BS: The Debates: Members Only

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:41 PM

I believe it and it's a good one - I just said I don't know because I only saw part of it. No way I'm watching all of it.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Michael Harrison
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:31 PM

Heric: I do believe, nay, I know, that between the time that Biden and Palin emerged from backstage and the time that the first question
was asked - Palin looked at Biden and asked, "Can I call you Joe?"
That is a fact, all you have to do is review the "debate" film. My contention is that she was being pretentious in that she was not asking him if she could call him, "Joe" out of respect, but rather, the question was asked so that she could use the phrase, "Say it ain't so, Joe," which is a very well known line from the life of "Shoeless" Joe Jackson who was accused of cheating in the 1908 Black Sox Scandal (movie: Eight Men Out).

I believe she asked Biden's permission so to give forth a sense of respect, but, she never called him "Joe" until three-quarters of the way through the "debate" when she throws out her quip from "Eight Men Out." Sorry folks, but: McCain/Palin - thanks; but, no thanks. Cheers,.....mwh

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:29 PM

She reminds me of a muscian who only has a few songs down... Lucky for her that she isn't going to hjave to do this again soon because if it took a month to teach her the few songs she sang last night she would be in trouble, big time...

The interesting thing tho is that with the 12 or so dongs she learned very well that she had a hard time choosing which one to do in response to the question... And that is not a good thing... It does not invoke confidence in the voter that she can actually, ahhhhh, think or is knowledgeable...

Me thinks that "buyer's remorse" is beginning to take a toll on the McCain/Palin ticket...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:14 PM

Oh, come now. Why would he waste his time on a complete non-sequitor like that? Just to make you happy? ;-) I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 06:05 PM

Mr. Hypocrite has been pathetically whining for months, if not years, about the alleged terrible evils wrought by organized religion, especially in public life.

Anybody for whom organized religion is truly a deep-dyed villain would be a strong opponent of the McCain/Palen ticket. There is no question who is the only fundamentalist of the 4 presidential/VP candidates. And it ain't Obama or Biden. Clue: which one looks forward to the "End Times"?

Mr. Hypocrite is welcome to rebut this--if possible.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CapriUni
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:53 PM

Jack the Sailor --

Sorry. I linked only to the home page; you have to dig a little deeper to see their analysis of individual claims.

The tax statistics were cited in

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:53 PM

I didn't mean it WAS disrespectful, but I'd bet that telling Palin to ask first was to draw the contrast (unless it was also to set-up that uninspired quip.)

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:28 PM

Heric,
Barack Obama and John McCain have known each other for several years in the senate. I imagine most Senators are on a first-name basis with each other after serving together that long.   (And I'd say calling a 4-year colleage "John" or "Barack" is a sight more respectful than refusing to even look at him or acknowledge him as an equal.)
Sarah Palin had never met Joe Biden before last night, I believe. They wouldn't be expected to be on a first-name basis without first asking permission.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:23 PM

"the best candidates rarely get the nomination"

No kidding! I would have nominated Dennis Kucinich and/or Ron Paul.

The candidates who get the nomination are the ones who play ball most effectively and cooperatively with the established Big Money interests at the top of the "food chain".

By definition, those are not the best candidates. In fact, they may be among the worst candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:22 PM

C'mon, Rig,

This current Republican minority in the Senate has set all-time records for filibusters - staging more of them in their first year after the 2006 elections than in any previous 2-year congressional session.    That means they outdid both the Democrats and their own Republican party when it comes to being obstructionist while in the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:21 PM

I didn't hear her say can I call you Joe, and I don't know if she used it only the one time, but:

The other reason to do that was to contrast Obama's perhaps/arguably presumptuous use of "John."

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:16 PM

Yes, of course, one wouldn't launch a filibuster if one wasn't the minority party, at least not very often.

               But I didn't say there were no qualified candidates in the other party, it's just that because of the caucus system, and the way they run the nominating contests, the best candidates rarely get the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 04:07 PM

[[[Riginslinger :
"She comes across as totally dismissive of the opposing party..."

         That's because the opposing party continues to nominate weak candidates, so it's hard to take them seriously.]]]
By your take, then, the Republicans should NOT be talking about putting politics aside and "working across the aisle."    If your own party is the only one with candidates worth taking seriously, why should you not be ignoring the opposing party altogether.

Palin and McCain keep making big noises about "bipartisanship," "working across the aisle," and getting beyond political divisiveness -- all the while ridiculing and condemning the entire Democratic party (except for Joe Lieberman) as not having any policies or candidates with any merit.

I'm not sure "bipartisanship" is such a good thing in cases where one party or another is advocating policies that would be harmful to our country and the world.   Personally, I think it's time for the pendulum to swing way back away from the neocon policies of Reagan, Bush 41, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush 43, McCain, etc.   But I do think the Democratic leadership in Congress and Obama and Biden have shown willingness to compromise and work together with the Republicans -- a lot more than I would advocate, on some issues, e.g., the bailout bill. It hasn't been the Democrats in the Senate who've done record numbers of filibusters when they've been in the minority during the past 30 years.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 03:46 PM

Yes, Jack, I agree that Rig's choice in that respect is probably unwise... ;-) But what it is based on, as you pointed out, is merely the fact that his whole position in this election is: Anyone But Obama!

And that's all there is to it.

It wouldn't matter what Obama did now or said...Rig wouldn't like it. He is emotionally charged against Barack Obama in the same way that some people here are emotionally charged against Hillary Clinton or John McCain. He clearly despises Obama and would vote for anyone in any party rather than for Obama. Nothing is likely to change that.

And I don't believe it's based on any race prejudice on his part either. He simply has decided that Barack Obama is a no-good candidate, period, for reasons that make sense to him, whether or not they do to you, me or Ron Davies.

It makes no sense to accuse Rig of hypocrisy regarding his anti-religious views over this. It makes no sense to accuse him of racism either.

But, oh my! Isn't it tempting for those who like to hurl mean personal epithets and character slurs at their political opponents....

Why not argue with him on matters of substance and policy instead? That's what I would suggest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Michael Harrison
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 03:28 PM

Palin is a "head-in-the-sand," flag waving nin-cum-poop,that, unfortunately Americans just love to elect to office because they won't tell us what is really happening - they tell us what we want to hear. Palin is, I'm afraid, the weapons of mass destruction that we could not find in Iraq - they are right here at home.

Palin will be going back to Alaska in early November; but, it is most unfortunate that in four years she will be returning and next time she will have four more years experience, learning, skills and abilities that will require Obama to absolutely excell in his first term to defeat her for a second. Considering the barrel of shit that
Bush has left for Obama, it is highly unlikely that he will be reelected as the right-winged braying asses are going to be all over him as they were with Uncle Bill Clinton.

I could complain about the whole "debate," but I won't; instead, please know that, for me, the height of insincerity and the insurance of her having a plasticene heart was when Palin came out and nicely asked, "Can I call you Joe?" That was not a move to be friendly, but rather, a method of phoniness to set it up so she could use the phrase, "Say it ain't so, Joe" later in the debate - what bullshit. If I am correct, she didn't refer to Senator Biden as "Joe" except when she used that phrase - which I don't think she even wrote.

It is really time folks, for this country to drop the "American Idol" approach to electing government officials - we need to be electing statesmen who are put in office for the substance of their policies, not their phoney words and plastic smiles. I am sick and tired of the Reagans and Bushs and Palins and I know we can do better than this nonsense. How about a Lincoln, or an Adams or a Jefferson, or a Franklin? No, not Franklin, he's too good as an outside agitator keeping the officials in line and actually doing something; besides, he had a "Clintonesque" reputation, and heck, that just wouldn't work in todays politics, by golly - you betcha!

Cheers,............mwh

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: PoppaGator
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 03:05 PM

I was about to thrown in my two cents worth, but now I am reluctant, because I'd be immediately following Rig and might be interpreted as responding to him.

Plus, he's gotten me so angry at his stubborn insistance upon being a dumbass, that I forgot what I wanted to say.

I just said my piece a few minutes ago on that other debate thread ~ VP Debate Entertainment. If you care to read my opinion, look over there.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 02:01 PM

"She comes across as totally dismissive of the opposing party..."


               That's because the opposing party continues to nominate weak candidates, so it's hard to take them seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Genie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:44 PM

After Palin's lame attempt to recapture a memorable, endearing soundbite by doing a feeble imitation of a line from the 1984 debate, I was waiting for Biden to channel Lloyd Bentsen from 1988:

"I new Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Madame, you're no Ronald Reagan."

Of course, I knew he wouldn't go for such low-hanging fruit, but maybe Keith Olberman can do it after the fact.

And, much as I blame Reagan's policies for a lot of the dowslide to disaster we've been on since 1981, Sarah Palin IS no Ronald Reagan. (Thank goodness!)   She's had two major high-visibility chances to come across as "folksy" in a friendly, compassionate, non-divisive way, and both times she's basically drawn a line in the sand and said "Our side good. Their side bad." She comes across as totally dismissive of the opposing party, twisting the facts and lying about them, even while (in the debate) spouting the mantra of "getting beyond politics" and "working across the aisle."    Ronald Reagan - unfortunately for us, I think - had an amazing ability to make people who seriously disagreed with his policies THINK he was their friend. His policies could be stabbing you in the back but it was hard NOT to like him.   I don't see that in Palin. At least not in her snide, divisive, wisecracking performances at the RNC and the debate with Biden.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: catspaw49
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:26 PM

Ya' know I'd have thought she would have been better "handled" on those words. Plus, it seemed as though the questions were well crafted so she'd use them.

I'm with Bill.........and if it is a part of her "Joe Six-Pack" routine, it seems more shitkicker than Presidential, Someone said Biden looked and sounded "Presidential" and she more "Mayoral."

Works for me............'Course I don't want her as mayor either.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Donuel
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:21 PM

My neighbor is a GOP block captain of sorts. He is Jewish but does not engage in any conversations about his feelings toward Isreal.

He has plenty of McCain stickers and signs. Come to think about it, I bet that he is the one who has annoymously challenged my right to right to vote for the last 3 years. ITs a technique called caging and only requires the appearence of a returned letter fromt he voter's home address.

Isrealis will understand the advantage of intelligence at the helm and will not regret a McCain loss.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:17 PM

it's only a side issue, but not bothering to learn correct pronunciation of words you may be require to USE in office tyells me something about a candidate.

I am, like McGrath, tired of 'nook-you-ler' and Eye-rack and Eye-ran.
Does she do it on purpose to sound like 'one of us'?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:15 PM

Little Hawk, among the many things I read Rig saying since he was in the tank for Hillary and Hillary was defeated, was that he would support MCCain/Palin as a protest against religion in politics, I think it was because She was more open about it than Obama.

I wouldn't call that hypocritical per se. But I might think it unwise. Ron does have a justification to call him on it given Rigs stated position. But hypocrite dies seem a bit strong.

If I may make and observation on Rig's position, I would say that he has been consistently ABO (Anybody But Obama) and was against Obama before the announced support of Faith Based Social Services. That was just one more feature of Obama that he could complain about. Obviously if religiousness influencing Presidential behavior was his primary concern then the logical choice would be anybody but Palin. But his long standing dislike of Obama is somehow over coming that seemingly logical point of view.

Rig,
Outside of your position on Obama, You seem to have a lot in common with Bill Maher.
Are you a fan? Do you plan to see his new movie?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:54 PM

Capri, I checked your link and could not find the specific promise.

But, on the whole, as I have heard it phrased, I believe that the promise is in the ball park.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:50 PM

Last night Biden said it was 95% of households. We are a household without children and would get a tax break if Obama/Biden were, as Palin would say, so privileged as to be able to serve this great country God willing.

They, Obama and Biden, also say 95% of WORKING People. I suspect that is true looking at income distributions. Certainly the number of working people making less than 150K is closer to 95% than 81%.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:44 PM

Still beating the dead horse, eh, Ron?

Everything in your post makes good sense until the last paragraph...where you try your usual cheap shot of trying to cast Rig as a "hypocrite" for supporting Palen and McCain (because Rig claims to be anti-religious).

I've already explained to you in great detail, Ron, that Rig's favoring Palen and McCain has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with his views on religion one way or another...it has to do with a host of other matters (primarily the fact that he can't stand Obama for some reason...I suppose because Obama took away his dream of seeing Hillary Clinton elected).

He could just as well oppose Obama for anti-religious reasons too, Ron. Remember Reverend Wright and all that BS? Obama is also overtly Christian.

Give it up. Stick to REAL stuff and you are on solid ground. Try to cast Rig as a "hypocrite" over this religion BS and you are not. ALL the candidates are overtly religious, as they MUST be if they are going to run for high office in the USA. The American public will not elect an openly declared atheist.

Rig IS an openly declared atheist...and there's nothing hypocritical about it. He hates religion with a pathological hatred which is, in my opinion, completely irrational, but it's not hypocritical. He HAS no officially atheist candidate out there whom he can vote for. Therefore he must either support a religious candidate or support no one at all.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: CapriUni
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:38 PM

I didn't see any of the Couric interview, so I didn't know exactly how ugly a train wreck the debate might have been for her.

...I got an idea, however, when I heard the pundits saying, afterward, how well she had done, compared to expectations.

That was doing well? Every line was coming out of her mouth was delivered with a head cheerleader's grin -- even when she was discussing war, and families on the brink of poverty. And she flagged the issues she didn't understand, by saying out loud that she didn't want to answer that question, so she wasn't going to. True: Politicians have be not-answering questions since the Ancient Greeks invented voting. But they generally don't say that's what they're doing as if it were a good thing.

Now, to be fair, I do have criticisms of the Obama Campaign's talking points.

I wish they'd drop the "Tax Breaks for 95% of Americans" line. The true statistic is, according to FactCheck.org: 95% of working families with children, which is 81% of America's entire population. That's not a lily that needs gilding, in my not-so humble opinion, and the second number sounds less fiscally reckless.

Biden also repeated the line that McCain voted against alternative energy 20 times. Again, according to FactCheck.org, McCain voted against alternative engery outright 11 times, and for the other 9 votes, he simply voted against making alternative energy mandatory. 20 is a nice, round, number, and it sounds impressive. But the Obama/Biden campaign could, if they chose, make the truth just as impressive, if they word their pitch something like this: "In 20 votes that have come up in front of the Senate, McCain has consistantly voted to allow corporations to continue with status quo in regards to alternative energy..."

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:17 PM

Tax cuts tax cuts tax cuts!!
They do it over here too. When is the stupid electorate going see through this tax cut crap?
They give you 50 a month more in your wage packet, and take 75 a month back in sales taxes and all the other little things we HAVE to pay to live.
In the UK, Income Tax has gone down, and indirect taxes have soared, but the over all tax take is higher than ever.
I despair for the poor suckers who are taken in by this crap.

XG

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:57 AM

She kept trying to relate to the middle class, billing herself and husband as on par with regular "hockey moms" etc. As Janie said, her world is really quite small. She said, "And I'll bet you, you're going to hear some fear in that parent's voice, fear regarding the few investments that some of us have in the stock market. Did we just take a major hit with those investments?"

I'd like to know what middle class she is talking about! WE don't have any investments to worry about nor do most of the middle class folks we know.

It's the same thing with the worthless $5,000 tax credit McCain and she would like us to use to buy health insurance. It won't work that way. Folks will get it off their taxes, sure, but they won't have the cash to spend; it will just give them a tiny bit more, maybe, of a refund, to pay down on their already existing bills, forget getting any kind of health care. These two are really narrow and out of touch.

I know it's not a popular thing to say, but I still am appalled at what she is putting her children through. That baby and pregnant teen need their mom more than ever; they don't need to be dragged around and trotted out for every event like this. The baby being passed from hand to hand seems so symbolic, to me, of the exploitation for votes.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:37 AM

So, Doug still has his ideological blinders on tight, to avoid, at all costs, actually seeing anything. Are we surprised?

As I predicted, she shook off the Valley Girl rep.

But Biden was much stronger than I had thought he would be--fortunately.

I was afraid he'd just pontificate until his time ran out on a given question. But instead he took the fight to McCain right from the start--and put his opponent on the defense.

Among other things, there's no question who owns the middle-class tax cut issue: Obama/Biden.

And facts are still a foreign concept to dear Sarah. Why deal with them when you can again regurgitate a half-digested talking point?   Biden even pointed out that in addition to having no facts, Gov. Palen had not even tried to answer the question--more than once.



And as the WSJ points out today, quoting Biden:   facts matter.




As for Mr. "She's killing him". So much for his alleged opposition to organized religion. It's fairly obvious that a fundamentalist is fine with him as long as the fundamentalist wears lipstick. I'm sure if Jerry Falwell had known that, he would have worn lipstick too. I suppose we'll have to call Mr. "She's killing him" Mr. Hypocrite from now on.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:32 AM

"Has she indeed held any position as a regulator of oil and gas?"


                She's been known to use GAS-EX tablets.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:31 AM

"After the elections she has to return to Alaska as governor..."


                Only unti January 20th, after that she'll be in Washington.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:24 AM

I think this is a better place to ask what I've already referred to in another thread:

At least twice, and maybe three times, in trying to bolster her experience and credibility, she said something like "I have the experience, as mayor, as governor, and as oil and gas" (or was it "energy"?) "regulator, to . . ."

Have I been asleep and missed something. Has she indeed held any position as a regulator of oil and gas? If so, I've missed it.

My pure guess is that she's trying to get double credit, as it were, out of her brief gubernatorial tenure, sort of saying, "Not only have I been governor, but as governor one of my functions was in regulation of the oil and gas industry."

Can someone here enlighten me about her occupational background?

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:18 AM

Saw enough to tell me it wasn't worth seeing the rest. No meltdowns on either side, and anybody watchingwith a predispositiion to either cabsduadate is going to think he or she was the winner.

It occurred to me that maybe maybe Palin's mispronunciations were a nod in the direction of people who like Bush. I mean stuff like "noocular" and "EyeRan". A sort of hint not to worry too much about flannel about things changing - "if Bush said it that way, it has to be the right way to say it".

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 11:10 AM

aaaaggggghhhhhhhhh Don't tell me that in Palin we have Reagan in skirts!

A couple of thoughts here:

I'm glad that she performed better than I feared. As a woman and an Alaskan and a politician she was not an obvious train wreck. As another woman and an Alaskan I'm glad for that. After the elections she has to return to Alaska as governor and it would have been nigh on impossible to do if she'd had to come back with her stock completely shot. This way she and her handlers can blame the "liberal media" and power-hungry Democrats for her failures.

The operative word, of course, is "performed". She had good style but the main thing she demonstrated is that she can regurgitate creditably on demand.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: TIA
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:42 AM

Hey DougR - horsepucky

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:24 AM

The mainstream media is now linking phrases like "you betcha", and "doggone it," along with a few winks and clips of her cutting off her g's on words like goin', makin', and so on.
               This is going to rally voters behind her faster than anything else they could do or say.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 10:18 AM

She stated she would answer the questions SHE wanted to, and not necessarily what was asked: she advocated expanding the powers OF the VP even before she has the job: she plugged in slogans and verbal flag-waving every time her knowlege wasn't up to the task: she repeated over & over...again & again...repeatedly... accusations about Obama, Biden and Democrats in general which have been disproved many times. (about how Obama 'voted', about taxes, about the status of military actions..etc.) She also keeps pretending that HER qualifications as a 'business owner' and mayor and short-term governor are sufficient to match up to Biden's 25 years in the Senate or Obama's years at various jobs.

well...after all....what COULD she say? She was coached well, but she still misstated several facts and glossed over McCain's ability to switch positions with the wind, sometimes within hours or days.

All in all, she, by necessity, substituted 'feisty', cute, and 'maverick' for knowlegable, qualified and educated.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Lox
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 08:18 AM

Sorry moderators - I forgot to log in - feel free to delete my previous post - here it is again under my logged in moniker


___________________________________


The Palin Biden debate started pretty weirdly.

She seemed to put her fingers in here ears and smile.

She stated that McCain has always warned about the current financial crisis, and then when she was asked by Biden to comment on McCains voting record on deregulation of the financial sector, she changed the subject to Tax.

Biden pointed this out, and repeated the question, as did the moderator (just in case she didn't hear or forgot I suppose) - Palin ignored it again.

She has a lot of nerve.

Will Charm win Americas hearts again?

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 07:12 AM

Evidently that phrase does not have the same sexual connotation in the USA as in the UK - where "lunchbox" refers to the bulge in the front of tight shorts on a man...

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: DougR
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 01:28 AM

As I said in another thread, Gov. Palin ate Joe Biden's lunch.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:58 AM

The twenty minutes I saw got Joe Biden an A+.

My favorite moments were Palin's discussion of "Bosniacs," and her line that "McCain is the man we need to leave."

Cheap laughs, I know, but deep down a slighlty nervous laugh: Even though this was just an irrelevant VP debate, it actually cemented me into an Obama vote with no more misgivings.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:23 AM

"I found it curious that she persistently invoked Reagan."

You do, Jeri? Why? Hell, he's virtually a secular saint to most conservative Americans.

That's not the way I see him, I might add. I think his policies were a fiscal and international disaster in a number of ways...but he had the style to remain quite popular despite all of that. Why, it was almost like having "Pa Cartwright" in the White House...maybe even better! ;-) He was the perfect front man to represent the $ySStem and play "frontier daddy" to America....a Madison Avenue dream of a chief executive.

Clinton was not bad at that too, but he was too sleazy. It doesn't help the "frontier daddy" image any when you fool around with the gals down at the saloon and then lie about it under oath. No siree.

God-fearin' frontier daddys NEVER cheat on their wives! Leastways, not so's you'd git to hear about it, anyways.

Yes, Biden handled himself very well. So did Palen, I think. No one really screwed up. Neither of them stand to lose any people who were already in favor of them anyway (note Riginslinger's delighted reaction to Palin's respectable performance and Biden's respectable performance. He thinks she destroyed Biden....heh! It's amazing how the made-up-already mind filters whatever it sees and hears to suit its preconditions, wishes, and established beliefs.).

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Janie
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:07 AM

She spoke in sound bites. I didn't watch it - listened to it on Public Radio, so I missed the winks. It is pretty scary to me that McCain, whom I have generally respected to the extent I respect any politician even while strongly disagreeing with him, has chosen her to be his running mate. I thought he cared about this country in close to the same measure he cares about his ambitions to be president.

Like Maggie said, she certainly sounded charming, but there is little or no substance. She has an ideology without depth of knowledge. She had been handed a script and knew not to veer from it.

I found it curious that she persistently invoked Reagan.

I don't much identify with all the hockey and soccer mom stuff. I always feel like a fish out of water at my son's soccer and lacrosse games and practices. Her world is very small.

Biden handled himself very well, I thought, and clearly demonstrated he has the knowledge and experience to step in as president if that should be necessary. He actually answered the questions, and intelligently refuted Palin's "sound bite" assertions and rebuttals.

Palin didn't lose any votes for McCain among those who are already in his camp, or have one foot there and the other already moving in that direction. But i don't think she gained any votes for him among those who are still undecided.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Oct 08 - 12:07 AM

They appeared to both be conducting themselves rather well, and engaging in predictable rhetoric from their own points of view while they engaged mainly in attacking the other side's presidential candidate (and/or the past errors of the Bush administration, which are legion). I found Biden's points of view more tolerable when it comes to foreign policy, but that was no surprise. Sarah Palin showed that she is not nearly as incompetent under pressure as most people here would fervently wish she was... ;-) But McCain's policies and general attitude toward the world still stink to high heaven regardless, whereas Obama's are considerably more reasonable.

Israelis will mostly be delighted if McCain wins in November. Just about every other nation in the world will be horrified if he is elected president.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:59 PM

I should know since I have about a dozen myself but she has countless skin tags on just the visible area of her neck and upper chest.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:43 PM

The one newsorthy announcement Palin made was the constituional expansion of the powers of the Vice Presidency.

What constitutional ammendment was that? Being a memeber of both the executive branch and legislative branch? The power to go to war?
What?


The Palin non answers and attack phrases such as democrats waving the white flag of surrender will be the most common salient commentaries.

So let me make an observation no one else will...

In high definition I noticed that her chest and neck were full of thousands of skin tags (a skin condition of skin growths). This condition can be extreme or minor depending upon the area of skin involved.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:39 PM

I should say that I was HOPING for a Palin train wreck tonight, and she avoided that, but she didn't have many citations in the form of documentable chapter and verse to drop into the conversation. It will be interesting to see what the fact checker folks come up with.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:36 PM

She's charming, but she is not qualified, and when she got questions she didn't want to answer she answered with the closest talking point she had learned.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:28 PM

I only watched twenty minutes, but I saw her wink twice. It certainly is a novelty.

Subject: RE: BS: The Debates: Members Only
From: TIA
Date: 02 Oct 08 - 11:26 PM

...anything your heart desires, your dreams come true....