he recollected the death of his wife 35 years ago. If that type of vulnerability is a prerequisite for a potential commander in chief, then he leaped ahead Palin in that category.

 

[davefoc]

I took a shot at trying to find something substantive that Palin said. I only got part way through but this is the best that I could come up with:

PALIN: I am because he's got a good health care plan that is detailed. And I want to give you a couple details on that. He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program and unless you're pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don't think that it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds. But a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax that's budget neutral. That's going to help. And he also wants to erase those artificial lines between states so that through competition, we can cross state lines and if there's a better plan offered somewhere else, we would be able to purchase that. So affordability and accessibility will be the keys there with that $5,000 tax credit also being offered.

I don't think it's all that good. I think there may be something to McCain's ideas on healthcare, but Palin didn't do well in explaining his approach. Here she seems to be implying that if the government gives a tax break it doesn't cost the government money. I think the point she was trying to make is that McCain proposes to take the tax break away from the employers and give it directly to individuals to eventually eliminate the dependence of individuals on employer supplied health care. I think that might be a good idea but with a Democratic congress probably for years to come, it's an idea without much chance of getting implemented. I suppose given the short time available it isn't fair to criticize Palin here if she didn't do a good job of advocating for the idea but this was the only substantive thing I could find she said in the first third or so of the transcript and what substance there was had to be inferred from information that she didn't supply.

Mostly, reading what she said reinforces the notion that what she did was maintain a stream of vapid , often off topic comments. According to Peggy Noonan and Hugh Hewitt this equaled a grand performance that will energize McCain's base and give him a fresh chance at victory. What total partisan crap. If a Democrat had given a performance like this these dishonest partisan pundits would have savaged him. It makes one wonder just how bad Palin would have had to have been before Hewitt might have found something to criticize in her performance.

 

[Dr Adequate]

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.

It's a shame for you guys, really, that McCain didn't pick an even worse VP candidate, who could have scored an even more magnificent victory just by showing up. A styrofoam packing chip, for example. Then you could be arguing: "Yes, the styrofoam chip didn't score any points, or, indeed, speak in any way, but considering that it's a styrofoam packing chip, that's a victory! McCain-Styrofoam 2008!!!"

The only problem with this otherwise brilliant political manoeuvre is that victory in this election will not actually be awarded by a process of Republican post facto rationalization of McCain's dumb choices, but by the swing voters, who are not going to be thinking "Hey, that's not bad for styrofoam!" but rather: "Is this the packaging material I want as VP? If McCain should die or become incapacitated, is the styrofoam chip ready to lead?"

 

[pgwenthold]

Great. Now all I can think of is Palin = styrofoam chip.

Thanks, DA

 

[XBoxWarrior]

It's a shame for you guys, really, that McCain didn't pick an even worse VP candidate, who could have scored an even more magnificent victory just by showing up. A styrofoam packing chip, for example. Then you could be arguing: "Yes, the styrofoam chip didn't score any points, or, indeed, speak in any way, but considering that it's a styrofoam packing chip, that's a victory! McCain-Styrofoam 2008!!!"

I used to like the SC...(Styrofoam Chip), but now I am against it!

If ever the Democratic Party decides to run an SC, I will vote it down. No where in these times of Political unrest does the SC deserve a seat.

Just say NO to the SC.

 

[dudalb]

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.

I have to agree. Palin improved her delivery, and did not come off like a ditz like she did in the Couric interview, but did not show much knowledge of the issue.
I got a little tired of both candidates trying to out "Just Plain Folks" each other ....Palin whole Soccer mom routine, and Biden's referring to his Blue Collar background about once every five minutes...but in the end Biden brough substance in addition to the gimmicks, and Palin did not.
I would like to have Palin as a neighbor, but not as VP.

 

[Cicero]

If McCain should die or become incapacitated, is the styrofoam chip ready to lead?"

How does Biden explain fighting to a draw with a piece of "Styrofoam?" Maybe he could argue that she was just too resilient because she isn't biodegradable.

 

[davefoc]

How does Biden explain fighting to a draw with a piece of "Styrofoam?" Maybe he could argue that she was just too resilient because she isn't biodegradable.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the substantial points that Palin made in the debate.

It would be interesting to see what substantial points that a partisan such as yourself thought that Palin made during the debate. Have you read through the transcript and found any areas where she spoke with particular skill or insight? What were they?

One area where the Democrats are particularly exposed is on the issue of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failures. How do you think she did on elucidating the policies that led to those failures? Did she show insight into the problems or did she just rely on vapid pronouncements that didn't indicate any particular knowledge on her part of the underlying issues?

 

[geni]

How does Biden explain fighting to a draw with a piece of "Styrofoam?" Maybe he could argue that she was just too resilient because she isn't biodegradable.

If you think that debate was a draw you are at best sadly delusional.

Biden didn't have the easyest of hands to play since he had to appear non mean. Mostly took the safe road by going after McCain and appearing to know rather a lot about everything.

 

[corplinx]

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

Biden voted for de-regulation. I think my grasp of those acts, their consequences, and who voted for them is better than yours apparently.

He was actually called out on it by the AP fact check after the debate as well.

Of course, Biden tries not to name names when doing the de-regulation big lie spiel. He attributes the crisis to the very spirit of deregulation it seems.

The problem is:
1. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac weren't regulated because congress protected them. They underwrote much of the toxic debt.
2. Sarbanes Oxley regulation has caused much of the current part of this crisis which involves these finance companies writing off defaults as pure loss.

I think most people who beat the de-regulation drum probably have holdings with banks who also offer investment banking (which is the only act of de-regulation the Big Liars can point to). The problem is, we consumers don't mind our banks having higher debt ratios. And if we want conservative banks, those still exist as well. However, financial services companies are something people want and there is no reason for them not to exist.

I think people who blame deregulation just don't get it or don't want to so they can continue to believe what they want to believe.

And oh yeah, Biden voted for it. This is as phoney as Sarah Palin's hair color.

 

[Ziggurat]

Biden sounded as if he understands the issues all the way along during
the debate. Plus he provided facts regarding foreign policies and circumstances,

Too bad some of them were made up out of whole cloth.

 

[Cicero]

If you think that debate was a draw you are at best sadly delusional.

Biden didn't have the easyest of hands to play since he had to appear non mean. Mostly took the safe road by going after McCain and appearing to know rather a lot about everything.

Yes. Biden proves the adage that appearances can be deceptive Just a cursory examination by FactCheck.org of Biden's purported knowledge on "everything."

Edited by prewitt81: 

Edited for breach of rule 4. Link to removed content: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/bidens_big_lies_all_14_of_them.html

Please do not post multiple paragraphs of copyrighted material. Fair use is ok, this was not.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: prewitt81

 

[Cicero]

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the substantial points that Palin made in the debate.

It would be interesting to see what substantial points that a partisan such as yourself thought that Palin made during the debate. Have you read through the transcript and found any areas where she spoke with particular skill or insight? What were they?

One area where the Democrats are particularly exposed is on the issue of the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae failures. How do you think she did on elucidating the policies that led to those failures? Did she show insight into the problems or did she just rely on vapid pronouncements that didn't indicate any particular knowledge on her part of the underlying issues?

Palin is the only one of the four people on the tickets who had zero to do with the sub-prime loan debacle. I would rather hear from Barney Frank on how he screwed up rather than from Palin on how the VP is supposed to explain it.

Palin, as she stated from the beginning , was not interested in sticking to G.I's fixed agenda. She made her points, but with much less reliance on half truths, as Biden did (see last post) to make them.

 

[Drysdale]

Couple questions here from the transcript...

BIDEN: John McCain voted to cut off funding for the troops. Let me say that again. John McCain voted against an amendment containing $1 billion, $600 million that I had gotten to get MRAPS, those things that are protecting the governor's son and pray god my son and a lot of other sons and daughters.

He voted against it. He voted against funding because he said the amendment had a time line in it to end this war. He didn't like that. But let's get straight who has been right and wrong. John McCain and Dick Cheney said while I was saying we would not be greeted as liberators, we would not - this war would take a decade and not a day, not a week and not six months, we would not be out of there quickly. John McCain was saying the Sunnis and Shias got along with each other without reading the history of the last 700 years. John McCain said there would be enough oil to pay for this. John McCain has been dead wrong. I love him. As my mother would say, god love him, but he's been dead wrong on the fundamental issues relating to the conduct of the war. Barack Obama has been right. There are the facts

When did McCain say that? Can someone show me that quote and in what context please if he did.

And this...

BIDEN: Gwen, no one in the United States Senate has been a better friend to Israel than Joe Biden. I would have never, ever joined this ticket were I not absolutely sure Barack Obama shared my passion.

But you asked a question about whether or not this administration's policy had made sense or something to that effect. It has been an abject failure, this administration's policy.

In fairness to Secretary Rice, she's trying to turn it around now in the seventh or eighth year.

Here's what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, "Big mistake. Hamas will win. You'll legitimize them." What happened? Hamas won.

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.
The fact of the matter is, the policy of this administration has been an abject failure.

And speaking of freedom being on the march, the only thing on the march is Iran. It's closer to a bomb. Its proxies now have a major stake in Lebanon, as well as in the Gaza Strip with Hamas.

We will change this policy with thoughtful, real, live diplomacy that understands that you must back Israel in letting them negotiate, support their negotiation, and stand with them, not insist on policies like this administration has.

Can anyone find me where Biden and Obama said this beforehand?
And I take this to mean Hezbollah is no longer in Lebanon. Is that his stance?

Thx

 

[davefoc]

Palin is the only one of the four people on the tickets who had zero to do with the sub-prime loan debacle. I would rather here from Barney Frank on how he screwed up rather than from Palin on how the VP is supposed to explain it.

Palin, as she stated from the beginning , was not interested in sticking to G.I's fixed agenda. She made her points, but with much less reliance on half truths, as Biden did (see last post) to make them.

Could you pick one of those points and discuss how it shows knowledge of the issue or analytical skills?

The point of many of us here is that she spoke in slogans and there is very little substance anyplace. Please indicate what she said that makes you think we are wrong about our categorization of what she said.

FWIW, your posts have attacked the credibility of a lot of Biden's points. There are two problems with this. One, both candidates engaged in misleading representations of the actions taken by the other side. If you want to go down that path it is necessary to take a look at both candidates and see how accurate what they said was. You are only testing Biden's statements. Two, there are other threads for a more general discussion of the debate. This thread is about the substantive points that Palin made. Do you have some things in mind that she said that indicated insight and knowledge? What were they?

 

[Cicero]

Could you pick one of those points and discuss how it shows knowledge of the issue or analytical skills?

The point of many of us here is that she spoke in slogans and there is very little substance anyplace. Please indicate what she said that makes you think we are wrong about our categorization of what she said.

FWIW, your posts have attacked the credibility of a lot of Biden's points. There are two problems with this. One, both candidates engaged in misleading representations of the actions taken by the other side. If you want to go down that path it is necessary to take a look at both candidates and see how accurate what they said was. You are only testing Biden's statements. Two, there are other threads for a more general discussion of the debate. This thread is about the substantive points that Palin made. Do you have some things in mind that she said that indicated insight and knowledge? What were they?

Excuse me if I do not take seriously Oliver's (who I beleive is not an American citizen/voter, yet leans left) question when he phrases it as "any basic knowledge about the issues." Just because Will Rodgers had a folksy style didn't mean he didn't have a grasp of political issues when he mocked politicians.

On the question of alternative fuels, Palin had a much more common sense approach, if not couched in a recondite intellectual fashion, than Biden.

I also said that both people engaged in half truths, but Biden's half truths accompanied just about every answer.