VP Debate: The Palin substantial points thread

[davefoc]

Thank you for the response Wangler,

I think your first quote goes better to the issue of substantive things that Palin said than the issue of where she differentiated McCain/Palin policy from Bush. That was nicely said (even if it's an often stated claim) and it went to attacking Obama for his alleged willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

The second quote didn't seem like much of distinction between Bush and McCain. I suspect Bush would like to take what worked in Iraq and transfer it to Afghanistan. Calling it "surge principals" was a good debate strategy, but in my mind it's misleading. The term surge describes an increase in troop strength and now because the Republicans think they have traction with that word other kinds of strategies not involving troop increases are going to be called "surge" strategies? It does go to the reality of what happened in Iraq to reduce the level of violence:
1. Before the surge millions of people in Iraq had moved. The ethnic cleansing that some of the violence was about was less of an issue.
2. The Americans started funding and arming the Sunnis. So the Sunnis started killing less Americans.
3. The Sunni leaders decided that siding with the Americans was in their interest and acted against Al Qaida factions that had been killing Americans.
4. The Americans stopped the failed policy of massive American public works projects that employed non-Iraqi workers and replaced them with smaller Iraqi driven projects.

 

[normdoering]

Thank you for the response Wangler,

I think your first quote goes better to the issue of substantive things that Palin said than the issue of where she differentiated McCain/Palin policy from Bush.

If that's all he's got, then I'm not impressed. Here is where Biden shows the Obama/Biden ticket to be distinctly different than Palin's version of Bush-think:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-excerptsterror3-2008oct03,0,3981817.story

Biden: "John [McCain] continues to tell us that the central war in the front on terror is in Iraq. I promise you, if an attack comes in the homeland, it's going to come as our security services have said, it is going to come from Al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's where they live. That's where they are. That's where it will come from. And right now that resides in Pakistan. A stable government needs to be established. . . . Look, we have spent more money -- we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country."

Palin: "As for who termed that central war on terror being in Iraq, it was Gen. [David H.] Petraeus and Al Qaeda, both leaders there, and it's probably the only thing that they're ever going to agree on, but that it was a central war on terror is in Iraq. You don't have to believe me or John McCain on that. I would believe Petraeus and that leader of Al Qaeda. An armed -- nuclear-armed especially -- Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. . . . Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry."

Where it matters, not on whether you'll talk to Iran, but what kind of saber rattling you do to provoke them.

 

[Wangler]

Thank you for the response Wangler,

I think your first quote goes better to the issue of substantive things that Palin said than the issue of where she differentiated McCain/Palin policy from Bush. That was nicely said (even if it's an often stated claim) and it went to attacking Obama for his alleged willingness to talk to Ahmadinejad without preconditions.

The second quote didn't seem like much of distinction between Bush and McCain. I suspect Bush would like to take what worked in Iraq and transfer it to Afghanistan. Calling it "surge principals" was a good debate strategy, but in my mind it's misleading. The term surge describes an increase in troop strength and now because the Republicans think they have traction with that word other kinds of strategies not involving troop increases are going to be called "surge" strategies? It does go to the reality of what happened in Iraq to reduce the level of violence:
1. Before the surge millions of people in Iraq had moved. The ethnic cleansing that some of the violence was about was less of an issue.
2. The Americans started funding and arming the Sunnis. So the Sunnis started killing less Americans.
3. The Sunni leaders decided that siding with the Americans was in their interest and acted against Al Qaida factions that had been killing Americans.
4. The Americans stopped the failed policy of massive American public works projects that employed non-Iraqi workers and replaced them with smaller Iraqi driven projects.

Thanks for your points, Davefoc

 

[Oliver]

Where it matters, not on whether you'll talk to Iran, but what kind of saber rattling you do to provoke them.

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that
the VP-Debate was rather about "saber rattling" than providing
ones own knowledge about the facts?

 

[normdoering]

I'm not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that
the VP-Debate was rather about "saber rattling" than providing ones own knowledge about the facts?

No.

I'm just pointing out that Palin, as McCain, has dealt in the same kind of saber rattling that Bush once did.

Just read the quotes from Biden and Palin. Palin is saying things very similar to Bush. When she says: "...Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. . . . Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry" that echoes Bush. It's saber rattling.

Biden doesn't do that.

 

[Oliver]

No.

I'm just pointing out that Palin, as McCain, has dealt in the same kind of saber rattling that Bush once did.

Just read the quotes from Biden and Palin. Palin is saying things very similar to Bush. When she says: "...Iran is so extremely dangerous to consider. . . . Our nuclear weaponry here in the U.S. is used as a deterrent. And that's a safe, stable way to use nuclear weaponry" that echoes Bush. It's saber rattling.

Biden doesn't do that.

Oh, okay. Well, personally I thought that Biden was highly biased
as well concerning Iran's rights due to being a sovereign state,
being a member of the IAEA, and Iran actually not seeking to
get nukes according to the US-NIE.

But I agree - Palin was much more aggressive and far more
talking factual Nonsense, as I pointed out.

 

[davefoc]

Oh, okay. Well, personally I thought that Biden was highly biased
as well concerning Iran's rights due to being a sovereign state,
being a member of the IAEA, and Iran actually not seeking to
get nukes according to the US-NIE.

But I agree - Palin was much more aggressive and far more
talking factual Nonsense, as I pointed out.

Biden was engaging in a standard two party politics strategy. He moved as close to his opponent's position without going to the other side of it so that he could capture as large a block of voters as possible with his particular position.

Obama did the same thing perfectly with his maneuver on the oil drilling. He moved all the way to just left of McCain. His hope is that the people on the far left of the issue still realize he is to the left of McCain and as such the most attractive candidate on this issue and he hoped to squeeze out any middle ground between him and McCain so that he could pick up the most people with moderate views on this issue. My initial reaction to the situation was that McCain had won the day on this one because he struck first with a position change. But in so doing it allowed Obama to carefully pick out a position that was the most advantageous for him given his knowledge of McCain's position. At the end of the day, the issue is still probably one that cuts in McCain's favor, but it Obama's strategy seems to have reduced McCain's advantage on this as much as possible.