…and this is a 
Got your popcorn and jujubes? Ready for the clown show? The debate begins shortly, and this is the place to leave your comments.
Half an hour in, and I'm seeing Biden being good and specific with facts at his fingertips, and doing a good job of answering questions with substance. Palin is an airhead who's spouting more fluff and ignoring the questions — she keeps going back to energy and pretending she's an expert. It's very annoying, but she's not descending into fumbling babble-babble, so I'm sure the audience is going right along with it. Come on, Biden, slam her back on the futility of thinking Alaska's relatively tiny oil reserves can save the country.
Jebus, now she's pretending to be an environmentalist.
I'm really disappointed that Biden wants to deny homosexual marriage, just like Palin.
Oh, no. SHe just praised Henry Kissinger and claimed that those foreigners hate our freedoms. She's another Bush.
I'm happy with Biden so far — he's good at bringing everything back to McCain's record. Palin just fudges McCain's record at every step.
Man, Palin is revolting: she just said that all those Washington insiders are the same (including McCain?) and that Joe Biden has been approving of McCain's war plans all along. Ugh.
And if she claims she's a maverick one more time … she's a Republican tool, get real.
WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE TELL PALIN THAT ALASKAN OIL RESERVES ARE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE?
Shining city on a hill, beacon perfect, force for good...empty, dishonest platitudes. We're not going to become a better country with a gladhander who thinks we're already perfect in charge.
Oh, good! Biden charges up and denounces this "maverick" nonsense. Best part of the debate so far.
Palin just said she likes being able to answer these tough questions -- she hasn't answered a single one the whole hour and a half, but has been ducking and skipping and dodging.
All over. Biden clearly won — he sounded presidential, human, intelligent, and actually addressed the questions without being too harsh on Palin. Palin was a flag-waving cheerleader, with a voice that really grated on me, and she was evasive in answering questions. She didn't pull any major gaffes, though, so since everyone had exceedingly low expectations for her, they'll probably think she did fine.
No big knockout, then. No huge embarrassing boo-boos from either side to keep the media entertained. I'm still mostly reassured that Biden will be good in the job.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: chauncy274 | October 2, 2008 8:36 PM
Can't wait. I'm hoping that Biden doesn't go too far and that everyone gives Palin a free pass just because she's an idiot...
Posted by: Sauve | October 2, 2008 8:36 PM
Can't watch - Embryology exam tomorrow
:(
Posted by: madmike72 | October 2, 2008 8:37 PM
I'm usually not one to watch politics...but i might have to sit on the couch and watch this freak show. I can's help but think that Caribou Barbie is just there to distract us from something else...but either way...this should be fun to see!
Posted by: RideThePig | October 2, 2008 8:38 PM
Sadly, there won't be a real debate, since nothing that comes out of Palin's mouth could hope to be remotely intelligent.
Posted by: Claire | October 2, 2008 8:40 PM
Oh, I wish I could see Palin make a fool of herself, but alas, I have the first round of my PhD qualifying exams tomorrow. Apparently they are important, which means I need to stop procrastinating on here. Here's hoping our man Biden doesn't stick his foot in his mouth.
Posted by: Malkara | October 2, 2008 8:41 PM
Guys, don't underestimate her. :P She never lost a debate in Alaska. She's an idiot, but she knows how to connect with a crowd. This won't be like the Presidential debate, there won't be many exchanges between the candidates. She's going to be adorable, and the American public loves adorable.
Posted by: Clemens | October 2, 2008 8:43 PM
As you'd normally expect that both candidates for a high office aren't entirely stupid, it is seen as rude if one candidate calls the other one an "idiot", or his utterings "bullshit".
Sadly, we have reached a state where these two words are very appropriate and accurately describe reality. But of course, it still counts as rude to say so. This makes it so easy for idiots in debates: What they say is crap, but the other one will not be able to call it crap...
Posted by: Thoracantha | October 2, 2008 8:43 PM
Anybody want to bet that the first words out of Karl Rove's mouth after the debate are, "Governor Palin did an excellent job, despite Gwen Eiffel obvious basis against her." And then complain about the sexist nature of the questions.
Posted by: E.V. | October 2, 2008 8:45 PM
I doubt anyone will miss much first hand. Tomorrow's high lights and the propaganda spin whores will result in the best dog and pony show of the year, I'm betting.
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 8:45 PM
Here is an audio link if you don't want to stare at the TV.
I'll be stealing lines here, btw.
http://stream.kpft.org/streamkpft.m3u
also driving down to the station and will be taking some phone calls prolly around 10:30 Central
713 526 5738 if you want to call in
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 8:47 PM
I can wait until it's over and just catch the Sarah Palin bloopers real on youtube afterwards.
Posted by: doug livesey | October 2, 2008 8:47 PM
It's very late here in the UK -- this better be entertaining!
No prisoners, Joe ...
Posted by: LisaJ | October 2, 2008 8:47 PM
I'm so excited! This has been a stressful week, so I am really looking forward to a night of laughs. Good luck on your exam tomorrow, Claire!
Posted by: MrSquid | October 2, 2008 8:52 PM
We're having bio grad students over for the fun! Hopefully a good show. Will probably be frightening, though... If nothing else, SNL should be good this week.
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 8:53 PM
http://www.palinbingo.com/
Get your Palin Bingo cards for the big event! I love Mudflats!
Posted by: Doug | October 2, 2008 8:53 PM
McCain is advertising that he already won the debate. Sure he's not in the debate but he's such a maverick, he doesn't need to be.
Palin is currently praying to Jesus she gets a lot of questions involving how much she loves kittens and puppies.
Posted by: E.V. | October 2, 2008 8:54 PM
Boing Boing says C-Span uses a split screen so both candidates can be seen at the same time.
Posted by: doug livesey | October 2, 2008 8:55 PM
> Palin is currently praying to Jesus she gets a lot of questions involving how much she loves kittens and puppies.
HA!
Posted by: Joel | October 2, 2008 8:56 PM
What could be more pointless than to watch two idiots debate?
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 8:56 PM
EV @ 9 Tomorrow's high lights and the propaganda spin whores will result in the best dog and pony show of the year
You betcha, I'll be producing tonight and tomorrow, if you can think of some clever propaganda spin whoring (either direction) post it here and I'll air it.
-Dogan Pony
PS I might have to steal that Caribou Barbie, it's a milk through the nose line for sure.
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 8:58 PM
Since stupid is perfectly socially acceptable in the US as long as it comes as cutesy stupid,I hold rather grave fears about the whole thing.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 8:59 PM
So Miss South Carolina wasn't cutesy stupid?Posted by: Azkyroth | October 2, 2008 9:00 PM
I wish I could watch, but they cleverly scheduled all the remaining debates during classes of mine. :( I'll pick it up on YouTube.
Posted by: allonym | October 2, 2008 9:01 PM
I see a few possibilities here, and I'll express them in order from most to least likely:
1. Palin will prove to be at least an adequate "debater" (who are we kidding, these aren't debates), and the event will be much more boring than the ensuing commentary.
2. Same as #1, except that Biden will suffer one or more momentary lapses of foot-in-mouth syndrome.
3. Palin will be just as disarmingly uninformed and unprepared as she has been for her TV interviews, and hilarity will ensue.
4. Same as #3 except that Biden, out of frustration that he's been put up against this insufferable lightweight, will blow his top and end up looking like a big crazy meanie.
5. Palin will finally throw back this veil, to reveal that she's actually a savvy politician who's been playing us all for fools.
Any way I look at it, this should be good entertainment!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:01 PM
I'm pulling for Spiro.
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | October 2, 2008 9:02 PM
It's Tivo for me; I have ballet tickets tonight. (Two new Twyla Tharp pieces; not going to pass that up for Sarah Pale in Comparison.)
Posted by: chauncy274 | October 2, 2008 9:03 PM
Do ya mind if I call ya Joe?
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 9:03 PM
Let the bloodbath begin.
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:04 PM
And here we go...
Posted by: J. Tode | October 2, 2008 9:04 PM
For starters, they picked the wrong moderator: should've been Simon Cowell.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 9:05 PM
Well... it's my middle name but ok.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:05 PM
Hey no one said main street yet.
Posted by: Copache | October 2, 2008 9:06 PM
She made a soccer mom reference first question :S
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:07 PM
She just called me an Ammmaryican
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:07 PM
Moderator mentioned her title in the Intro,not his...
She's talking right into the camera,has already said "betcha",and got to respond to the economy second,how nice of the moderator!
Posted by: JC | October 2, 2008 9:07 PM
it took her a whole 60 seconds to say Betcha...
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:08 PM
: P The Palin side is falling down, falling down, falling down...
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:09 PM
MAVERICK
DRINK!!!!!
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:09 PM
And 90% of McCain's voting record?
I can't here the word maverick any more.
Posted by: J. Tode | October 2, 2008 9:09 PM
Is there a drinking game for this debate? Cause I need a drink...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:09 PM
She's throwin' out the slices of apple pie already
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 9:10 PM
Lipstick on a cat?Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:10 PM
"darn right"," Joe Sixpack"
Im not sure I can stand this for much longer,the woman is absurdly pathetic.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:11 PM
Anyone watching the graphs on CNN? its insane.
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:11 PM
Joe Six Pack
Hockey Mom
Drink TWICE!!!
Posted by: Brandonazz | October 2, 2008 9:11 PM
Wow, she really evoked an audience reaction on that last bit.
Posted by: Michelle | October 2, 2008 9:12 PM
You have no idea how much TV sucks right now. On american channels the VP debate... and on canadian channels the Canadian "Debate" with 5 people. A debate with 5 party chiefs! It's like a train wreck right there.
So I'm stuck watching Wild Wild West on a third rate channel.
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:12 PM
I'm watching it on PBS. So far, no graphs, loud "reporters," charts, or any other bullshit. Just pure "debate."
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:13 PM
Palin will finally throw back this veil,
I'd rather she threw back all seven veils, if you know what I mean.
Biden looks tired.
11 minutes and and it's BORING! Dammit!
Posted by: doug livesey | October 2, 2008 9:13 PM
BBC Rocks! ;)
Posted by: LisaJ | October 2, 2008 9:14 PM
Ha, love it!
Soooo, any Canadians out there watching our leaders' debate right now??
Posted by: wildlifer | October 2, 2008 9:14 PM
If she says "darn" one more time ....
Posted by: Brandonazz | October 2, 2008 9:15 PM
TALK STRAIGHT?
I THINK SHE MEANS STRAIGHT TALK.
Down your current drink.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:15 PM
I'm watching it on PBS. So far, no graphs, loud "reporters," charts, or any other bullshit. Just pure "debate."
Eh, I sort of like CNN react-o-meter from their captive audience of undecided.
Posted by: Eclogite | October 2, 2008 9:16 PM
I just don't see how you can watch that crap. Her voice makes me physically ill to say nothing of her "opinions". I'll just have a pint of Guinness, listen to some Machine Head to drown it out (my wife and sisters-in-law are watching), and put my kids new train table together.
Posted by: Noadi | October 2, 2008 9:16 PM
She just said outright she's going to dodge questions.
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 9:16 PM
Breath Joe, breath. CSpan has split screen, it is very cool to see their reactions to one another. Why does Palin keep winking?
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 9:17 PM
I've been watching less than 5 minutes and I've already heard Palin say 'maverick'.
Posted by: Ed | October 2, 2008 9:17 PM
Sarah Palin -
John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I, John McCain and I.
Posted by: Brandonazz | October 2, 2008 9:17 PM
Joe spiked for a second there on the quasi-socialist rhetoric.
When it dropped I was sad.
Posted by: Hairy Doctor Professor | October 2, 2008 9:18 PM
Eh, I sort of like CNN react-o-meter from their captive audience of undecided.
Is that what that is? I thought they had put up Windows' CPU performance.....
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:18 PM
she dodged the health care tax question
Posted by: Susan | October 2, 2008 9:18 PM
You betcha.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/10/masterdebating-by-digby-i-am-out.html
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:19 PM
C-Span, you're my new best friend.
I wonder what Biden's thinking...
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 9:19 PM
Middle Class? She's worth about a million.
Posted by: Thoracantha | October 2, 2008 9:20 PM
More regulation, but government should get out of the way.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:20 PM
I have to admit, these debates always make me start thinking Ayn Rand was on to something.
Biden mentioned Scranton! DRINK!
Posted by: Timid Atheist | October 2, 2008 9:20 PM
Arrggghhhh...I could only watch the first 15 minutes. She has already said that she isn't interested in the questions posed by the moderator or by Biden. She pulled out her resume and told folksy stories but failed once again to offer ANY plan or truly respond to any questions. I can't stand it any more, if I watch more, I'll puke.
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:20 PM
Biden is getting fed up with her show and her lies with a smile.And she has him where she wants him.This is going badly.
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:22 PM
point Biden----- Bridge to Nowhere
DRINK!!
Posted by: Jams | October 2, 2008 9:22 PM
I'm watching the Canadian debate. It's a pile-on.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:22 PM
Middle Class? She's worth about a million.
So am I. Big deal. That *is* middle class in Southern California. :-)
Posted by: pradeep | October 2, 2008 9:22 PM
Biden does seem to be getting fed up with Palin. But he is talking straight I think.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 9:22 PM
Careful, you are only a few steps away from becoming Scott from Oregon. ;)Posted by: Brandonazz | October 2, 2008 9:22 PM
Biden keeps being very specific and pulling in statistics.
If politics was about being right and not sounding right, he would be far in the lead.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:23 PM
I love Joe's detailed description of the McCain healthcare plan. And, those of us who are lucky enough to be insured know that our current healthcare is completely determined by the insurance companies. I've heard so many horror stories about needed healthcare procedures and medicine being denied by the insurance company...and since healthcare is so outrageously expensive here, if insurance won't pay for it, only the wealthy can afford it.
Posted by: stephanie | October 2, 2008 9:23 PM
again and again I wonder how anyone finds this Bible Spice in any way attractive.
Posted by: Brandonazz | October 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Biden keeps being very specific and pulling in statistics.
If politics was about being right and not sounding right, he would be far in the lead.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Bless their hearts!!! Drink.
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Can someone please explain the uncommitted voters meter on CNN? What's the + and - mean?
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Quiet Desperation
You'd be stinky rich in Central Illinois! :-)
Posted by: 386sx | October 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Is there a drinking game for this debate? Cause I need a drink...
Yes. Everytime somebody says "tax", then everybody go ahead and drink some booze.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:24 PM
OMG. Palin's bullshit about the oil companies is soooo deep. Now I know why her eyes are brown
Posted by: terrylong | October 2, 2008 9:24 PM
Can i drink now????
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:25 PM
Careful, you are only a few steps away from becoming Scott from Oregon. ;)
Nah, it's just a "this is the best and brightest we can get?" feeling. You see, my skepticism solidly covers government and politics.
No truly smart people run for office anymore. Who wants their past mined by ten thousand journalists looking for dirt?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:25 PM
darn
DARN IT
DARN
Bless their hearts
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:25 PM
She's doing better than I thought. But, at thirty minutes in, I think the collapse will begin, and at forty-five minutes in, she's going to throw her shoe.
After that, Biden eats kittens for the remainder of the time while answering questions about his penis, and still wins the debate.
Posted by: akshelby | October 2, 2008 9:27 PM
Sweet Jebus, I hate this woman. I didn't feel like getting drunk before. But, now I may have to go get some scotch. Especially now that Biden has praised Palin.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:27 PM
She's almost there. Biden better duck 'cause that shoe is going straight for his head.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:27 PM
Please have an education or religion question.
Posted by: Thoracantha | October 2, 2008 9:27 PM
Can we drink every time some one say, "greed and corruption"?
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:27 PM
Cracked me up when Palin said that John McCain doesn't say one thing to one group and the opposite to another group. I guess she doesn't listen to him either.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:27 PM
Cracked me up when Palin said that John McCain doesn't say one thing to one group and the opposite to another group. I guess she doesn't listen to him either.
Posted by: BobHope2112 | October 2, 2008 9:28 PM
She's just so adorable. I just wish I was not too stupid to understand why her answers really do address the question.
Posted by: Black Bellamy | October 2, 2008 9:28 PM
They're both lying through their teeth.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 9:28 PM
I know that feeling. Beaurocrats with ambition and charismatic morons."Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job." - Douglas Adams
Posted by: RobinSV | October 2, 2008 9:29 PM
Ah the poor dear. After a couple of more or less coherent answers she starting to babble. Tiring already...
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:29 PM
Sorry about the double post - my "mouse" finger twitches and I accidentally hit "Post" twice
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:29 PM
She is so nasal.
Posted by: Brandonazz | October 2, 2008 9:30 PM
Biden keeps being very specific and pulling in statistics.
If politics was about being right and not sounding right, he would be far in the lead.
Posted by: Michelle | October 2, 2008 9:30 PM
I heard bits of yesterday's french debate this morning on the radio. Imagine these folks you see piling on right now.... Now add up a very very bad french for three of them, a pathetic speech from the two others. Now make them talk together and scream at each other like animals all at the same time. HI.LA.RI.OUS.And sad. Very very sad.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:31 PM
Is it just me, or does Palin sound like she's speaking to a group of small children?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:31 PM
It would be nice if she stayed on topic for ONE fucking question.
She will come of better because she keeps changing to topics she is prepared for.
Posted by: nate | October 2, 2008 9:31 PM
East coast politicians!!!
Posted by: patrickhenry | October 2, 2008 9:31 PM
For the general viewing public, I think the substance is coming too think and fast for them to figure anything out. At the surface, Palin gives the appearance of holding her own. That's essentially what she needs to do. At this point it's looking like a draw. No apparent gaffs by either of them. But it's only 30 minutes into the thing so far.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:32 PM
Someone please, please, please mention breeder reactors and recycling nuclear fuel. Please? Pebble bed? Anything?
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:32 PM
I don't want to argue about... ummm... health care. Let's not argue about health care. Okay, Joe? Can I call you joe? I will hit you in the head with my shoe.
Posted by: Thoracantha | October 2, 2008 9:33 PM
Oh no.... Global warming. I am surprised that she didn't put her fingers in her ears and go "nanananananana"
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:33 PM
Biden said nuclear!!!!!!! Score! DRINK!
Posted by: Molly, NYC | October 2, 2008 9:34 PM
Is Palin aware that there are some states that are not Alaska?
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:35 PM
And meth... There's a f*ckload of meth in Wasilla.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:35 PM
did she say obiden?
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:35 PM
Did she just say "Senator O'Biden"????
Posted by: 386sx | October 2, 2008 9:35 PM
"Clean" coal and "safe" nuclear. Good one. 100,0000,000,0000,0 points.
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 9:35 PM
She doesn't care what the causes are for climate change? Everyone drink thrice for Drill Baby Drill!
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:35 PM
Her babbling about drilling brainlessly...
*headdesk*
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 2, 2008 9:35 PM
Capital Dan:
That "hit you with a shoe" joke is on a bridge to nowhere. Or should be.
Posted by: Darren | October 2, 2008 9:36 PM
Hehehe.... Barack Obama and Senator Obiden.
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:36 PM
Did she just say senator O'Biden?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:36 PM
Palin isn't answering hardly any questions. She keeps changing off topics back to what she prepared for.
Sure that will come off as her holding her own to "joe sixpack" but it is blatantly obvious she is lost.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 9:36 PM
ooh. a gay question.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:37 PM
this should be good.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:37 PM
Ah, screw these two.
I propose a Manhattan Project level of effort to exploit the Green River oil shales.
Billions of barrels in Alaska, Palin?
Try TRILLIONs of barrels in the oil shales if we could develop the tech to exploit it. THREE TIMES the current Saudi Arabian reserves.
There. I owned both those bitches.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:37 PM
Ooo... Same sex!
Palin's going to ask to phone a friend.
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:37 PM
ohh. a gay question.
I hope you're being ironic.
Posted by: Diane | October 2, 2008 9:37 PM
What is the red-star pin she's wearing?
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 9:38 PM
'gay friend' comment coming
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:38 PM
Wow! Good for Biden for answering the same-sex couple question unequivocally!!
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 9:38 PM
yay for same sex benefits
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 9:38 PM
ooohh... redefining "marriage".
Posted by: randy | October 2, 2008 9:38 PM
Same sex marriage! And Palin takes a nose dive.
Posted by: Jams | October 2, 2008 9:38 PM
I watched the french one too. Total cacophony. Elizabeth May is making some solid points, Harper is weathering the storm, Layton sounds like a cereal box, Duceppe reminds us that noone else suggests the things his party suggests, and Dion lays claim to all that is and ever has been good in Canada.
You have to admit though... they're actually arguing about policy. You know, in between the jabbering dung-flinging.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:39 PM
Odd. Biden just tried to buy a vowel.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:39 PM
She's sponsored by Lone Star beer.
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 9:39 PM
So does Biden.. wtf?
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:39 PM
No, it's not wonderful...
Posted by: molliebatmit | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
Palin claims to have a "very diverse" group of friends. Why, I'm sure that some of her best friends are even gay!
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
What is wrong with these people about same sex marriage? What do they see in our society that makes them think that there is anything sacred or special about hetro marriage? What are we up to now, 2 in 3 marriages ending in divorce?
Posted by: Joel | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
Neither Barack Obama or I do not support Gay marriage. Both freakin losers.
Posted by: randy | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
"traditional" meaning christian
Posted by: RobinSv | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
Gay Marriage. Both Fail. Grrrrr....
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
American hero, drink!!
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
Senator O'Biden? DRINK!
Posted by: LMR | October 2, 2008 9:40 PM
Way to sidestep the issue of whether she agrees on equal civil rights for gay/straight couples.
Posted by: nate | October 2, 2008 9:41 PM
she's got one hell of a script
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:41 PM
"With all due respect, I didn't hear a plan." Good one, Joe!
Posted by: RobinSv | October 2, 2008 9:41 PM
Gay Marriage. Both Fail. Grrrrr....
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 9:41 PM
Palin just said she supported completely equal status for gay couples - short of marriage (she has "non-support" for that) - under the law!
Ah, WHAT?????
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:42 PM
John McCain can't be bothered with winning a war when he's too damn busy trying to start another one.
Posted by: Joel | October 2, 2008 9:42 PM
"Way to sidestep the issue of whether she agrees on equal civil rights for gay/straight couples."
The Obama / Biden ticket did the same. And that's traditional, meaning between a man and women.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 2, 2008 9:42 PM
I'm not watching, but by refreshing Pharyngula every couple of minutes, it's almost like being there. Except I don't have to listen to her talk.
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:42 PM
Here come the Flags
___________________________
HockeyMom Pitbull
Posted by: MNLandon | October 2, 2008 9:43 PM
Even the Dems can't publicly support gay marriage for fear of pissing off the religious right. Sad sad sad.
Posted by: Cassidy | October 2, 2008 9:43 PM
Man, Supernatural is GREAT tonight.
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 9:43 PM
I'm refreshing Pharyngula often, too, Sven. I'm surprised at how quickly people are keeping up with the candidates' words; usually within a few seconds.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:43 PM
it's almost like being there.
Palin just go a double jeopardy question for $500.
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 9:44 PM
um, aren't there lots of troops that are begging for the USA's "white flag of surrender"? who is she talking about?
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:45 PM
How is leaving Iraq "a white flag of surrender" when we were "greeted as liberators"? What's there to surrender to?
I love it that Joe keeps reminding everyone that John McCain voted the same way as Obama on so many of these issues.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:45 PM
Wait... this isn't the latest episode of Fringe?
Posted by: Archaneus | October 2, 2008 9:46 PM
I find it so hard to even watch this. I almost feel like I have to watch this out of some sense of trying to be informed, but it's so hard to listen to that worthless "pig with lipstick" babble on incoherently. I want to be able to laugh at her vacuous nonsense but the fact that her statements will be believed by many morons out there is too scary for this to be funny.
Posted by: nate | October 2, 2008 9:46 PM
biden is doing well in attacking mccaine and not palin
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:46 PM
Here comes the shoe...
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 9:46 PM
Both of them are talking about McCain more than anything.
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 9:46 PM
Haha. I *just* switched to watching Fringe here: http://www.watchtvsitcoms.com/fringe.php
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:47 PM
How is leaving Iraq "a white flag of surrender" when we were "greeted as liberators"?
But we need to stay until the Iraqis can take care of themselves... sometime in the year 2650 when Zephram Cochrane invents the warp drive.
Posted by: PharmDude | October 2, 2008 9:47 PM
Biden has said "god" like 5 times. I haven't heard Palin say "god" once(I don't think...). Not what I thought it would be like.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:47 PM
I wasn't sure about Biden before this, but I think that he is holding his own very well. Call me a geek, but I love facts and figures.
Posted by: JC | October 2, 2008 9:48 PM
Arrrgh!! New-Cue-lar
JC
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | October 2, 2008 9:48 PM
She played the Israel card! Drink!
Posted by: PharmDude | October 2, 2008 9:48 PM
Biden has said "god" like 5 times. I haven't heard Palin say "god" once(I don't think...). Not what I thought it would be like.
Posted by: molliebatmit | October 2, 2008 9:48 PM
I don't like it when Palin gets to speak second -- she just mumbles a quick answer and gets back to her prewritten talking points.
Posted by: Joel | October 2, 2008 9:48 PM
Even the Dems can't publicly support gay marriage for fear of pissing off the religious right
I don't think it is for fear of pissing off the religious right, I think they really cannot get behind equal rights for gay men and women. Deep down, they just think it is wrong.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
If I hear that woman say "nuke-u-ler" one more time, I'm going to scream!!!!!!
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
The Castro Brothers! I like that, actually. :-)
Palin can say "nuclear" correctly, I'll give her that.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
How do we surrender when the mission has been accomplished?
Posted by: Dana | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
NEW CLEAR! NEW CLEAR!!!!
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
New-cu-lure
DRINK!!!
___________________________________
HockeyMom Pitbull
Posted by: randy | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
At least her lipstick looks nice.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:49 PM
they hate our freedom
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
They hate America, drink.
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
Kissinger, blah, loves diplomacy, blah. WTF was that?
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
she said respect for womens rights !!!!!!!!!! the dictators hate us for !!!!!!!!
*Ironymeter implode*
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
Wait... it's dangerous to talk and try to make peace with your enemies? What the fuck??
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
ahh... women's rights. gloria steinem is loving it
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
She's literally reading off her notes!
Biden is taking exactly the best tack in dealing with this stupid ignoramus: glib but smooth; respectful but quick to foil any bullshit and riposte with facts against McCain.
He needs to simply wear her down and make her shoot for the big gaffe on her own. I give it a 50/50 chance now (despite the notes and cramming, however well-cribbed).
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
"I love it that Joe keeps reminding everyone that John McCain voted the same way as Obama on so many of these issues."
Do you mean "Bush" when you said "Obama"? I'm not watching or listening to the debate either, I'm at work and it would just distract me and angry up the blood. The occasional refresh here is fine enough for me.
Posted by: LisaJ | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
haha, back-ye-up-there!
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
NEW CLEAR! NEW CLEAR!!!!
I heard her say it right. Was I wrong? :-)
Posted by: molliebatmit | October 2, 2008 9:50 PM
Palin: Other countries hate America! They hate our freedoms! And our rights and such!
Really? Or do they hate us because we're international bullies who invade sovereign countries for our own national financial interests?
Posted by: Archaneus | October 2, 2008 9:51 PM
HAHAHAHA, Sarah Palin just mentioned women's rights. Wow, I'm stunned by the size of her balls.
Posted by: John | October 2, 2008 9:51 PM
Ref: At least her lipstick looks nice.
Because it's tattoo makeup...from her sister-in-law's buety salon.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:51 PM
(1) I'll just bet that Kissinger shared his passion with her.
(2) How dare she criticize anyone for their stance on women's rights!!!
Posted by: LMR | October 2, 2008 9:51 PM
Yes, Biden's position on gay marriage is still weak. He did say no support for gay marriage, but was saying there should be no civil difference between gay/straight rights.
She said she was "tolerant" but did not specifically say that there would be no civil difference. She said she wouldn't impose a view - which leaves it up to ambiguity at the state level.
When it bounced back to Biden, he said that it sounded like they agreed - that there should be no civil difference between gay/straight rights. And that he did not support gay marriage.
When asked if this was correct, she agreed she does not support gay marriage (doesn't want to change the definition of one-man, one-woman). (And ignoring the 1st half of equal civil rights)
--
Again. The dem response was weak, but confirmed at least a national position of advancing rights (but not title) to both gay/straight. She did not make that claim.
Posted by: tardigrada | October 2, 2008 9:52 PM
She still can't pronounce 'NUCLEAR'
Could it be a calculated, rehersed gimic to make her apear 'homey'
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 9:52 PM
No, we actually mean Obama. Voting as a Senator, as with McCain.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:52 PM
Joe, Bush isn't running again. I'm just sayin.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:53 PM
Israel is a peace-seeking nation? Wow, glad to hear that. WTF?
Posted by: wildlifer | October 2, 2008 9:53 PM
Lying hag. Israel is nothing but a tool for the second coming for her.
Posted by: Joel | October 2, 2008 9:54 PM
Marriage is much more than a title.
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 9:54 PM
Women's rights. Really? Wow.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 9:55 PM
#196 - Bu--sh-- IS running again, under the name John McCain.
Save us the "Republican" horseshit.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 2, 2008 9:55 PM
"Palin: Other countries hate America! "
Jeez, is this talking point still making the rounds? Everybody needs to listen to David Cross's riff on it until their heads are on straight.
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 9:55 PM
"Blame game". Is that a drinkable phrase? "Reform!" "We'll learn!" "Forge ahead!"
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 9:55 PM
Maverick!
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 9:55 PM
An Israeli Pander War just broke out-----
_______________________________
HockeyMom Pitbull
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 9:56 PM
Sarah Palin supports the right for a 13 year old girl who is raped by her father to live the rest of her life as a single mother.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:56 PM
@Sioux Laris
I said I was just sayin
I'm no GOPer, sport.
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 9:57 PM
Okay, she's definitely saying 'nuke-u-lar' and she's consistent with it, it's not just a flub.
Posted by: Ashley | October 2, 2008 9:57 PM
"If I hear that woman say "nuke-u-ler" one more time, I'm going to scream!!!!!!"
UGHHH, she just said it again, like 4 times!
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 9:58 PM
Rey Fox @186 - no, I meant Obama. She keeps pulling that old trick of saying that "X voted this way, so he is evil" when her own evil overlord voted the exact same way. It's like in the last election when they kept slamming Kerry for "voting against" new weapons. The votes they were referring to were on issues that Dick Cheney did not support and spoke publicly against because we had better and newer weapons in the pipeline. Sorry - I know I'm not writing at my best - it's hard to do this while trying to listen to the debate.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 9:58 PM
topic change again
"I prepared for this thing we haven't covered, mind if is changed topics again?"
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 9:58 PM
"Surge principles". Can someone enlighten me as to what that means?
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 9:58 PM
Women's rights. Really? Wow.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 9:59 PM
There *was* a surge for Afghanistan... except Bush sent it to Iraq. :-)
When does the lightning round start? Are questions worth double yet?
Posted by: Jeremy | October 2, 2008 10:00 PM
So glad he love Israel too? I think she loves Israel for a different reason, something involving the end of the world and Jesus coming back.
Posted by: Copache | October 2, 2008 10:00 PM
Every time she said "nuke-u-ler" I cringed.
I stopped watching. Her lines are always low (with the odd one or two times it's been slightly below Biden's usual) and it's just painful. Pitifully painful.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:00 PM
Joe's getting pissed.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:00 PM
Biden just won the living room set. Plain's holding out for Door #2.
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 10:01 PM
we have nukes as "a deterrent", but anyone else who has them is a terrorist? really?
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 10:01 PM
"Surge principles". Can someone enlighten me as to what that means?
euphemism for escalation
Posted by: Joel | October 2, 2008 10:01 PM
Isn't adding more money and troops a surge principle?
Posted by: Gabriel Garcia | October 2, 2008 10:02 PM
I think I'll stop now. I mean really, watching South Park is more useful (and less of a time sink) than watching this... "debate."
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:02 PM
Bosniaks? Really??
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 10:02 PM
BOSNIACS !!!
BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:03 PM
Sarah Palin is making faces over there. Can she not even control her face?
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:03 PM
Damn it! Where's my train wreck? I paid for a train wreck!
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:04 PM
"I'm just not used to the way you guys talk..." My, isn't she precious?
Posted by: CBBB | October 2, 2008 10:04 PM
What an awful "debate". Palin says a lot of lies and nonsense and Biden has to correct her. It's all about "sounding good". I can't believe there are Americans out there who still consider voting Republican.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 10:04 PM
"washington outsider"
it's so obvious.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:04 PM
People can change their minds. In fact, last night, McCain voted for the bailout, and this morning, he said George Bush should veto it.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:04 PM
She is so used to talking like Bush though!
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 10:05 PM
What the hell is she talking about?
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 10:05 PM
Straight talk express......If I didnt have to work,I would get drunk,this is unbearable
Posted by: Jeremy | October 2, 2008 10:05 PM
Did he really say Bosniacs? I missed it.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:05 PM
Genocide? BORING! Someone ask about NASA.
Posted by: Sadly Dismayed | October 2, 2008 10:05 PM
I tried following the live blog on Think Progress for a while, but this thread is just so much more entertaining. Good work everyone.
Posted by: Blueelm | October 2, 2008 10:05 PM
Oh gee golly gosh... I'm just a Washington outsider.
*curtsy*
Posted by: Kaddath | October 2, 2008 10:05 PM
For fucks sake Palin it's nuclear NOT nucUlear.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | October 2, 2008 10:06 PM
Quiet_Desperation @#165
I feel I must correct my honorable colleague by pointing out that the first successful flight flight of a warp drive ship designed and built by Zefram Cochrane was in 2063.
What Iraq will be like then is anybody's guess, of course.
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:06 PM
Good idea...
Posted by: writzer | October 2, 2008 10:07 PM
They hate us for our freedoms? Give me a fucking break. They hate us for many reasons. Our freedoms aren't on the list. They hate us because we're over there. They hate us because we're not muslim. They hate us because we're geo-politically arrogant. They hate us because we're hypocritical, preaching human rights and tolerance yet getting into the sack with the Saudi regime because it suits our purpose. They hate us because we're the Great Satan. They hate us because they're insane.
I can't watch anymore of this frakkin "debate." One 'nukular' mouther hockey mother too many. I'm going to take the rum bottle route to heartburn instead of this drivel.
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 10:07 PM
How to win a war? Crash three planes and get caught?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 10:07 PM
FAIL
oh man she fumbled huge on that.
Posted by: catta | October 2, 2008 10:07 PM
I can't believe I'm watching this at 4 a.m... but I have to say, it's worth it to see Biden in action for once.
I also can not believe the constant "you guys", "oh mans", the barrage of "nucular"s and the blatant topic changes coming from Palin. How on earth did she even manage to become mayor with that speaking style?
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:07 PM
John McCain -- who knows how to win a war --
Bwa ha ha ha
Posted by: Archaneus | October 2, 2008 10:07 PM
Very few people piss me off as much as this moron trying to become our VP, getting a free pass because she is a woman and it's sexist to criticize her. This is insane, this woman just called Biden someone who said, "I was for it before I was against it," Despite the fact that it has been shown time and time again she did that same thing with The Bridge to Nowhere. Now she is trying to call Biden a liar despite the fact that she has been caught time and time agian in outright bold-faced bullshitting.
Posted by: Jorg | October 2, 2008 10:08 PM
Is this the fallout from the debate already: http://www.electoral-vote.com/ ?
The numbers make me a bit happier today...
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:08 PM
John McCain knows how to win a war?!? Where did he learn that?
Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 2, 2008 10:08 PM
Apparently "Bosniak" is a real word. Learn something new every day....
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 10:08 PM
Happy to see her approval lines flatlined through that whole 'John McCain has been to war and knows evil' emotional appeal. Maybe people are finally getting tired of that crap.
Posted by: Joel | October 2, 2008 10:08 PM
Excuse me Joe, you knew who would conduct the war, you voted for the war, to claim you're against it now, is nonsense.
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 10:08 PM
i'm SUPPOSED to be in my "evolution of sex and gender" class, but instead me and my 150+ classmates are watching this on a gigantic screen. there is no escape
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
John McCain knows how to win a war???? That dumbass crashed FIVE PLANES.
You don't win wars by crashing planes and getting taken prisoner-----see opening speech from Patton
______________________________
HockeyMom Pitbull
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Who, other than the 28% knuckle-draggers and mouth-breathers (My lack-of-god! She just brought up Alaska oil in talking about Darfur!), will buy the palin line here? She literally says "McCain & I will/are/were (insert good word/s). Obama is (insert evil word/s here)."
New one! McCain "personally" knows how to "win a war"! I don't recall McCain being old enough to have served in WWII.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Please, please, please everyone. If you don't already, go to Factcheck.org and Politifact.com and double-check everything you hear candidates on either side say during this campaign. Don't take anything at face value. There, I'm done. Off my soapbox and back to the debate
Posted by: Porky Pine | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Whenever Joe talks, his positives go way up. Whenever Sarah talks, the line stays pretty much neutral.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
It's like watching a two legged stool, leaning against something fragile that is about to shatter...
American hubris masks its own frailty.
From the religious to the blind Democrat and the dumb Republican, America is a red carpet to the backlot of unfurling idiocy, and we'll just keep borrowing and spending until we are an empty paper tube of what used to make us a pretty gosh darn solid piece of real estate...
Posted by: CBBB | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Washington Outsider - she's more of a Reality Outsider.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
Hey, O'Biden got a date right!
Posted by: Silmarillion | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
TEAM of MAVERICKS.
Does that count as two drinks?
Posted by: Jorg | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
#249: Freud: so is "Polack", and in Poland, it is not even an insult...
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 10:09 PM
'A team of mavericks"
*headdesk*
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
Whover said that deserves to be euthanised.Posted by: randy | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
Drinking game....every time Palin says "also" mid sentence, drink...you would have been very drunk very early in the debate
Posted by: Mike W | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
Bosniaks are a real people; that wasn't a gaffe, go look it up. He knows what he's talking about.
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
#244 - Remember, mayor of a town that is dramatically smaller than an average state university (or aircraft carrier's crew)...
Posted by: Kamikaze189 | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
Why do this to yourself? Just turn your tv off. You already know who the idiots are.
Posted by: BridgeDweller | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
@248 Why the Hanoi Hilton of course, he saw the victors plan their strategy.
/ducks
Sweet zombie jesus she said maverick again...a team of them.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
Everyone going ballistic over her pronunciation of nuclear please calm down. Having a heart attack in the middle of a cartoon means you miss the rest of the fun. It also means I would have to change the channel from the Myth Busters to the debate to get the rest of the story.
Posted by: zeno | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
I wish John McCain would share his knowledge of how to win a war, since he certainly has kept it a secret till now.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
@226
seriously. I want blood.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
Oh no wasila main street, head about to explode!!!!!
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:10 PM
@Jorg: http://www.pollster.com - It's been that way for around a week or two.
Posted by: Porky Pine | October 2, 2008 10:11 PM
Whenever Joe talks, his positives go way up. Whenever Sarah talks, the line stays pretty much neutral.
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 10:11 PM
Palin: 'What do you expect from a team of mavericks?' *wink*
-gag-
Posted by: Bill | October 2, 2008 10:11 PM
*Palin winks*
Drink!!
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | October 2, 2008 10:12 PM
There's been a couple of occasions where she seemed at a loss for words when called on to reply to what Biden said. She got back on script fairly quickly but it made Biden look the stronger.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:12 PM
"oooh, say it ain't so, Joe!" Yup, definitely adorable. Gag!!!
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 10:12 PM
say it ain't so, joe!
Posted by: Diego | October 2, 2008 10:12 PM
My favorite part so far is when she corrected Biden when he was mocking the simplicity of the oil drilling mantra. I had a sudden flash of a cheerleader who just wanted to get the cheer right.
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 10:12 PM
Heaven-Drink!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 2, 2008 10:12 PM
MMMMM MMMMMMM
eat up that good Wasilla Apple Pie
Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
About his dead wife: "Her reward is in heaven, right?" Oh man, she was trying...but, OW...
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
Home town values! DRINK!
Scranton! DRINK!
Alcohol poisoning! PASS OUT!
Posted by: LisaJ | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
Oh no... 'her reward is in heaven'. Barf.
Posted by: Grook | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
"Oh, say it ain't so, Joe!"
I think I'm going to cry now.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
*Palin winks*
Drink!!
The Palin drinking game will kill you. Better stop while you are alive.
Posted by: DagoRed | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
If we pick on the "nuculer" mispronunciation, let's include her backwoods accented "EYE-rock" and "EYE-ran" as well.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
Uh-oh... She's getting cocky.
Posted by: randy | October 2, 2008 10:13 PM
"say it ain't so joe"?
wha happuh to America?
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 10:14 PM
@226
seriously. I want blood.
Posted by: Diego | October 2, 2008 10:14 PM
My favorite part so far is when she corrected Biden when he was mocking the simplicity of the oil drilling mantra. I had a sudden flash of a cheerleader who just wanted to get the cheer right.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:14 PM
Everyone going ballistic over her pronunciation of nuclear please calm down.
I'm not even hearing it. Oh no... maybe she's getting to me!
I'VE BEEN HIP-MO-TIZED! HEP ME! SOMEONE PLEASE HEP ME!
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:15 PM
(my bad paraphrase of SNL's most recent Palin skit)
Ye gods, We're overloading SB's comment server!
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 2, 2008 10:15 PM
That would be poetry if it made any sense at all.Posted by: catta | October 2, 2008 10:15 PM
"her reward is in heaven"? Damn. Sucks to be a teacher I guess.
Posted by: Geo | October 2, 2008 10:15 PM
My god. {{shiver}}. That plastered cutesy smile and a wink is supposed to overshadow the fluff? The horror of her actually leading the country ... sorry I need alcohol!
Posted by: g camilo | October 2, 2008 10:15 PM
he said Scranton again - double shot
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 10:15 PM
Now she's Reagun! "There you go again!" We'll be hearing about "Quemoy and Matsu" ala the SCTV mayoral debate.
Her kids are "public school participants." And she was "joking" about not even knowing what the VP does. If true (it isn't) it could be the greatest example of deadpan humor ever recorded.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 10:16 PM
From the religious to the blind Democrat and the dumb Republican, America is a red carpet to the backlot of unfurling idiocy, and we'll just keep borrowing and spending until we are an empty paper tube of what used to make us a pretty gosh darn solid piece of real estate...
Scott, that soapbox is way to big for you to stand on.
better step down before you fall and break your neck.
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 10:17 PM
daenku32 @286
*Palin winks*
Ironic: 'not blinking' is one of her buzzwords
___________________________________
HockeyMom Pitbull
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 2, 2008 10:17 PM
@Kel, I think it was W who first said it. Might wanna be careful, he's still got 3 months in office to toss you into Gitmo.
@Hubris Hurts, excellent suggestion. I might offer this one:
TAKE NOTHING FOR GRANTED! VOTE!!!
Posted by: tardigrada | October 2, 2008 10:17 PM
@ Capital Dan
"John McCain knows how to win a war?!?"
Sure thing, she even explained why: "He knows EVIL"
I cringe every time the word 'evil' comes out of the mouth of a republican.
Posted by: Chayanov | October 2, 2008 10:17 PM
McCain knows how to win a war?
Like Vietnam?
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:17 PM
Gov. Palin, isn't it true that you get more adorable the harder you're being pushed?
Yeah, but don't feed her after midnight or spill water on her.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 10:17 PM
Whover said that deserves to be euthanised.
I couldn't agree more. Can we impeach him first?
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | October 2, 2008 10:18 PM
We are so screwed! Palin is good enough to "skirt" the issues and dance around the hard facts and the hard issues, specifically addressing points Biden has brought up.
Biden keeps on doing his deep, heavy sighs (in frustration) is simply showing the "average 6-pack male" and "soccer mom" that he is becoming frustrated with a "woman" and it is going to turn these very voters in this country against Obama.
Palin scares me more than McCain ever could. Her finger is "on the button" and if she gets a chance, she will.
OMGS, do I need any more excuses to become stupendously bombed?!
She speaks with the "well, gosh darn it" reply continuously mixed with well spoken replies, and this is a "mom-speak" that so many people in this country are so desperate to hear because they are at their worst and most vulnerable.
Well, I just got another excuse to crack open that last bottle of Sapphire.
Sob, I can't stand it.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:18 PM
Palin's flag pin is much bigger and more sparkly than Biden's flag pin. She must love 'Merica much more than Biden.
Wow! Joe just said that Cheney is the most dangerous Vice President the US has ever had. Yay!!! He said it out loud and everything!
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:18 PM
*hic*
Posted by: Cooper | October 2, 2008 10:18 PM
Oh damn, he totally nailed the OVP question! YES.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:18 PM
She's an Oil and Gas Regulator PEOPLE!!! OIL AND GAS REGULATOR!!!!
ad infinitum..
Posted by: Jeremy | October 2, 2008 10:19 PM
Christ, we want someone who knows how to run a country; not someone with a special needs a child, a son in the military, a mom, etc.
Posted by: nate | October 2, 2008 10:19 PM
well. at least she can read.
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
heartland, mom, america, special needs, son, war, marriage
she's got the loaded vocab
Posted by: jc | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
for those playing bingo... card 4 is a winner!
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
Over 300 comments 30 mins in... think we can break 1000 by the time it's over? I haven't seen a thread this hopping since crackergate was in full swing.
Ugh.. her trying to connect w/ the regular foax is too sickening.
Also: "Exceptionalism" is an actual word.. I'll be damned.
Posted by: Justin Schenk | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
If any pundit can dig out some instances where Biden supported McCain's military policy he will lose a LOT of credibility, because Palin is pushing that HARD. I don't know if it's just the Republican tactic of repeating a lie until it's virtually true or what, but, if there is any truth to it, it will certainly burn him in the end.
I would be interested to see where Biden and Obama have butted heads in the past.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
@Scooter:
Ironic: 'not blinking' is one of her buzzwords
A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat.
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
It's half an hour behind where I am in South Australia but we've just gotten the talk about terrorism - Palin's just said 'nucular' and 'eye-ran'. Gosh, but she's annoying to listen to. I've never seen Biden before but he's coming across well.
Posted by: writzer | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
LeeLeeOne ... can I borrow a cup of Sapphire? I'm out.
Posted by: raven | October 2, 2008 10:20 PM
I don't see how. We lost the Vietnam war and Cambodia and Laos got tossed into the bin as well.
Since when does getting shot down by third world peasants armed with substandard Soviet anti-aircraft missiles make anyone a military genius?
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 10:21 PM
Again with the Alaska... energy independence... I'm a mom... REAGUN AGAIN! Blah-blah-blah!
Nice subtle joke in response by Biden, too.
Posted by: Zeno | October 2, 2008 10:21 PM
Yay! Someone finally mentioned Quemoy and Matsu! (#299) Let's settle the hot issues of 1960, because JFK and Nixon never addressed it adequately, damn it!
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 10:21 PM
biden got all choked up. nice. i feel the emotion.
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 10:22 PM
'MAVERICK!'
Posted by: Tulse | October 2, 2008 10:22 PM
Whoa -- Biden just teared up! Good for him!
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:22 PM
we want someone who knows how to run a country
No offense, but people who think they *can* "run the country" disturb me.
Maverick! DRINK! *hic*
Posted by: John | October 2, 2008 10:22 PM
I think BIDEN just chocked up and almost cried!
WTF is going on here?!
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:22 PM
Palin: We are so NOT Republicans! Why can't you people see that!
Posted by: ali | October 2, 2008 10:23 PM
it's weird that biden seems to be more of a feminist than palin... i use the word a little loosley
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 10:23 PM
"He [McCain] is the man we need to leave..." woot!
Posted by: Timothy Wood | October 2, 2008 10:23 PM
four mavericks! no five!
Posted by: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. | October 2, 2008 10:23 PM
Nail that Maverick issue! Go Joe!
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:23 PM
Damn. Wish I'd started counting the number of times she said "Maverick" from the beginning.
Joe is calling her out on Maverick!!!!! Yay Joe!!!
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 10:23 PM
She just called a list of rich white people diverse
____________________________________________
HockeyMom Pitbull
Posted by: BridgeDweller | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
@321 I don't know raven but apparently it involves a maverick. Possibly a large wooden badger as well.
Well at least Biden is taking on the "maverick".
Posted by: Zeno | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
Will someone please call emergency services for the poor folks who picked "maverick" as their drinking-game word? We've got serious alcohol poisoning here!
Posted by: Jason A. | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
He's calling her out on the 'maverick' comments
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
In the name of the FSM, stop the Palin drinking game! You will die from alcohol poisoning!
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
I'm an Aussie so I'm safe unless they capture me in afghanistan...Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
Man, Wall Street is just *everyone's* bitch tonight.
Beg for scraps, Wall Street! Beg! Beg! Yeah.... shake that money maker.
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
Maverick! DRINK! *hic*
Uh oh, Q_D, hopefully you don't have alcohol poisoning after Biden's rebuttal.
Posted by: Jay | October 2, 2008 10:24 PM
I think they are both doing better than the pundits thought they would. Obviously Joe is better informed on a lot of the bigger issues like foreign policy, and he is delivering well. Sarah is hitting on the big government point a lot - and well.
Posted by: John | October 2, 2008 10:25 PM
Get'em JOE!
Now he's pissed.
"Maverick he is not!"
McFAIL
Posted by: Bill | October 2, 2008 10:25 PM
My girlfriend is crying in empathy for Biden ... she thinks he just won the debate.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:25 PM
biden got all choked up. nice. i feel the emotion.
yeah... but... is that a drink?
Posted by: Don | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
Sadly, all Palin has to do to "win" the debate is to walk away from it without having said "I'll get back to you on that" more than a dozen times.
"I'm a moron but I can be trained" is, as exemplified by recent history, pretty much all it takes to be elected to high office in this country these days.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
Joe Biden on John McCain: "He has not been a Maverick on anything that genuinely affects people sitting around the kitchen table." Yes! And he backed it up with specific examples. You go, Joe!
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
Cut her Joe! Cut her deep! Cut like a Tijuana whore, and spank that maverick right out of her.
Posted by: KD | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
Women have been reacting better to biden on CNN
Posted by: Sauceress | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
Haven't seen/heard Biden before...I think he comes across as fairly intelligent and straight forward. More specific in his answers...to the questions :)
Palin comes across to me as a one trick pony...rhetoric pleading to emotion of the patriotic *average working class* American. Comes across as arrogant and condescending to me.
Heard it from Howard for long enough in Australia. Just a cover for having no idea about policy and no direction!
Oooh...staring to sound like someone needs to rewind up that key in Palin's back again...
Posted by: Shaden Freud | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
#328 He lost his wife and daughter in a car accident...I started choking up a bit.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 10:26 PM
#355 The list left me guffawing as well, but I wouldn't call any of the names on the list "people."
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:27 PM
Capital Dan,
Change the tone. Leave out the whore talk.
Posted by: pradeep | October 2, 2008 10:27 PM
*hic* *hic* *hic*
Posted by: Noadi | October 2, 2008 10:27 PM
"Quasi-caved in"
WTF?
Posted by: John | October 2, 2008 10:28 PM
Ah, that HORRIBLE voice of her's is killing me!
If Palin gets to be VP, I will take an icepick to my inner-ears.
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 10:28 PM
Yeah,he's won it,with his "bringing up 2 kids alone",the one that"might not make it",and by calling her on the maverick bullshit.
Win by points however,no K.O.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:28 PM
Cut three ways: long, deep and frequently :-)
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 10:28 PM
#355 The list left me guffawing as well, but I wouldn't call any of the names on the list "people."
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:28 PM
Also, almost over at 40ish mins? I thought these were 90?
Posted by: Gary Bohn | October 2, 2008 10:29 PM
I should be watching the Canadian debate instead of reading this very entertaining thread.
Mind you there are a lot of things I should be doing instead of reading this thread. Hell, they're boring so fuck'em.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:29 PM
Palin: I'd rather not have MSM fact-check my BS.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | October 2, 2008 10:30 PM
@Kel, what's your immigration policy down there? I despair of this place some days.
Posted by: molliebatmit | October 2, 2008 10:30 PM
Palin: I appreciate the chance to speak to the American people like I just did, without the filters of the mainstream media.
Oh, you mean, you appreciate the chance to speak from a scripted list of talking points instead of having to answer tough questions unprepared.
Posted by: chriszenga | October 2, 2008 10:30 PM
I am watching the debate from Toronto Canada, It is way more entertaining then watching the race for Premier of this country.
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 10:31 PM
Whoa -- "National Security freedoms". Oh, yes, good luck with THAT, lady.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:31 PM
I'm glad that this is almost over. Her voice was starting to make my ears bleed.
Posted by: Jeremy | October 2, 2008 10:31 PM
Sad as it is, I think Biden's best move was taking Palin to the cleaners about the appeals to emotion with his own tragedies. She's been playing up that mom, downs syndrome kid, kid in the military crap since the beginning.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:31 PM
Would pig be better for your delicate sensibilities?
Still... Knew I'd piss someone off with that one. hahaha. I'd call Biden a whore as well. So, lighten up.
Posted by: wildlifer | October 2, 2008 10:32 PM
Analyst Rollins is a little partisan no? 48 positives to three negatives on Palin?
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:32 PM
Precious bodily fluids! DRINK!
C'mon, Joe. Mention Scranton again.
Ooooohhhh, show me the way to go home... I'm tired and want to go to bed. Had a little drink about an hour ago, and it's gone right to my head...
Posted by: Susan | October 2, 2008 10:32 PM
Have you been reading this thread?!
Posted by: LeeLeeOne | October 2, 2008 10:32 PM
Writzer: #320
Here's one for you - I'm sending you a triple-shot because anyone who respects Sapphire deserves it!
Posted by: scooter | October 2, 2008 10:33 PM
I gotta go. I think I'll be taking some calls soon (we're playing it on the fly)
Here is the streaming link:
http://stream.kpft.org/streamkpft.m3u
and the phone number:
713 526 5738
give us a call when we go local
seeeya,
doncha know
God Bless you all, ya know
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:33 PM
Capital Dan,
Then stop the drinking as well. There is NO shortage of things to note about Palin, without having to resort to such empty BS.
Biden just creamed her on issues alone. Let's concentrate on THAT!
Posted by: John | October 2, 2008 10:33 PM
SAD closing for Biden.
Too many God references ;-(
Posted by: AHHHHH | October 2, 2008 10:33 PM
Geez Biden. Way to much God speak in your closing line. FAIL.
Posted by: Bjorn Watland | October 2, 2008 10:34 PM
May God Bless the troops!
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:34 PM
Biden's closing statement was much, much better. He's obviously done this debate thing a few more times.
Posted by: Archaneus | October 2, 2008 10:35 PM
@ 373
Of course, but I am referring to the general media, not a forum on a progressive site. In the media they have been playing up the sexism, that's what I meant.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:35 PM
I can't begin to tell you how much I want to have a President who speaks and understands English. I want some intelligence in the White House again! I want to not cringe and practically hurt myself in my rush to turn down the volume whenever I hear the President speak.
It's hard to type with my fingers crossed. Guess I'll stop.
Posted by: co | October 2, 2008 10:35 PM
Capital Dan, you got a laugh out of me for the Tijuana whore comment. Gawd bless ya for that, don'tcha know.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:35 PM
CNN analysts just said it was a fascinating debate. WTF?
We're that passing the bong around during the debate?
Posted by: Cooper | October 2, 2008 10:35 PM
Oy, I wanted to watch a debate, not a highly-incestuous gangbang.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 10:35 PM
You've got to have some mad skillz and a lot of cash.Because our government has survived for the last half century off mining and tourism, we fall well short on skilled labour. So you can get in fairly easily if you have skills and employment opportunities.
That sounds like a really damning assessment of this country. It's not as bleak as I sell it I swear!
Posted by: chris zenga | October 2, 2008 10:35 PM
WAAAAAAAAAAAy to much God in the closer
Posted by: Wowbagger | October 2, 2008 10:36 PM
I never thought I'd hear a 72-year-old, white, male, supposedly Xian republican described as a 'maverick' before - unless they were talking about a gambling, gun-toting con-man.
Family Guy gets it right:
Peter: Hey, Lois, look! The two symbols of the Republican party: an elephant and a big fat white guy who's threatened by change.
Posted by: Pontius Pirate | October 2, 2008 10:37 PM
I like how her list of dangerous world leaders were Ahmadinnejad, Kim Jong Il and... the Castro Brothers. Seriously? Cuba? It's a tiny little island that can't do anything to the US.
The Canadian debate is still going, lets see if Harper can have a good stumble. Go Jack!
Posted by: chris zenga | October 2, 2008 10:37 PM
WAAAAAAAAAAAy to much God in the closer
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:38 PM
WTF?
Where did you get that I was drinking or talking about drinking?
My goodness you are touchy and looking for things to get pissed off about, aren't you?
Seriously. Lighten up.
Personally, as I said, I think Palin did better than I thought she would. Of course, she still came off as a vapid, empty-headed hokey mom with a healthy dose of Prozac.
Posted by: Quiet_Desperation | October 2, 2008 10:38 PM
And now an HOUR and 20 MINUTES of analysis? They *are* high!
Feh... I'm going to go play Tales Of Vesperia. G'night all.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:38 PM
Mark Shields on PBS just referred to Palin's "relentless coloquialism." I like that phrase
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:38 PM
The god talk is, unfortunately, mandatory in these things. Biden's close was still much better, but I'll agree it was besmirched by the god bit. I can agree with the sentiment, though, we all feel for the troops and would like them back home & safe.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | October 2, 2008 10:38 PM
I can't give Biden or Palin any points because I didn't watch the debate, but I give the pharyngulites here a 9.7 for the content, 9.9 for the entertainment and a solid 10.0 for the drinking.
Posted by: MisterGadget | October 2, 2008 10:39 PM
I found Biden to be a typical Democrat, and Palin largely simplistic and clueless (and made a number of demonstrably false statements.) After McCain, Palin, and GWBush, I'm embarrassed to admit I WAS a Repub.
The future doesn't look good.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 2, 2008 10:42 PM
Right. So we've learned nothing from this. But thank you-all fer watchin' so I didn't have to, don'cha know.Posted by: bigjohn756 | October 2, 2008 10:43 PM
I watched the first 45 minutes and decided that Palin was going to answer whatever happened to be echoing in her head from her training session, so, I turned it off. She is completely unacceptable.
Posted by: clinteas | October 2, 2008 10:43 PM
Some guy on CNN just summed it up nicely i think :
There were 2 different agendas here,Biden attacked McCains record and policies and did well,and Palin defended Palin,and did well.
Posted by: KristinMH | October 2, 2008 10:46 PM
Gary Bohn, don't watch the Canadian debate. I did for a minute, but the sight of Stephen Harper makes me throw up in my mouth.
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:46 PM
I'm with you.
Funny thing. After Bush groped Chancellor Angela Merkel, you knew for certain, without any doubt, that the White House was being occupied by an idiot.
It isn't just the babble that's been coming out of our Idiot in Chief's head for the last eight years, his actions have done nothing to demonstrate that Bush is anything other than an inept fratboy.
Posted by: jackC | October 2, 2008 10:46 PM
Yep - you guys are all spot on there. A double martini certainly did improve my outlook on this whole thing. Damn glad I didn't refresh that often though.
JC
Posted by: Robin | October 2, 2008 10:47 PM
Watching MSNBC-first mistake, I know. Pat Buchannan just said that Palin was sensational and wiped the floor with Joe Biden. Was he watching the same debate we were?
How is it that she got away with not answering, oh about 85% of the questions she was asked?
Posted by: Sauceress | October 2, 2008 10:47 PM
#391 Capital Dan
I agree.
The Repugs certainly would've been lapping it up.
Oh...I see lots of replays of Biden's emotional moment coming up.
Posted by: Archaneus | October 2, 2008 10:48 PM
Someone on MSNBC just said that Palin did well, as well, and I just don't get it. Maybe I'm biased because I keep informed and I know how much of a vacuous liar she is, but it seemed to me that Palin did an atrocious job. The only people she could have possibly convinced with her performance tonight were people who already were for her and perhaps a few people on the same intellectual level as creationists.
Posted by: Tim | October 2, 2008 10:48 PM
She didn't utterly suck. Well, there were issues that she didn't answer at all, replying (instead) with something rather different from what was asked. She was caught spewing incorrect/deceptive arguments and data and corrected.
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 10:49 PM
Since there's been a lot of gin-talk here: I bought a bottle of Hendrick's on sale and it's really tasty. I like it better than sapphire.
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 10:49 PM
ExxonMobile is making up for Palin loss with commercials on m TV.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:51 PM
John Harris from Politico said that Biden won the debate hands-down based on standard debate rules - who actually answered the questions, who gave substantive answers, etc. It's very interesting to see how people's political leanings colored their view of the debate - right from the beginning (myself included). How do we find unbiased people to grade this?
Posted by: Geral | October 2, 2008 10:52 PM
It was interesting and I think in terms of content, Biden wholeheartedly won but in terms of what they had to go out there and do - Palin won it.
For one, she didn't sound like a moron. She didn't answer all the questions but she gave reasonable and half decent intelligent answers, and she backed McCain constantly and constantly.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 10:53 PM
I'm currently out of gin. I'm also out of tequila... summer is coming on so I really should get a bottle of the latter soon. That some greanadine and some orange juice.
Posted by: hubris hurts | October 2, 2008 10:53 PM
OK. I'm now laughing my ass off. I just heard a pundit refer to Palin as "Gidget goes to Washington." Classic!!!
Posted by: Capital Dan | October 2, 2008 10:54 PM
Exactly. I think the goal for Palin was simply to go into it and not try to win, but do her best not to drive Conservative voters away, and she hit every little codeword perfectly to make their ears perk up. They don't want details. They don't want to know how McCain's going to go about fulfilling his campaign promises.
Posted by: Timcol | October 2, 2008 10:55 PM
Lots of the pundits are saying what a great job Palin did because of her little "aw shucks" routine, and how she 'connected' using terms like sixpack (and I guess because just like our incumbent she can't pronounce nuclear properly either).
What the f*** is wrong with this country that nobody is analyzing the actual CONTENT of what she said. My take is that if you take out all the filler, all the fluff, all the gees, and references to "mavericks" - she had NOTHING to say. Exceptionalism? No, mediocrism and that's where this country is headed (which would probably not be a bad thing for the rest of the world given our imperial ways).
Posted by: BobC | October 2, 2008 10:56 PM
I started watching 18 minutes after it started. Palin looked like she wasn't having fun. Biden looked like the experienced politician he is. After one minute I decided the debate was too boring and too unpleasant to watch so I turned off the TV.
I saw the entire McCain-Obama debate. Obama was obviously the most intelligent candidate and he's getting my vote.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 2, 2008 10:57 PM
"Women have been reacting better to biden on CNN"
I would hope that women would be good at sniffing out a woman's BS.
Kel:
"summer is coming on "
Didn't the austral winter just end last week? Smug Aussie bastards, wearing shorts all year round...
Posted by: LostInSpecs | October 2, 2008 10:57 PM
She didn't suck as bad as I expected, but I shiver at the thought of sending her overseas to attend a state funeral or some other such VP kinda task.
Posted by: Graeme Elliott | October 2, 2008 10:57 PM
I hate to tell you, but Palin is getting most of the plaudits over here in the UK. I suppose that shows just how low our expectations of her were. She did dodge a few questions, but the format was far too soft to really show up her lack of knowledge. It seemed like she had been well taught to in her speaking style, and she managed not to wander too far (most of the time). Biden sounded competant, and given how much older he is, he actually seemed to match her for enthusiasm and bounce in his voice (I was listening on the radio). I'm a bit dissapointed Biden didn't attack her on her support for creationism in the education segment, but I guess he didn't want to upset the pro-democrat religious...
Overall I think it was a draw. That's how it's being reported on the radio here. Neither messed up, but neither really distinguished themselves.
Posted by: jufulu, FDC | October 2, 2008 10:58 PM
Is there anybody out there that remembers a drinking game that was called BOB (come on, show your age)?
I have a new variation of it that is called ALSO. Every time Palin said ALSO, you would have taken a drink. I think that we could have gotten a pretty good buzz out of the debate. For a better buzz we could add the word THOUGH to the game.
I say we try it during the post debate reviews.
Posted by: Ted H. | October 2, 2008 10:58 PM
Two Republicans on ABC both said they thought that Biden won. Kind of shocked the system there.
The bar was set so low for Palin, I would have been surprised if she didn't do better than expected. But she didn't give straight answers, and did not do anything to change my opinion of her.
NUCLEAR-- Is it too much to ask to have the people in charge to know how to pronounce it?
Posted by: ABR. | October 2, 2008 10:59 PM
#305 Quiet Desperation
Thank you for that! I'm going to be chuckling for days and will probably have trouble watching that movie from now on.
Posted by: Kevin | October 2, 2008 11:00 PM
CNN quick vote
http://www.cnn.com/
scroll down and to the right.
you know what to do
Posted by: daenku32 | October 2, 2008 11:01 PM
A golf analogy:
I don't play golf, but Palin did "well" just as a golfer with a handicap of 30 would do "well" on a golf course.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 2, 2008 11:01 PM
It's crap. or gold. or sad. or fun...
thank all the gods... there's only one.
Posted by: Ignignockt | October 2, 2008 11:01 PM
I was surprised by the whole vice president / fourth branch of government business. I didn't think anyone, even Cheney himself, took such a position seriously.
Posted by: BridgeDweller | October 2, 2008 11:02 PM
Should of been like the Canadian debate. The head of the Green Party just accused Harper of ruling by fiat, frequent uses of "you can not be trusted to run the country" by all candidates and Duceppe looking like he was going to turn into Sam Kinneson when demanding Harper answer his questions.
Posted by: steve | October 2, 2008 11:02 PM
Cripes, I've gotta real buzz and growing headache, and I have to get up for work tomorrow! This drinking game stuff is fun, beats reading the headlines, but they have to start scheduling this shit on the weekend.
If McCain is elected I'll contribute to a 'round the clock medical team to monitor/manage his health because if something bad happens, we are in deep dung. I'm scared, very scared.
Posted by: BMS | October 2, 2008 11:03 PM
POLL CRASH!
http://www.cnn.com/
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 11:03 PM
Well I'm in the nation's capital so it actually does get cold* here in winter. On the coast and up north in Queensland it's shorts all year round.*when I say cold I mean overnight below 0C and in the day a maximum of single digits.
Posted by: Luger Otter Robinson | October 2, 2008 11:03 PM
I might be biased, but I would have given the debate to Biden. I thought he was very effective in attacking McCain. Palin came over as likable but not particularly knowledgeable. The problem is, how will she appeal to the undecided voters? And that's my great fear.
Posted by: rpenner | October 2, 2008 11:05 PM
I think that the debate shows that Palin doesn't know what an Achilles heel is. That was one of the questions she didn't attempt to answer.
Some of her one-word or one-phrase answers were just filled in with unrelated talking points, which is kindof appropriate for a vice-president who no one will want giving advice: ya need to know how to fill in those empty hours, doncha know.
And she showed the arrogance of the Internet self-proclaimed expert in not supporting some of her assertions with anything more than appeal to her authority.
But, no, not a bad performance considering that she is preaching to the choir.
Posted by: Jams | October 2, 2008 11:05 PM
The Canadian debate just ended. Harper failed to live up to anyone's scorn. Elizabeth May slaughtered in spite of her sexist knee-jerking. Dion just withered away. Duceppe had a few gotchas and we-told-you-soes, but didn't have much to add. Jack Layton would sink an oil tanker in a bathtub.
Best of all, the word God was not invoked once.
Posted by: BobC | October 2, 2008 11:07 PM
#422: CNN quick vote
Who fared better in the vice presidential debate?
Sen. Joe Biden 74% 36986
Gov. Sarah Palin 23% 11417
Neither 3% 1294
Total Votes: 49697
Posted by: JStein | October 2, 2008 11:08 PM
She's an idiot, and I hope that the American people saw through her crap. I will post my full thoughts later.
Posted by: Ben | October 2, 2008 11:09 PM
yeah NO ONE EXCEPT Obama campaign EVER wins the CNN vote. I don't watch CNN anymore after they treated Hillary Clinton like shit. Palin gave a good answer on oil. She said very clearly that drilling is a good thing but it is NOT the only thing that will lead to energy independence. Your bias is reprehensible.
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 11:09 PM
About as meaningful as Fox's quick vote. If we could get solid numbers on Fox vs. CNN we'll have a better idea.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 2, 2008 11:10 PM
Thank you, Ben, for your insight.
Posted by: a lurker | October 2, 2008 11:10 PM
I have not read the comments (and at 399 of them it seems unlikely to be worth it especially since I am somewhat tired tonight). But I will put in my $0.02. Biden won. Pure and simple. I always expect some degree of ignoring the the question from debaters, but she did not seem to make an effort to mask it. This removes any doubt that on national issues, she can't go off script. No major gaffes though even if I though some things were a bit strange (her VP powers comments for example). Though I think Biden won, I doubt it will make much of a difference. People vote for the top of the ticket. For the record, since I did not comment of the Obama/McCain debate is at the time I thought it was pretty much a tie though the polling suggests both sides though their guy won and that undecided gave it to Obama.
And since Biden made no major gaffes, there is nothing to keep Obama's momentum continuing. It will take something huge to prevent Obama from winning. It is now his race to loose. Thank goodness. With the Dems having the executive branch and the senate, the high court nominations will for sane people who won't force children to learn ID in science class or declare anti-global warming legislation unconstitutional.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 2, 2008 11:11 PM
Even the Fox News poll has Biden winning
http://elections.foxnews.com/
Question of the Day
Who won the vice presidential debate Thursday?
Sarah Palin 48%
Joe Biden 52%
Total Voters:24568
Posted by: Bert Chadick | October 2, 2008 11:13 PM
Tomorrow morning millions of citizens are going to wake up and realize that there is a possibility of listening to "Nuculur You Betcha" for the next four years and swing to Obama / Biden.
Posted by: Tulse | October 2, 2008 11:13 PM
[puts up an embarrassed hand, recollecting his college days] Yes, how ever funny Newhart was, he was even funnier when drinking.
Hendrick's is great stuff -- I like it in martinis with a cucumber slice instead of olives. (That said, my current libation is a Caipirinha.)
What? Were we supposed to talk politics?
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 11:13 PM
That's what I get for being lazy ;) In all fairness (to me) I voted there, and saw a 60-30someodd lead for Biden, but on refresh it's much closer to the numbers you posted.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 11:15 PM
I bought a bottle of Hendrick's on sale and it's really tasty. I like it better than sapphire.
now THAT'S useful information.
thanks for the tip!
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 11:15 PM
*me at 442 should say "60-30someodd lead for Palin"
Posted by: Black Bellamy | October 2, 2008 11:15 PM
"with a voice that really grated on me"
Nice personal attack. You know PZ, I first came to Pharyngula because I share your concerns about evolution vs creationism and atheism in general. A lot of what you wrote made sense and was thought-provoking.
However, your political commentary has turned me completely off your blog, and I won't be coming back. I don't need to be aggravated by your personal attacks and to wade through the same shrill partisan claptrap that pollutes so much of the blogosphere nowadays.
As a conservative Republican who doesn't share the adherence to religious dogma and pseudo-scientific inanity which unfortunately afflicts so many of my brethren, I saw value in your scientific and philosophical arguments and would have thought that they would present a valuable opportunity to be used as a tool to educate those of my compatriots who might be so swayed.
Unfortunately I could not possibly send anyone here or recommend this site since your political ramblings would clearly dissuade anyone I know from taking your other comments seriously, which is a real shame since clearly your strength lies in your arguments vis a vis theology and biology, and not political commentary.
You had a chance to use your forum for the greater good, but unfortunately you have chosen to preach to the choir and offend anyone who doesn't share your political views. While all your partisan groupthink backslapping is probably very psychologically satisfying, it doesn't do any good to people like me.
I depart now, looking for another way to educate my compatriots. Thank you for your time.
Posted by: Jeff | October 2, 2008 11:15 PM
Biden won because the public doesn't play the expectations game the way the media does. To the media is was close to a tie because Sarah Palin couldn't be expected to do well, but all the populace is going to care about is that she didn't do well.
Posted by: a lurker | October 2, 2008 11:16 PM
Forgot to mention in my last comment...
I thought the format was weak. The moderator or the opponent should have been able to take on a candidate's lack of an answer. There needs to be mechanism to force both candidates off-script. The ability to to recite memorized speeches does tell us much more than than that the candidate can recite.
Posted by: JStein | October 2, 2008 11:16 PM
Alright, my thoughts are up.
Her inner-Cheney showed a little bit tonight.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 11:16 PM
However, your political commentary has turned me completely off your blog, and I won't be coming back.
what an excellent piece of concern trolling!
wait, you were serious?
then...
ROFLMAO
Posted by: Luger Otter Robinson | October 2, 2008 11:17 PM
Didn't the austral winter just end last week? Smug Aussie bastards, wearing shorts all year round...
I live in Perth, about as far south of the equator as Tel Aviv is north, and I wear shorts all year round (but mainly because my work place has air conditioning that works erratically, ranging from hot to very hot). The coldest day so far has been 2 degrees Celcius. I agree with Kel; Canberra (the capital) is a miserable place. Cold and windy in Winter, hot and windy in Summer, and only tolerable in Autumn (March 21 only) and Spring (September 21 only). Every other day of the year is either Summer or Winter.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 11:17 PM
#435 Ben - ES&D, then go back to whatever Freeperville you came from on the same pseudopods that slimed you here.
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 11:20 PM
Black Bellamy @ #445: Ever seen the tag-line?
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
If you're going to get in a huff about political opinions, well, you know that saying about the door and your way out. If you're being truly honest with yourself, do you not find Palin's voice to be obnoxious? How about the extra "down-home" style of speaking that goes along with it?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 11:20 PM
Tomorrow morning millions of citizens are going to wake up and realize that there is a possibility of listening to "Nuculur You Betcha" for the next four years and swing to Obama / Biden.
after that performance, I half expect Palin to start off her acting career (after McCain fails) by starring in:
"Fargo II: Road to nowhere"
Posted by: Gary Bohn | October 2, 2008 11:21 PM
KristinMH, do what I do, just imagine Harper in white makeup, a big red nose, lederhosen, and giant floppy shoes. You'll laugh yourself silly.
If the conservatives get a majority we can expect the same creationist/social conservative problem as the US.
Posted by: Martin | October 2, 2008 11:21 PM
#445: Yes, Bellamy, how dare PZ not have political views that march in lockstep with your own! And how dare he express them on his very own blog! Why, if this freedom of speech thing catches on, sooner or later everyone will be doing it!
I'm sure PZ will be just agonized to lose you as a reader.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 2, 2008 11:21 PM
"I'm still mostly reassured that Biden will be good in the job.{""
Oh lordy!
Biden is a Washington habit, like McCain.
His ideas about government are perfectly suited to further our now almost 10 trillion dollar debt. He has no understanding of just how fast and far America will implode soon, he isn't willing to look at or talk about the monetary policy that got us to this point. He thinks America should keep bankrupting ourselves with our military overseas, he thinks having one in ten loans go bad is acceptable and manageable, failing to mention how much fucked up paper is riding on each and every mortgage.
Again, this debate was like watching a two legged stool leaning against something about to shatter.
Americans are rooting for one or the other of these spindly legs, and calling the other leg stupid.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 11:22 PM
And I repeat my own #451 to #445's BB as well.
We only have to agree where we agree, and I'll not be asked to respect your "feelings" about every other issue.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out, by any means.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 2, 2008 11:24 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26995439
Who won the VP debate? * 227602 responses
Joe Biden 53%
Sarah Palin 37%
Tie 4.5%
Not sure 5.4%
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 11:25 PM
Oh lordy!
leave it to SFO to replace "ummmmmm" with something equally annoying.
again, your soapbox is rickety, Scott.
Posted by: druidbros | October 2, 2008 11:26 PM
I thought Bible Barbie was condescending to Biden. She didnt give a real answer to any of the questions. She was furiously looking at her cue cards. Boilerplate talking points from her all night long. Gosh, shucks, joe six pack, hockey mom, and Alaska. Sickening. Then she reapated the lie that a timetable for leaving Iraq was a white flag and affected the morale of the troops. Yeah, because they dont want to come home...Just awful.
Posted by: JD | October 2, 2008 11:28 PM
Pathetically moderated debate. Eiffel appeared either out of her league or the republicans strategy to intimidate her (re: her book) worked. She let the candidates, particularly Palin, get away far too often without answering the questions. Eiffel rarely asked any follow up questions regarding the details. She just let them either change the question or make vague, general statements without providing specifics. Given the format of the debate where the opponents were not allowed to ask followup questions of each other, that was a role the moderator needed to do. Gwen Eiffel failed at her job.
In regards to Palin's and the Republicans frequent charge that Palin was not treated fairly by mainstream media, Olberman and Maddow (MSNBC) just issued a challenge that she could appear with either of them (or both), unedited as long as they get to ask follow up questions regarding her statements.
Posted by: PZ Myers | October 2, 2008 11:29 PM
Mr Bellamy seems to have commented a grand total of 3 times, and every time it is to complain about the horrible liberal bias here. That's really not much of a loss, sorry.
Posted by: Michael B | October 2, 2008 11:31 PM
Simple analysis - there was no debate.
Joe Biden did not 'debate' Sarah Palin. He ignored her. He decided not to go there. Where would you start? He decided to attack McCain past and present and tie him to Bush. Whether this was a wise strategy - or really make any difference in the long run - only time will tell. But simply - Biden did not 'debate' Palin - make no mistake about it.
Palin simply parroted out the lines she's been rehearsing non stop for the past few weeks added with a folksy twang.
The question will now be how many suckers out there will now think Palin really is smart and brilliant and we've had it all wrong all along - ala Couric interview, Tiny Fey etc. Clearly she still is a blithering idiot whose never had a thought about many issues much less taken a stand on any of these issues. The question is how many people will be able to see that a fast one has been pulled on them. If the answer is electing Bush 2X, the future doesn't look good baby.
But if there is a semblance of sanity in the American body politic - if there is any recognition that continuing policies that have simultaneoulys destroyed our military, economy, civil rights, etc. etc., not to mention utterly secondary issues like science policy or even science sanity then we won't make the same mistake 3X.
Posted by: E.V. | October 2, 2008 11:32 PM
Palin babbled chirpily and never resorted to pauses or stammering which will be enough for the clueless to believe she's smart and therefore redeemed herself from the Couric debacle. In the eyes of the Average Joe & Josephine Blow republican, she won simply because she didn't fall down into an apoplectic fit.
Posted by: Sauceress | October 2, 2008 11:32 PM
#405 Archaneus
#413 Capital Dan
Yep. Must have been all that cramming sound bites in front of the mirror at debate camp.
Posted by: BobC | October 2, 2008 11:33 PM
Black Bellamy (#445):
I used to vote for Republicans but I can no longer justify voting for politicians who want to destroy the environment and who can't talk about science education without invoking their magic fairy. Barry Goldwater was the last real Republican. Today's Republicans are mostly creationists. They're stupid, insane, and they want to make America a theocracy like Iran.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | October 2, 2008 11:33 PM
Intrade results:
"Barack Obama's Intrade value will increase more than John McCain's following the VP debate": Dropped 12.5 to 48.5.
"Sarah Palin to be withdrawn as Republican VP nominee/candidate before 2008 presidential election": Dropped 4.9 to 5.0.
"Joe Biden to be withdrawn as Democratic VP candidate before 2008 presidential election": Went up 0.7 to 5.9.
Looks like the Intrade market called that a narrow win for Palin (which probably means merely that she didn't bungle it as badly as expected).
However:
"Barack Obama to win 2008 US Presidential Election": Up 2.1 to 66.8.
"John McCain to win 2008 US Presidential Election": Down 2.1 to 33.5.
Posted by: CBBB | October 2, 2008 11:33 PM
Michael B,
Pretty hard for Biden to debate someone who just ignores questions asked to her, makes up her own facts, lies, or goes off on irrelevant tangents.
Posted by: prillotashekta | October 2, 2008 11:33 PM
I haven't read the 400+ posts yet, so I don't know if this is repetitive but please poll crash Fox News poll of who won the debate. They have Palin at 86% for crying out loud. Text to 36288. Vote A for Biden.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 2, 2008 11:33 PM
Huh. Canberra's in the mountains, I see. Climate sounds a lot like Boise, although I don't think Boise is too terribly windy.
Posted by: anon1 | October 2, 2008 11:34 PM
Ta ta, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Um... was it meant to do good to people like you? I was just thinking PZ was expressing his personal opinions on his personal blog. You expect him to not do that?
Besides, the points he brings up against Palin are pretty valid. She sounds like a slippery, glib sound-recorder, with very few valid points, and seems more interested in delivering a one-liner rather than rationally discuss any issue
Posted by: Brian from Maine | October 2, 2008 11:35 PM
It is sort of embarrassing to see so many supposedly free thinking, skeptical people making such obviously biased and uninformed statements when it comes to politics. PZ - you should be embarrassed for doing the same things you accuse other of on other issues. I love this blog for discussions regarding evolution and science, but when it gets into economics, foreign affairs, etc. PZ and many of the posters here fall into the same trap they so eagerly trash others for in areas of science: ready acceptance of comments that conform to your preconceived view, a failure to delve beyond the surface and reliance on rhetoric. As a proud independent and a fierce skeptic, I have been a bit embarrassed to read this blog the past few weeks. Both political parties are a joke and both of these candidates were dreadful in terms of articulating decent policy. Any suggestions where I can find an intelligent discussion on some of these issues?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 11:39 PM
The question will now be how many suckers out there will now think Palin really is smart and brilliant and we've had it all wrong all along - ala Couric interview, Tiny Fey etc.
sick the paparazzi on her, and make sure she's off-script again, and she'll fold just like with Katie.
That's what happens with Stepford wives. They really were never programed to go "off script". If forced to, they get all hinky, and sometimes go on psychotic killing sprees.
That's the inherent danger of choosing a Stepford wife over a real woman as a running mate.
OTOH, if she breaks, we can make another one that looks just like her.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 2, 2008 11:41 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/10/02/politics/horserace/entry4497035.shtml
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 11:41 PM
Brain from Maine:
"Thanks for your concern. It is noted, and stupid."
Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 11:42 PM
*Yawn*
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 2, 2008 11:43 PM
Seventy-one percent are still uncommitted.
*head-fucking-desk*
Posted by: E.V. | October 2, 2008 11:44 PM
Just who was holding a gun to your head Brian? Feel free to look anywhere you like. If you are looking for any one of us to tell you where to go, feel free to read between the lines Buttmunch.Posted by: pcarini | October 2, 2008 11:45 PM
@Grammar RWA (#474): Damn, they can sure slice the "early results" from 473 voters a lot of ways...
Posted by: CBBB | October 2, 2008 11:45 PM
I think, PZ, you're getting a flood of angry Republicans coming in pretending to be longtime readers.
How dare you comment on politics!
Posted by: Armed Pacifist | October 2, 2008 11:47 PM
I watched the whole thing and thought Biden did pretty well staying on issues and records. My prediction is that the MSM will spend an inordinate amount of analysis time on how mean it was of Biden to grin whenever Palin brought out another whopper about McCain's record or expounded her parochial world view.
Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 2, 2008 11:49 PM
Brian #472,
MORE! MORE! MORRRRRE!
The sort of whine your kind produce is my fav-o-rite!
Posted by: BobC | October 2, 2008 11:49 PM
I look at http://electoralmarkets.com/ frequently because I think it's an accurate prediction of who will win each state. Right now it's looking good and it gives me hope for the future.
270 Delegates Needed for Majority
Expected: Obama 311.5 McCain 226.5
Leaning: Obama 338 McCain 200
Probabilities: Obama 67.3 McCain 32.7
Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 2, 2008 11:55 PM
No. What are you, new to politics?
Posted by: Stephanurus | October 2, 2008 11:56 PM
No way was this debate a "tie" or a win for Palin (despite what Ed Rollins thinks). Biden was knowledgeable, professional, real, and unrehearsed. Palin was folksy, cute, and full of rehearsed fluff. She will have impressed a lot of folks, mostly fence-sitting Republicans, who want to see some slight evidence of ability to to the VP job. If Palin is seen as competent as a result of this debate, then this country is in more danger from an idiotic electorate than an idiotic president/vp.
Posted by: Kel | October 2, 2008 11:57 PM
I'm guessing Brian from Maine is Scott from Oregon's long lost twin?
Posted by: Dahan | October 2, 2008 11:57 PM
Brian from Maine,
Nope, none at all. You're looking for a leader and party that you can agree with perfectly. You've already made up your mind what you want to hear. Since I don't know exactly what you think, it's impossible to give you guidance.
Criminy, it's grating to hear people like you insinuate that those of us backing a candidate are 100% in line with them. As has been asked thousands of times here and elsewhere, you've got to choose between two of them, who you gonna go with? One is obviously more of a nutter than the other. Choice made.
Maybe you could start your own fantasy campaign, then you could vote for yourself, someone you agree with completely. Problem solved.
"A" for caring. "F" for dealing with reality. Overall grade "D+". Passing, but the student has not shown mastery of this topic. One can forsee real problems as they move onto more complex issues on the topic.
Posted by: writzer | October 2, 2008 11:57 PM
@ 411 Kel ...
Summer's coming on for you but, alas, it's ebbing away from us. Thanks to LeeLeeOne, I'm lapping up a triple measure of Sapphire to blot out the terror of the 'debate.' Tomorrow, I lay in a supply of fall and winter warmers ... cognac, rum, maybe some port and dark chocolate, and perhaps a cigar or two. I feel a bunker winter coming on; the economy, the election, the cold. Best to build a fire, pour a drink and read a book.
Posted by: Tulse | October 2, 2008 11:59 PM
Slate agrees with some other posters: Gwen Ifill lost this debate.
Which is sad, really, because I think she does a pretty decent job on Washington Week, and is generally a thoughtful commentator.
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 12:04 AM
As long as it isn't white rum, sounds like a great plan. Almost makes me wish it were winter coming on so I could do the same... Though I'm spending a month of my summer in Finland so I suppose I can do similar.Posted by: Sioux Laris | October 3, 2008 12:04 AM
Anyone still reading this? If so, would you indulge me by freeping this small-paper poll about the debate?
http://www.chicoer.com/
In the middle of the page.
Posted by: Kevin | October 3, 2008 12:08 AM
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/2/205127/601/705/612540
polls
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 12:09 AM
Posted by: Stephanurus | October 2, 2008 11:56 PM
Indeed, and especially when said candidate openly admits that she would seek to expand the powers of an already power-drunk Vice Presidential office.
This was the one question she needed to nail to win moderates, and she completely failed. Among the many things about this administration we cannot afford to continue, it is exactly the expansion of the powers of the executive - free from legislative scrutiny - is most certainly the most prominent.
Posted by: The Cheerful Nihilist | October 3, 2008 12:10 AM
@The RevBigDumbChimp KoT OM wherever he is right now.
Palin reminds me of some one
Thank you (and all the pharyngulaists who have put up with me learning how to do this over the past few threads) for your patience.
T'was the "" that was stopping me, not the anchor (though in my case I've been bereft of any anchors, moral or otherwise, most of my life).
And keeping on thread, a comment about Palin. Now that she got all cute with Joe Biden . . .
"Is John McCain gonna have to choke a bitch?"
(Chappelle Show w/ Wayne Grady.)
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 12:12 AM
Not really *in* the mountains as such, but it's near the mountains. What you must remember is that mountains in Australia aren't that big, the highest one is just over 2km high. So in winter we get a windchill off those mountains but it never snows here.So yeah, there's a little bit of information about the great southern land. Nice weather today though, high 20s (celcius people), blue skies, not much wind. I can't wait to get home this evening and crack open a nice beer. Good beer too, not that generic flavourless crap that most people drink.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 3, 2008 12:13 AM
http://www.ratethedebates.org/
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 12:16 AM
Posted by: Brian from Maine | October 2, 2008 11:35 PM
Here's a good three-step process for that:
1. Go find someplace (anyplace will do).
2. Look around.
3. If you're there, then you might as well keep looking.
Posted by: David | October 3, 2008 12:17 AM
I was extremely saddened that Biden does not support gay marriage. This is Christianity's fault.
Posted by: Jadehawk | October 3, 2008 12:17 AM
I didn't watch it but just read a quick transcript of the economy part.. and it sounds like every time Palin says something, she ends up being smacked over the head with data by Biden.
Which I imagine looks like meany Biden is attacking poor, adorable Palin (to those who don't pay attention to data)
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 12:17 AM
Maybe I missed y'all's comments on this in my quick scan of the thread, but didn't anyone notice that la Palin wants to increase the power of the vice president. AFTER Dick Cheney, she thinks the VP needs a bigger role???? The fuckin' mind boggles!
Also, am I the only one who thought she sounded like she was doing an impression of Tina Fey doing an impression of Sarah Palin? Do we really want a VP (almost certain to become president) who talks like a backwoods kindergarten teacher talking to unruly 5 year olds?
Posted by: KristinMH | October 3, 2008 12:18 AM
Good idea, Gary...although Harper is already such a creepy liver-lipped mandroid, it's more likely to make me find clowns repulsive than Harper funny.
Oh, and Kel...
*wraps herself in many sweaters, huddles next to a fire and cries*
Posted by: antaresrichard | October 3, 2008 12:19 AM
I was on my way home and walking past a place of business when a well dressed employee came outside for a cigarette break. He was gloating on his cell phone, "Palin's beating Biden's ass! Yeah, we're watching it now and Palin's beating his ass!"
What is this crap I thought. Then I noticed his profession. He was a used car salesperson, so busy pitching it all day long, a sty must smell like Heaven.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | October 3, 2008 12:20 AM
Whenever I see someone with a name of the the form "[Common name] from [Place]" I know their comments are gonna be full of shit.
Posted by: thumpthumpeyes | October 3, 2008 12:21 AM
PZ these comments are so thoroughly entertaining, cant imagine why the handful of whingers are knocking it...keep it up folks its better and more informative than anything else about the debate that I can find.
Posted by: Azkyroth | October 3, 2008 12:23 AM
Now that I'm finally out of my worthless "We swear to god this isn't remedial" chemistry class, can someone kindly tell me how to watch the motherfucking debate without having it chopped up into a billion pieces that don't add up to the full length and may or may not be relevant?
Posted by: Jeremy | October 3, 2008 12:24 AM
I was disappointed that Palin demonstrated relative coherence tonight after the inanity of her Couric interview. Still, I think Biden gave more specifics about policy, where Palin was vague. Palin stuck to "this is what we need to do" rather than "this is how we need to do it." On top of that, her "what we need to do" was in direct opposition to Republican positions most of the time. Does she really support equal right for homosexuals? Does she really support REAL alternative energy?
On top of that, she kept twisting the topics to match her rehearsed talking points, rather than answering the freaking questions.
I don't know how many people picked up on these things. Maybe the fact that she didn't break down and run off stage makes her a winner in some peoples' eyes. In the end though, it seems like little more than a draw. Same with the first Obama/McCain debate. I don't think the Democrats are going to rock the boat much as long as they're in the lead.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | October 3, 2008 12:29 AM
Brian from Maine; #472
I too share a distain for the "political shenanigans" both parties have pulled over the years...but to visit a science blog expecting some kind of deep, intelligent, political discourse is simply not a valid or well-reasoned expectation for this site.
And given the fact you visited a science blog to talk politics is of acute concern...have you ever thought about professional help for this variation of behavior? In summary, you seem to be in the wrong place to placate your wishes.
Posted by: The Cheerful Nihilist | October 3, 2008 12:31 AM
Azkyroth #505
Now why the hell would you want to subject yourself to that? It was a non-event. Just read the thread of a hundred drunken mavens and let that be your entertainment. (You'll be a big hit with your colleagues because of your skewered point of view!)
You'll be considered a spin-meister by all.
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 12:31 AM
I don't know how anyone can expect a blog with a description saying "Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal" would be fair and balanced. Of course it's going to be opinionated and one-sided, no-one should expect any less. Just because it's one-sided though, it doesn't mean it's invalid...
Posted by: redf | October 3, 2008 12:32 AM
I found this debate much more interesting than the presidential debate. Regarding Biden and him denying gay marriage: Biden is Catholic and his beliefs from that conclude that marriage should be from a man and a woman. But Biden is smart and tolerant so he realizes that that is his personal opinion and he does not have the right to deny the individual his or her rights. Biden doesn't have to like gay marriage but he won't deny the right to anybody. Palin did not fall flat on her face, she spoke of McCain as the maverick as if he some sort of pop icon. That was annoying and pointless to say because there is no substance behind it. And personally I think the democrats would have this election if Biden were running for president and Obama for VP.
Posted by: Grammar RWA | October 3, 2008 12:39 AM
That's fucking poll gold!
Posted by: Jeeves | October 3, 2008 12:42 AM
In any measurement of truth, facts, justice, intelligence and humanity, Biden was the clear winner. Although I wasn't too pleased to hear what they agreed on.
-No gay marriage
- Support Israel no matter the circumstance (Haven't they read Bin Laden's speeches? He says repeatedly that America's historical support for Israel is a major reason for terror attacks)
- Saber rattling from both sides. Obama talks tough about Pakistan, Biden wants more money and troops to Afghanistan. McCain/Palin want more troops and money into Iraq and I have little doubt McCain has his eye on Iran as another possible target.
But to reiterate: on energy, education, infrastructure, not killing puppies etc, etc...There can be no rational choice beyond Obama/Biden as Biden continually showed tonight.
Posted by: Scrabcake | October 3, 2008 12:43 AM
Palin won because when she talks, regardless on whether her ideas or good or not, people in Boganville Utah say "wow! she understands the issues that I worry about! She knows what it's like to be a PTA member/churchgoer in Boganville! She is going to look out for MY interests" She has a folksy way of speaking that strikes right into the heart of just about every small town between Philadelphia
and San Francisco. She is the MESSIAH in their worldview.
Her speeches also make a point of stroking the egos of middle america, telling them that they deserve to be proud of themselves, that there is something inherently great in being "country."
I'll leave you to take that thought to its conclusion.
Posted by: maynard | October 3, 2008 12:44 AM
Was there a winner? Who knows. It's up to the individual to decide. Palin didn't drop any "bombs" of stupidity, at least not that I heard (I have to admit that my girlfriend and I talked about comments that left us missing some of the debate).
Palin didn't lose. But Biden didn't win. Not my personal opinion (I give Biden the trophy). But based on what I know of my family and coworkers view points, which I can rarely agree with personally, make me think that the debate will go down as a tie.
I can only hope that what Biden said about "marriage" was only to avoid losing those on the fence. Relating it to religion shares my point of view. Churches define "marriage". The US Govenrnment has no authority to say one way or the other.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 3, 2008 12:48 AM
3. If you're there, then you might as well keep looking.
LOL
Posted by: Jeeves | October 3, 2008 12:50 AM
Okay, just to put some nuance on my first point, I suppose that Biden is more intellectually? spiritually? open to the idea of gay marriage but is opposed to it for personal reasons. (Intellectually? Spiritually? (I'm tired) ) So I guess its decent of him to let it be a state by state thing and not the law of the land, no matter his personal prejudices. I'm not so sure I can say the same of Sarah Palin. Although I do like the gambit of "One of my best friends is gay". Reminds me of Colbert trying to find a black best friend.
Posted by: mac | October 3, 2008 12:54 AM
Palin is an automaton who needs to be fed data that she relays back in that sing-song 10th grade voice - in the rote way kids do when reciting. You almost listen for the recess bell to go off.
She's a monster in tights and was obviously coached within an inch of her life. She kept steering the debate back to her talking points like a robot.
By contrast Joe was relaxed, genial, sharp as a tack and HUMAN. He completely upended her rehearsed defences of McCain and left her with nothing to say ... why ... because she was afraid to stray off her notes unless it involved cliches and folksy BS that she churns out like there's no tomorrow.
She's a pretty face on a broken and discredited ideology that they're trying to rev up with "reform" and "maverick" BS. Joe took the ground out from under her time and again on that fiction.
Posted by: CW | October 3, 2008 12:55 AM
C'mon, this is the US Presidential election we're talking about, it's between moderate conservatives and more extreme conservatives. There is no left here, just shades of right. The "lefties" in the American system (like Kucinich, say) are barely left of centre when seen from outside the US.Posted by: Ichthyic | October 3, 2008 12:57 AM
I really liked the comment I've seen a couple of times now, and on different blogs:
"Biden was arguing with a tape recorder"
seems to sum it up pretty well.
Posted by: FlameDuck | October 3, 2008 1:08 AM
Being human and presidential eh? How exactly does that trump being a flag-waving cheerleader? In America. Have you not been paying attention these last 8 years? McCain and Palin are going to win. Why? Because the average IQ in the USA is apparently 92, and people aren't going to vote for someone smarter than themselves. You don't want a smart government, you want a dumb one. One you think you can cheat. And for that McCain/Palin fit the bill perfectly. Well she's obviously lying. There aren't any gay (or smart) people in Alaska. Too cold, moist and dark. Ideal living conditions for Funghi perhaps, but not proper, decent people. You don't move to Alaska, unless you're really out of options. Like say Wanted by the FBI. I'll bet anything Osama Bin Laden is hiding in Alaska, last place on Earth they'd think to look for a person, much less an Arab.Posted by: raven | October 3, 2008 1:08 AM
The data shows that 80% of the US population lives in what the US census calls "metropolitan" areas. The folks in Boogerville or Lower Boondock might love Palin. So she has the ignorant white trash and christofascist vote sewed up tight. So what, the majority of the US aren't in that demographic.
And things aren't going well even in Lower Boondocks. Their kids go off to war and come back mangled if they come back alive. College which was cheap and affordable 30 years ago is now sticker shock expensive. Inflation roars along and unemployment is going up while they see hordes of people being foreclosed on. And now they are told the government has to bail out people on WS that quite truly make more in a month than they will make in their lifetime.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | October 3, 2008 1:09 AM
This stuff exceeds vaudeville.
Like the pres debate, I heard all on the radio (try it sometime - it forces you to concentrate on what is SAID, not on how they say it or what they look like saying it).
Joe? You are a masterful and passionate speaker. Just make damned sure you follow through on what you said. We'll hold you to it.
Sarah? Dear? You're flunked. I DO NOT WANT a "hockey mom" or female "Joe-Sixpack" who brainlessly recited that it was a mess on "Main Street" that caused the problem on "Wall Street". You obviously have no convictions other than that which serves your own personal interest. Go home.
Liberal atheists? Isn't it at least possible that the Dem ticket gives us enough credit for the brains not to be perturbed by their expressions of godness, as they apply it (unlike the other side, whose vote they still need to win)?
Or are we as politically stupid as McCain/palin think we are?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | October 3, 2008 1:15 AM
Both candidates appeared well prepared and neither committed any serious gaffes.
Palin played the 'folksy' card well although, to an outsider, it grated because it sounded patronising. Her camp will be hoping that 'middle America' likes having its ego stroked in that way and maybe they're right.
Biden played a good tactical game. He sounded more experienced and authoritative and concentrated his fire on McCain rather than his opponent. He avoided appearing to bully her but, at the same time, managed to imply she was small potatoes without actually saying it.
Overall, I'd say Biden edged it but basically that's because I find him less annoying than she is. There are clearly plenty of people who fall for her 'fauxy' style, however and, since these debates are judged more on style than substance, maybe she did better for them.
It'll be interesting to see what effect, if anything, this has on the numbers in the serious polls.
Posted by: Patricia | October 3, 2008 1:16 AM
Palin showed her coaching. But the down home cute, hey Joe, and winking bullshit about made me barf. She said she wasn't going to answer the questions - and hey, she didn't.
Joe screwed up big time with the Strom Thurman remark.
She played the cute card. It only works with men and idiot women. I'd have smacked her tits together and punched her in the nose.
Posted by: Kel | October 3, 2008 1:19 AM
Shit, the whole world is doomed!Posted by: Greg | October 3, 2008 1:20 AM
Um, really people. Does this debate even matter, in the long run? Sarah Palin is a creationist. She believes that human beings lived with Dinosaurs, and not in the catchy Was Not Was "Walk The Dinosaur" way. Based on this fact, and ONLY this fact, alone, it's clear that she's insane, as all creationists are, and should not be Vice President, Governor, Mayor, or in the grand scheme of things, breathing my fucking air.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | October 3, 2008 1:21 AM
Sarah Palin's definition of "maverick":
"Ah, you know, somebody who doesn't just tock the tock but wocks the wock."
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 3, 2008 1:24 AM
Sarah Palin is a creationist.
did that even come up in the debate?
hmmm.
Posted by: Peter Kemp (Aussie Lawyer) | October 3, 2008 1:33 AM
I think in politics it's always a choice between the worst of two "evils". From the transcripts, blogs, Huffpo etc it would seem to me that Biden not only won convincingly on points, but despite the god bothering stuff is much the lesser evil in his Obamarama ticket.
(As for this "maverick" pap, wouldn't it be better if she joined a real "maverick" [from the Bushovic point of view], to wit one Vladmir Putin, on his ticket as Veep candidate next time around? She could irresistably promise Russians to reverse the old deal and buy back Alaska from the US!)
I can see the headlines:
Posted by: natural cynic | October 3, 2008 1:34 AM
Biden gave some good responses to the meme that McCain & Palin were mavericks. But he missed the best one: How can you be a maverick when your campaign staff is chock full of lobbyists?
Palin? With the way she talks and her lack of serious attention to the issues and folksy talk, she is like the Guy in the American Express commercial who whips out his cartoon credit card during the important international business luncheon. She will play about that well on the international stage. Palin? Sound serious?? do ya' think???
Posted by: BMS | October 3, 2008 1:35 AM
Patricia,
Can I have ur baby?
Just 'cuz.
Posted by: scooter | October 3, 2008 1:43 AM
Probably not really Black Bellamy lamented:
You know PZ, I first came to Pharyngula because I share your concerns about evolution vs creationism and atheism
[snip]
I won't be coming back. I don't need to be aggravated by your personal attacks and to wade through the same shrill partisan claptrap that pollutes so much of the blogosphere nowadays.
As a conservative Republican ....Blah Blah Blah.
for a conservative, he isn't very educated on the current usage of the word Liberal, clearly printed at the top of the page.
"Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal"
I guess he went off to play at the conservative atheist blog. Not a lot of traffic, but at least everybody agrees.
Posted by: nicknick bobick | October 3, 2008 1:44 AM
Biden was like a fine wine and Palin was like a weak champagne: pleasingly robust versus "bubbly".
Joe brought substance and Sarah brought talking points.
Posted by: lytefoot | October 3, 2008 1:51 AM
Only one thing:
NUCLEAR! NU-CLE-AR! Where do they even GET "nookyular"? I remember (vaguely) being seven years old, and having to have it explained to me that those were meant to be the same word. What is WRONG with these people!?
Posted by: Phyllis | October 3, 2008 1:55 AM
Followed a link to this poll. Where the f*$# are these people's brains?
http://www.drudgereport.com/
{{{{DRUDGE POLL}}}} WHO WON THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?...
BIDEN 29% 62,664
PALIN 70% 151,725
NEITHER 2% 3,717
Total Votes: 218,106
Posted by: scooter | October 3, 2008 1:58 AM
Brownian, OM wrote
Beer -nose-sting
Posted by: Cafeeine | October 3, 2008 2:12 AM
It is, I have always though, a derivative of thinking of nuclear bombs as "nukes". Nuke=>Nuke-ular.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | October 3, 2008 2:17 AM
Biden, though repetitive at times, definitely came out on top. The lower-than-expected amount of Palin blunders was a bit of a buzzkill (and believe you me, I had a buzz); but her next interview (whenever that will be) should have her back to her normal clueless self.
The debate is currently replaying on Faux & MSNBC, FWIW.
Posted by: teej | October 3, 2008 2:37 AM
Jim Lippard -
You may want to read this article from the Freakonomics blog on how the Intrade presidential election markets may be being manipulated.
Posted by: IAmMarauder | October 3, 2008 2:39 AM
Well, I listened to the debate (thanks for the link Scooter), and I must say it was an experience for me.
Firstly: I have to say the moderator of the debate needed to do a better job. If the participant asks if they can go off topic shouldn't the answer be "No, please answer the question as asked"?
Secondly: Well, if I never knew that Palin was the governor of Alaska, and that it had oil supplies, I sure as hell would after the debate. It was actually somewhat impressive that she worked it into so many answers.
In my opinion - Biden won. You could tell he was getting annoyed (I am sure I heard more than one hefty sigh from him), and his emotional moment showed that he too is a "normal person" who has had to deal with more than political issues. I also think he timed his more aggresive "attacks" well - he left them until later in the game so that they would stand out more and had more impact overall. To me he is the better choice of the two for the role.
I am not sure if all electoral debates are like this though - this is my first time observing one of these and it is nothing like the debates I have seen on TV for our elections (ok, I admit it - I am a damned Aussie). Ah well, will be interesting to see who ends up winning the election.
Posted by: merkin j pustart | October 3, 2008 2:48 AM
I think she said "maverick" about the same amount times the word "fvck" was used in Scarface.
Posted by: Buford | October 3, 2008 3:03 AM
It may be too late to be seen by most of the regulars, but I wanted to refer you to Jon Talton's blog "Rogue Columnist" at www.roguecolumnist.typepad.com. He is a professional journalist from Arizona who knows McCain's 'record' very well. He is starting a meme "Republicans: the party that wrecked America". Repeat it often.
Posted by: Emmet Caulfield | October 3, 2008 3:18 AM
Just started watching the debate, and Palin sounds so much like Tootsie with all the "darn right" folksy shit, that I'm expecting her to pull off a wig to reveal Dustin Hoffman.
Posted by: Michael from Idaho | October 3, 2008 3:21 AM
I was disappointed in Biden's response to the gay marriage question. How does he think these folks are going to get hospital visitation rights, life insurance benefits, and the like without a legally recognized marriage? I don't get it.
I probably should have been disappointed in Palin's response as well, but she said exactly what I expected her to say.
Regarding the Drudge report poll, that doesn't surprise me at all. He's a conservative / Populist and a majority of the people who visit his site are similarly (m)aligned.
On a closing note, I saw another one of those ignorant "Liberalism is a mental disorder" bumper stickers on the way home from the pharmacy today. I don't think ANY of these people have bothered to look up liberalism in a dictionary. Such is the cost of ignorance.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade» | October 3, 2008 3:29 AM
@ merkin [#541],
I checked CNN's transcript, and it appears that she said "maverick" only 6 times -- which was surprising, as I thought I heard at least 15. Biden beat her on that, though, when he slammed McCain with 9 "not a maverick"s.
However, since the campaign began, yes, Pacino had nothing on McCain/Palin's overuse of the word.
Posted by: Vidar | October 3, 2008 3:40 AM
Did anyone really think this would turn out differently?
Posted by: cap | October 3, 2008 3:56 AM
haha i was about to post a link to the druge poll, but searched the comments beforehand. palin's gone down 2% (from 70% to 68%) but still... i'm not sure i was watching the same debate as those people.
Posted by: uriel | October 3, 2008 4:37 AM
Yes it is... one of the most frightening, alarm-triggering and dangerous words ever coined.
And I'm sure her base ate it up.
But, ultimately, I'm glad she said it- prior to that I was voting against the McCain/Palin ticket because I suspected that the Palin pick indicated that McCain had rejected any credibility he might have in order to whore himself, and his country, out to a marginal group of American's who's only claim to self-confidence is to revel in their jingoistic, knee-jerk bigotry and xenophobia.
Now I know that's exactly what he did.
Posted by: Rainah | October 3, 2008 4:39 AM
Going into watching the debates, I knew almost nothing about either candidate. Of course, I'd heard about Palin's blunders, but I was pretty sure she'd get coached out of the worst of it and I was right.
I agree that I was very disappointed that the only thing they really seemed to agree on was that two people with the same genitalia can't get married. Nope, not in America.
Here's what I don't understand: who is Sarah Palin appealing to? Who's buying her insincere down-home shtick? What is so terribly wrong with a vice presidential candidate (or a presidential candidate for that matter) looking and acting presidential? You know, not saying "heck" and "doggonnit" like a PTA mom afraid to cuss in front of the little angels ... on national television. Not winking at the camera. Politicians running for the highest office in the land are NOT just like the average American and I don't see why that's such a bad thing.
Posted by: Rey Fox | October 3, 2008 6:27 AM
"Here's what I don't understand: who is Sarah Palin appealing to?"
Idiots.
Posted by: Dark Matter | October 3, 2008 8:21 AM
It was incredibly obvious when Palin was trying to answer something that she had sort of been briefed on but hadn't cared much about before. She'd start rambling like none other, jumping from talking point to talking point; I told my roommate it was like reading an in-class essay exam written by someone who skipped all the lectures, downloaded the skeleton outline notes, and memorized all the bullet points, but didn't really know anything about the context or meaning of each term and was now writing everything down in a desperate attempt to get some credit. Also, she seemed to be getting a bit nervous about 20-30 minutes in - though that might just be my wishful imagination.
On gay marriage: I got the impression that Biden opposed forcing churches to give marriage rites to gay couples, but not denying gay couples the legal rights of a heterosexual couple. While I think that this sort of wholesale discrimination by most religious institutions is rubbish, there's no way Obama/Biden could say that they'd consider making churches let two people of the same sex marry and still be elected. I don't really see what's so magic about the word "marriage," other than the legal benefits associated with it, and full civil rights are a hell of a step up in most states. I could be wrong about Obama/Biden's position, of course, but I thought he spoke fairly strongly about it right before the gay-marriage soundbite.
Posted by: Dark Matter | October 3, 2008 8:26 AM
Ugh, I meant that he opposed denying gay couple legal rights...
Posted by: Roger Stanyard | October 3, 2008 8:43 AM
(not my ditty btw):
There is a would be VP from Alaska.
Who thinks teaching evolution a disaster.
So she's hiked up her skirt.
and started to flirt.
Because she doesn't want Rapture to go past her.
Roger
Posted by: Cannabinaceae | October 3, 2008 8:51 AM
Every time she winked I got extremely angry - a totally visceral reaction; instinctual; reflexive. Why is that?
Every time she said "maverick" I spluttered and rolled my eyes.
Yeah yeah - I drank at the wink and the "maverick" 'n stuff. I also shouted things like "Jesus Fuck." I didn't actually splutter my IPA all over the Berber carpeting, thank goodness. It looked to me like the Xanax started wearing off around half an hour into things.
But I also got angry at Biden's waffling on gay marriage and perseveration about
safe smokingclean coal.Posted by: Herod the Freemason | October 3, 2008 8:57 AM
If you don't believe Palin understands what it can be like to support a position and then later oppose it, she's got a bridge to sell you, and a big basket of earmarks.Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 8:59 AM
Because she's annoying with her Buffyism
Posted by: maureen | October 3, 2008 9:12 AM
Azkyroth @ 505
If you really must the the whole debate - in one chunk - is on the BBC News website.
I would recommend knitting a sock instead.
Posted by: CC Canada | October 3, 2008 9:14 AM
Does McCain seem like he's selling out to anyone else. If he wanted to be a real "Maverick" he would have chosen someone with real intelligence, not steal the change theme, not vote for regulation, etc.... PS - Speaking as an "American Outsider", an Obama win would instantly help America's foreign image. I think America is a great country full of generous, kind, intelligent people and I hope real change for you is coming.
Posted by: kryptonic | October 3, 2008 9:20 AM
Check out the Obama iPhone App. Obama and his staff are running an amazing campaign. Meanwhile McCain hasn't yet figured out how the intertubes work. Also, his staff come off as incompetent boobs most of the time (remember the tire gauges, picking Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina and golden parachutes, a campaign suspension that wasn't).
Can we even call these events debates? They are more like dueling press conferences.
As an Ohioan I see race playing a big role come election time. There are people I know that are democrats but when they get into the voting booth, the fear of the black man will, at the last second, cause them to push the McCain touchpad icon. I hope I am wrong. Also, watch out for "irregularities" with electronic voting machines, which are made by companies (i.e. Diebold) that contribute to republican candidates.
Are you prepared for the widespread riots when McCain wins?
Oh, the Joe vs. Bible Spice "debate" was difficult to sit through but in the end, the answer to the question "who is not ready to be Vice President of the US?" is obvious to anyone but fact-challenged, Fox "News"-watching, wingnut sheeple.
McCain*Palin: Thanks, but no thanks.
Posted by: frog | October 3, 2008 9:39 AM
PZ: You did get that Biden was for separating civil and religious marriage, din'cha?
He explicitly said that he wanted all legal rights to be identical between gay and straight "committed" couples, leaving the word "marriage" to the churches. In short, the elimination of "marriage" as a legal concept, replaced by civil unions as the state-recognized concept.
Then he cornered Palin into agreeing -- yes, the last was too clever for much of the electorate, but I found it quite enjoyable.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 9:43 AM
Not just a meme; it's a documented fact! I haven't read Franks' book yet, but I feel confident recommending it based on having heard several in-depth
radiopodcast interviews with him. Here's the key quote:Michael (@544):
We need to think strategically about this issue. As you point out, a separate-but-equal policy is ridiculous. As lawyers (and as a constitutional scholar, in Obama's case), Biden and Obama (who, unlike Palin, could almost certainly name Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education) surely know that separate-but-equal can't possibly be anything other than a transitional form.
I'm not accusing them of dissembling: Biden is from working-class Catholic roots and Obama is a churchgoer as well; they probably come by their traditionalist notions of marriage honestly. But I'm confident they both care more about equity and civil rights than about tradition: Speaking out for civil unions as a matter of civil rights, as Biden did last night, paves the road for the inevitable establishment of full marriage equality.
Actually, I think full marriage equality is inevitable in any case: If my observation of my daughter's friends is any guide, once the kids who are teens today are running the world, full marriage rights for gays won't even be a question. But we'll get to that moment quicker (and with less tsuris) if we elect Democrats who, regardless of their personal beliefs, won't waste any effort opposing gay marriage than if we elect Republicans who think it's An Abomination Before God™.
Timing matters in this stuff. For instance, I think Bill Clinton inadvertently set back the cause of gays in the military by campaigning on that point in 1992: Immediately after he was inaugurated, gay activists began to beg him (and anti-gay activists began to dare him) to fulfill his campaign promise right now. The time wasn't ripe, though, and the best he could do at that moment in history was the execrable don't-ask-don't-tell policy... which has (IMHO) set the cause back for a decade and a half now, to the objective detriment of not only gays but the nation's security. It's impossible to prove, of course, but I think a more measured, deliberate approach to change would've led to a better policy sooner, no matter how frustrating it would've been for those 1992 activists.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | October 3, 2008 9:44 AM
Am I the only one who inter-relates the earlier post about the 12-year-old who parrots badly remembered answers to goofy questions back to her mother as if the teacher actually said exactly what she "remembered" with Sarah Palin's memorization of a set of statements?
Does Palin actually understand much of anything or does she memorize talking points? And if you held an unscheduled "debate" or interview with her tomorrow would she still remember them? How many of us retained what we crammed overnight for longer than a few days or weeks?
Maybe it's just me?
Posted by: windy | October 3, 2008 9:54 AM
Betty Boop for President
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 10:03 AM
kryptonic:
I agree wholeheartedly, and this is what kills the whole "no experience" argument against Obama: For both Obama and McCain, the only realy executive experience they've had is running these campaigns (i.e., McCain has never been a governor or CEO, and he was passed over for command of a ship in the Navy). Obama's campaign has been incredibly professional and forward-looking; McCain's campaign has been a frickin' train wreck (they had to virtually shut down during the primaries at one point) and antiquated. Of course, I don't think any experience truly prepares anyone for the bizarre, singular job of POTUS... but if you're looking for evidence of these two men's top management skills and approaches, look no further than their respective campaigns.
frog:
I didn't hear Biden's comments as calling for the elimination of civil marriage... or at least, he wasn't saying that in clear, explicit terms, even if he was trying to hint at it. That's actually what I favor — the "radical" step of getting the state out of the who-has-sex-with-whom business altogether — but I fear it's a "bridge too far" at this political moment. I don't think the American public is there yet. If your reading of Biden's position is correct, I'll be very happy... but I also think he should be very circumspect about saying it out loud.
Posted by: Farb | October 3, 2008 10:13 AM
At the "Joe Six-Pack/Hockey Mom" comment, I turned to my lovely wife of 28 1/2 years and remarked,
I guess that means that the Republicans want me to become an alcoholic, and you to become a bitch."
PZ, when will you be in Kearney, Nebraska? Run your schedule again.
Posted by: frog | October 3, 2008 10:14 AM
BD: If your reading of Biden's position is correct, I'll be very happy... but I also think he should be very circumspect about saying it out loud.
That's what was so winning about it -- he avoided setting off the bigots, while making a very radical suggestion and forcing Palin to agree!
BIDEN: Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.
The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted -- same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That's only fair.
It's what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.
The bottom line though is, and I'm glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that's the case, we really don't have a difference.
IFILL: Is that what your said?
PALIN: Your question to him was whether he supported gay marriage and my answer is the same as his and it is that I do not.
IFILL: Wonderful. You agree. On that note, let's move to foreign policy.
Laughter followed on the cornering of Palin.
In short, churches can call civil unions whatever they want -- marriage or not -- but from a legal standpoint they'd all be exactly the same.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 10:41 AM
frog:
You're giving Biden credit for a bit more political ju jitsu than I can quite muster up, but I dearly hope you're right and I'm wrong, because this...
...is precisely the position I advocate.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 10:44 AM
I just have to say, I've read a lot of reaction to the V.P. debate (disclosure: rabid political junkie), and this thread here at Pharyngula is probably the best discussion I've seen yet. Y'all rock, and beat the pants off of the "political" sites (especially the non-American reactions from across the pond and down under).
Couple of points:
Joe Biden also teaches constitutional law. See here.
Exactly: this is the beauty of the Obama/Biden position. They're trying to take the hot-button issue of "marriage" off the table. As Sen. Biden said last night, there'll be "absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint." Totally moots the loaded word "marriage" by making civil unions indistinguishable (from a legal standpoint, which is the only thing the government can have influence over under the Constitution).
Palin's answers, unsurprisingly, simply made no sense. In fact, the only answer she gave that was not complete gibberish (from a ConLaw perspective) was the "quasi-Legislative" V.P. Senate position question, wherein she doubled down on Cheney's laughable (literally: constitutional scholars literally scoff at Cheney's jurisprudential "theories") idea of making the V.P. supra-constitutional and unaccountable. Terrifying. She's trying to be CheneyPlusExtra.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 10:55 AM
Good to know. I only made the distinction because I didn't know that about Biden's background; I didn't mean to be diminishing him.
"Terrifying" was my response, too, even without being a constitutional scholar. Olbermann and Maddow both commented on this horrifying vision of "CheneyPlusExtra," but I've been surprised at how little other discussion I've heard of this point. To me, that should have been the single biggest headline coming out of the debate: If you thought the chance of Palin succeeding a President McCain was scary, she's just hit the Fast Forward button on that fear.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 11:10 AM
Didn't think you were. :)
When Obama picked Biden to be V.P. my first reaction (after making the obligatory "clean and articulate" joke) was "Of course! Biden also teaches ConLaw! Perfect choice." That Obama. He impresses me (almost) every time.
Straight up. Also: When asked what the worst thing about the Cheney Vice Presidency was (in the infamous Katie Couric interview), she said, and I quote:
". . . woulda been the duck hunting accident, where, you know, that was, that was an accident. And that was made into a caricature of him, and that was kind of unfortunate."
Firstly; they were quail hunting. Secondly, that is the "worst" thing?! [obvious joke: She thought it was 'unfortunate' because Dick Cheney failed to murder his friend when he shot him in the face. Sarah Palin would have successfully killed him, because she knows how to shoot moose.]
Sarah Palin and John McCain scare the dickens out of anyone that cares about the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by: Thuktun | October 3, 2008 11:14 AM
Clearly some people seem to like listening to her, but for my part I can't imagine why. The smarmy, condescending tone she uses to address questions grates
By "address", I mean the way someone "addresses" a ball in dodgeball.
I had to turn it off halfway through because her tone was making me angry, and it was clear Biden was holding his own just fine.
Posted by: llewelly | October 3, 2008 11:17 AM
Azykroth:
Read the transcript. It's like watching it, but it leaves out irrelevant crap like Palin winking, like Kerry's hairdo, and so forth. Plus, you can paste bits of it into google for fun.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 3, 2008 11:20 AM
Biden's hairdo I assume...
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 11:37 AM
"Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction."
This is the dumbest thing I've seen quoted as intelligent commentary in quite awhile. The neocons with the help of the Democrats GREW the government something like 60% in the last eight years, and completely trod upon freemarket principles. This whole notion that we are in the tank because of "failed" freemarket ideas is frightfully in the realm of cartoon stupidity.
Let's see... regulated interest rates and money supply (by unelected officials of a secretive branch of "government"...
Government making up close to 20% of the entire economy...
A culture of lobbyism and favoritism in Washington, with "subsidies" and "tax breaks" used, as well as the tax code in general, to manipulate markets and create lots of malinvestment...
Etc...
Just WHO are these people making these really dumb assertions, and what kind of an idiot falls for this crap?
The mind boggles...
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 11:43 AM
"When Obama picked Biden to be V.P. my first reaction (after making the obligatory "clean and articulate" joke) was "Of course! Biden also teaches ConLaw! Perfect choice." That Obama. He impresses me (almost) every time."
A pair of Constitutional lawyers who rarely even mention the Constition in their debates, nor stick to its principles in their votes in the Senate.
Great. All we need...
Posted by: Ktesibios | October 3, 2008 11:47 AM
Someone upstream asked if we can even call these events "debates". The answer is: no, we can't.
Does anyone here remember debating back in high school? The debate would be centered on a proposition, e.g., "Resolved: that Republicans should be made to wear their underpants on their heads with the skidmark in front", and the two teams would present arguments in favor of and against the proposition. Now that's how a formal debate actually works.
These things we insist on inflicting on ourselves every election are really no more than overpriced photo ops.
Working late last night i caught only a tiny bit of it on the satellite TV that infests every room in the building, and my reaction to Palin was "Oh quartz. It looks like the Dutch Wife Fairy made another bad pick" (I hope that there are enough dirty-minded Webcomics readers here that I won't need to explain the reference.)
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 11:55 AM
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 11:43 AM
Apparently you missed the response Biden gave when he outlined (quite correctly) the exact duties and responsibilities given the Vice President by our Constitution.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | October 3, 2008 11:58 AM
Finally killfiled Scott. Bye, Scott!
Posted by: SC | October 3, 2008 11:59 AM
Since I haven't seen one by any of the other members of the marketeers club, maybe SfO has a response to this article about Friedman and Hayek and their BFF Pinochet. (Actually, I think he's killfiled me, and I'm crushed, but I link to it for a third time in case anyone interested missed it the first two.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/grandin11172006.html
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 3, 2008 12:00 PM
No, as you can see by putting the cursor on a state: the date of the latest poll comes up.
WTF. Was he drunk?
(Hmmm. Was that actually a rhetorical question, actually?)
Who fared better in the vice presidential debate?
Sen. Joe Biden 67% 276050
Gov. Sarah Palin 28% 115954
Neither 5% 21048
Total Votes: 413052
Who won the VP debate? * 832144 responses
Joe Biden 50%
Sarah Palin 40%
Tie 4.6%
Not sure 5.4%
Scroll to the top of this comment, click on the link, and gaze in wonderment.
Chuck Hagel, the senator from Nebraska who owns ES&S, has had enough of Captain Unelected and is for Obama...
Posted by: Nec_V20 | October 3, 2008 12:02 PM
The only little nit-pick I have with regard to Biden is that the duties and responsibilities of the VEEP are defined in the Article Two of the Constitution and not Article One as he said in the debate.
Although in his defence he might have been talking about Cheney's claim of being in the Legislative branch (defined in Article One) as well as the Executive and trying to disprove that claim.
Otherwise he nailed it and McMILF went down hard.
BTW before anyone posts to call me sexist, just take a look at the CSPAN recording of McMILF accepting the running mate position. The whole time that she was speaking, McCain (standing behind her and off to the left) could not keep his eyes off her ass.
Posted by: Gary Bohn | October 3, 2008 12:06 PM
KristinMH, Yes, Harper could turn the image of what should be a respectable clown into a killer clown but I refuse to allow that in my own mind, because I rather like the movie, something that I can't say of Harper.
0C is cold? If the winter stayed a couple of degrees below 0C, I would be outside dancing naked in the snow.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 12:07 PM
"Apparently you missed the response Biden gave when he outlined (quite correctly) the exact duties and responsibilities given the Vice President by our Constitution."
Nope.
But I also didn't miss his vote on the "bailout" that originated in the senate. The Constitution says it has to originate in the House...
"Since I haven't seen one by any of the other members of the marketeers club, maybe SfO has a response to this article about Friedman and Hayek and their BFF Pinochet..."
I saw that. I also took note of Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, N. Korea and all other Central State countries.
Ummm, no thank you.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 12:16 PM
Hmpf. First of all: Mentioning the Constitution in these "debates" we're privy to here in th' States is considered to be a bad political move, because the audience think's it's booooring (see, also, regulatory frameworks, science, and all other substantative issues. Sigh.). Don't hate th' player; hate th' game.
Secondly, no politician is perfect. But the obvious rejoinder is that Obama and Biden have voted in line with their ideas of constitutional jurisprudence with much greater consistency and vigor than almost any other previous candidate (and especially compared to John McCain).
Thirdly, see here for Biden's recent answer about to Katie Couric's question about Supreme Court cases he disagrees with. See here for Gov. Palin's answer. Compare and contrast.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 12:17 PM
Hmpf. First of all: Mentioning the Constitution in these "debates" we're privy to here in th' States is considered to be a bad political move, because the audience think's it's booooring (see, also, regulatory frameworks, science, and all other substantative issues. Sigh.). Don't hate th' player; hate th' game.
Secondly, no politician is perfect. But the obvious rejoinder is that Obama and Biden have voted in line with their ideas of constitutional jurisprudence with much greater consistency and vigor than almost any other previous candidate (and especially compared to John McCain).
Thirdly, see here for Biden's recent answer about to Katie Couric's question about Supreme Court cases he disagrees with. See here for Gov. Palin's answer. Compare and contrast.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 12:18 PM
I've read many comments expressing dismay over Biden not supporting gay "marriage," but I think these objections miss the point of what he was saying. He said that such couples should be afforded every civil and legal benefit that straight couples enjoy, but that marriage is determined by the tenets of the individuals faiths. If a faith recognizes that gay couples can marry, then they can get married. If they do not, then they cannot. He said nothng about depriving gay couples of their right to live together in our society with all of the benefits of straight couples, but rather he said that an institution as inherently religious a marriage should be left up to the religions. I see nothing wrong with this. If organized religion does not want to catch up with the progress of modern society (one of their more less-endearing traits), then that is their problem, but he definitely did espouse the opinion that gay couples should not be discriminated against - in our civil society - for their dispositions to live their lifestyle as they desire to. That, to me, perfectly embodies the progressive viewpoint that the Democratic should be championing in our society. I am not gay myself, but I would think (correct me if I'm wrong) that most gay couples could give a shit about what the organized religions of the world think about their decisions in living their life.
I think Biden's response faithfully represents both the progressive viewpoint and the disdain for the tenets of religion held by most of our LBGT brothers and sisters of the world. I would think that the last thing they want is the "blessing" of religious organizations that have for so long attempted - and succeeded - in oppressing their agenda.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 12:22 PM
Gah! Double post!
I fail.
(runs away and hides head in shame)
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 3, 2008 12:23 PM
Sure. Government-sanctioned civil unions and concomitant legal rights for everyone; "marriage" in optional addition for those to whom the term has meaning. That's how I interpreted Biden's remarks (possibly because it's my own view).
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 12:27 PM
At the risk of being called out for feeding the troll...
Yeah, ironic, isn't it? The very people who rail against government are the ones who expand its powers the most. But expansion (and concommitant incompetence) of the government under W's administration is perfectly consistent with Frank's thesis[1]: Because of their philosophical commitment to the notion that government is evil, conservatives want government to fail. And, whether deliberately or merely unconsciously, they manage government in ways that ensure its failure.
Al Franken has a great line: Republicans campaign on the idea that government is incompetent; then they get elected and prove it. That seems glib (Franken did spend most of his life as a professional smartass, after all, before becoming a candidate for Senate), but it has an underlying point that seems, based on my observation of Reagan-era Republican politics, to be true, and that matches well with what Frank's book argues.
I'm not quite paranoid enough to think every Republican pol or initiative is part of a Machiavellian plot to undermine public institutions... but I'm sure some of them are. In particular, the conservative/Republican approach to education — charter schools, vouchers, homeschooling, NCLB (which punishes public schools but doesn't effectively regulate or assist them) — strikes me as clearly calculated to bring about the collaps of the public schools, paving the way for total privatization of education.
And, of course, the devil is in the details: Even if the government has grown in terms of dollars and numbers of employees, and even if the power of the government to spy and torture has been expanded, the regulatory functions of government have been systematically descoped or neglected. And that's how you reconcile the growth of government under conservative rule with Frank's assertion that conservatives want to destroy government.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 12:28 PM
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 12:07 PM
You miss the point - also outlined in the Consititution - that any bill passed into law has to pass through both houses in order to succeed. For somoeone objecting to something on the grounds of constitutional mandate, you are seemingly lacking in the basic knowledge of how that document works.
Not to mention that this most recent argument has absolutely nothing to do with the substance of your original objection to this issue.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 12:32 PM
A nitpick (sorry!): It goes "The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it," and it's P.J. O'Rourke's line. Hope Al wasn't trying to take credit for it ;0
Posted by: cicely | October 3, 2008 12:34 PM
So...Palin is a double threat; not only as a successor for McCain, but also as a successor to Cheney. Aieeeee!
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 12:35 PM
""" [obligatory spreading of blame to Democrats excised] """
Just go look at the "obligatory votes of the democrats" and you will see that you are nothing but an enabler of a political party that is just as responsible as the Republicans for both growing and screwing up Washington.
The Patriot Act, Fisa, Fannie and Freddie... Voting to give war powers to Bush. Failing to hold Bush accountable for lying in his rush to war... Budgets that increase the debt. Now the bail out package...
And so on and so forth.
Bush and the republican party are easy targets because they really suck, but that does not excuse the party that also sucks, nor its members from sucking...
You can't defend the record, and the record is clear.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 12:35 PM
S.G.E.W.:
Nah: I'd rather read your stuff twice than Scott's even once.
All:
I see I left off the footnote to my previous comment (@589). Here 'tis:
[1] Again, I haven't read Frank's book. My characterizations of his thesis are based on interviews and reviews; any errors are my own and not reflective of Frank.
Posted by: SteveM | October 3, 2008 12:37 PM
You miss the point - also outlined in the Consititution - that any bill passed into law has to pass through both houses in order to succeed.
I think SofO was thinking of this:
but isn't the bailout about spending revenue, not raising it?
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 12:39 PM
""You miss the point - also outlined in the Consititution - that any bill passed into law has to pass through both houses in order to succeed. For somoeone objecting to something on the grounds of constitutional mandate, you are seemingly lacking in the basic knowledge of how that document works. ""
Spending Bills must originate in the House...
And unless I am mistaken, an 850 Billion dollar bill is a spending bill...
Of which, the US does not possess the money.
So...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 12:41 PM
"Since I haven't seen one by any of the other members of the marketeers club, maybe SfO has a response to this article about Friedman and Hayek and their BFF Pinochet..."
I saw that. I also took note of Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, China, N. Korea and all other Central State countries.
- Scott from Oregon
Scott, do you understand the term "false dichotomy"?
Do you understand that there are countries which are neither run according to "free market" nostrums, nor "Central State countries"?
Do you, in fact, understand anything?
Posted by: JSug | October 3, 2008 12:43 PM
My favorite part was the couple of times when Palin actually tried to address points Biden had made. She wound up repeating his own talking points, and when she couldn't come up with a good argument against them, she just kind of sputtered and shook her head in disbelief. Then she pointed out that McCain is a maverick who'll fix all the corruption in Washington, don'tcha know. Priceless.
Posted by: kelson | October 3, 2008 12:45 PM
She actually made a huge gaffe calling the commander in Afghanistan McClellan(who fought in the civil war) not McKiernan
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 12:45 PM
S.G.E.W.:
I'll leave it to scientists and such-like to argue over priority of discovery (and it's a sufficiently self-evident point that I don't rule out multiple independent discoveries), but I heard Franken use that line many times over the course of his Air America radio show (which, FWIW, went on the air in early 2004), and I gather he still uses it on the campaign trail. As is usually true with a stock line, the precise formulation varied over time, so any repetition is necessarily a paraphrase.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 12:46 PM
"but isn't the bailout about spending revenue, not raising it?"
Good point and I admit to being not entirely accurate. Spending and raising capital are clearly concomitant and intertwined, so the bill should still be originated in the House.
Again, Obama and Biden have the same disregard for the Constitution as Bush, and it shows.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 12:52 PM
Ok. Say I concede your point, arguendo. I agree that we should hold both party's feet to the fire (and I probably concur with many of your opinions on F.I.S.A., holding Bush/Cheney accountable*, etc.), but . . . so what?
For instance, I agree with Sen. McCain's long standing opposition to federal farm subsidies and the ethanol lobby. I am disappointed in Obama's transparently cynical support of domestic oil drilling and "clean coal." I am worried that Barack Obama appears to be more religious than John McCain. I wish that we could have a presidential candidate that would be everything I ever wanted. It's too bad such a candidate: a) has never actually existed, b) could probably never win a primary, and c) would never win a national election. Oh well.
The point that many here (and elsewhere) are making, and you seem to refuse to acknowledge, is that McCain must not assume the office of the President because he (and his coterie of advisors) are a literal threat to the continuance of the Republic. Capice?
You cannot be serious.
You cannot find purity in a politician. Full stop. Compromise with reality. And if you're one of those people who still thinks that Gore wasn't any different than Bush . . . well, I cannot reach you. [I'm sure that Bush, if he hadn't become president, would have won a Nobel peace prize because of his support of scientific awareness. Yup yup.]
Also, Bill Dauphin:
I knw, no fear. I just wanted to make sure that O'Rourke got his props. :)
*But you should see here to be encouraged on this score.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 12:52 PM
""Do you understand that there are countries which are neither run according to "free market" nostrums...""
Absolutely. Which is why the argument that the free market was responsible for the current economic crises is so laughable. You can't blame something that doesn't actually exist here in America for the systemic problems extant.
But you can easily compare countries who are MORE free market to those that are LESS, and see the differences in ingenuity, productivity, quality of life etc...
Central Planning loses in the spectrum game.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 12:52 PM
Spending Bills must originate in the House
This isn't in the full text online version http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html, although this does say that Revenue Bills must do so. However, we must remember (see earlier threads concerning amendment 16) that SfO has appointed himself a kind of super-Supreme Court, whose word on what the US constitution says and how it is to be interpreted is final.
Scott, if I were you I'd get onto one of the bailout's HoR opponents pronto, and point out that all they need do is complain that the procedure being followed is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Ubi Dubius | October 3, 2008 1:00 PM
Scott from Oregon:
The bailout bill did originate in the House of Representatives. H.R. 1424 was passed by the House in March of this year. The Senate vote the other day was on this bill, with amendments. The procedure was entirely consistent with the rules of the Senate and the House, rules that have been accepted as consistent with the Constituion for decades.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 1:01 PM
SteveM:
Good point! IANACS, but it seems to me that SfO's understanding of this would mandate that every bill originate in the House, since every bill has some associated cost. I think (and hopefully someone like S.G.E.W. will confirm) that your version is right: It's tax bills, tarrifs, etc., that must originate in the House, not everything that obligates the government to spend money.
Scott:
Right. So the fact that some members of the minority party (for virtually all of what you referenced, and effectively so even after Jan 2007) voted with the party that holds the executive and a legislative majority, that makes the minority party equally responsible for the majority's disastrous policies??? I can only imagine the hearty horselaugh it would bring if liberals tried to claim credit for conservative accomplishments based on the same "logic."
But wait! That would require that there were any conservative accomplishments that liberals would want to take credit for. [litella]Never mind![/litella]
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | October 3, 2008 1:03 PM
Kiiiiiiill-fiiiiiiile. It's fun! (Used in moderation, of course).Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 1:05 PM
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 12:52 PM
Nick, excellent point. I guess Scott from Oregon would rather have the bill loiter in procedural limbo rather than having the other house of our Congress take the initiative in trying to do something about it. Such argumentation lays bare the truth that he - not I - is the one hopelessly slaved to the motivations of party he espouses. (Not forgetting the fact that the reason the House didn't fulfill its duties was because his party's caucus was the one that walked out on the bipartisan effort as a result of a speech given by a fellow representative - even considering the fact that their nominee for President suspended his campaign to come back and make sure his colleagues were on board with such a necessary piece of legislation.)
Posted by: J'Carlin | October 3, 2008 1:05 PM
There is something to be said for Palin setting expectations so low that just getting down the track without tripping over the lines marking the places for the hurdles is considered a brilliant performance.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 1:05 PM
"You cannot find purity in a politician. Full stop. Compromise with reality. And if you're one of those people who still thinks that Gore wasn't any different than Bush . . . well, I cannot reach you. [I'm sure that Bush, if he hadn't become president, would have won a Nobel peace prize because of his support of scientific awareness. Yup yup.]""
Actually, you and I probably hold similar ideals. I come from progressive San Francisco Bay Area political stock. I agree with Gore FAR MORE than I agree with someone like Bush and the right-wing Republican party as it currently stands.
My point is that our system has been gradually taking government out of the hands of "the people" and placing it in a city with impenetrable walls made of money. The system has failed us by its self-destructive abuses from both parties and it shows.
From a liberal and progressive viewpoint, the best solution I can see is to strip this huge and disfunctional structure of all the power it has collected, replace its functions with smaller, more local functioning bodies (state and local governments) and return the federal government to its original purposes. Trade. Army. Protector of Constitutionally granted rights...
Enabling the system by chooosing a side is like picking a side in the Palestinian/Jew problem. It doesn't solve the problems, it just grants both parties validity for their actions.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 1:08 PM
You can't blame something that doesn't actually exist here in America for the systemic problems extant.
I get it: since no "pure" free market has ever existed, it cannot ever be the case that lack of regulation should be blamed for anything. If any problem ever arises anywhere, it's because the market is not free enough. That's what's called an "armoured dogmatism" Scott.
But you can easily compare countries who are MORE free market to those that are LESS - SfO
Yes! A glimpse of reality! And you can see that the current financial crisis has originated in one of those with the least regulation of finance, and after a long period of financial deregulation - just as the 1929 crash did. As to quality of life, well I'd much rather live in most west European countries, or Canada, or Australia, than the USA. I note also that the very point of SC's link was that in order to turn Chile into a "free market" economy, Hayek and Friedman were quite prepared to have large numbers of people tortured and murdered. I guess you'd go along with that, since you had nothing whatever to say to the contrary when you had the opportunity.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 1:10 PM
"So the fact that some members of the minority party"
SOME?
Oh my.
"Nick, excellent point. I guess Scott from Oregon would rather have the bill loiter in procedural limbo rather than having the other house of our Congress take the initiative in trying to do something about it."
Do SOMETHING ABOUT WHAT? Do you KNOW what this bill does? In spite of the outcries against it from economist around the nation?
The mind truly boggles...
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 1:13 PM
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 12:52 PM
On the surface, I share this worry with you. But once you dig deeper, you can see that while McCain seems to base his policies upon his faith (whether it be pandering to his base or not), Obama has publicly recognized that his faith is personal, just as every Americans' should be, and he believes that the government should be free of religious influence - down to his belief that federal funding to religious organizations should be closely monitored to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being used for explicitly or implicitly religious activities.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 1:14 PM
[sigh]
Scott:
But that's NOT the argument made by the Frank quote you were originally responding to. His argument is not about the free market per se, but about the Republicans' ideological commitment to their idealized notion of the free market, and how that ideology affects the way they govern.
This debate has never been about Resolved: That the Free Market is Good; it's always been subtler and more nuanced than that. I'll try to refrain from any potentially insulting speculation on your capacity for subtlety or nuance.
Posted by: Eisnel | October 3, 2008 1:15 PM
This is funny and sadly true (my apologies if everyone has already seen it). It's the "Sarah Palin Debate Flow Chart":
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3091/2909496470_d751e8a3dc.jpg
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 1:15 PM
Technically, IIRC, all revenue bills must originate in the house (bicameral separation of powers; the House represents the "Commons," the Senate the "Lords"; keep the purse-strings held by the more direct representatives, etc.), but this has taken all sorts of shading over the years. The Senate can more or less introduce spending by inserting amendments into existing bills (that had their original provenance in the House), and a plethora of other Congressional inside baseball tricks (which is not my area of expertise - it's extraordinarily complicated and, frankly, quite boring).
But it's really, really besides the point. It's one thing to quibble over proper Congressional procedural techniques (hey, let's bring it up to th' SCOTUS, it'll be a blast - lots of people will write notes and articles about it and Justice Thomas will probably say something really stupid), and another thing to worry about the blatant disregard for the founding principles that Bush, Cheney, McCain, et. al. display.
When we have a functioning, constitutionally fit government, then we should make hay over whether amendments to existing post-committee spending bills on the floor of the Senate should be subject to a procedural motion by the House minority, or whether that can be overruled by a preemptive filibuster. What fun. Until then, it's all, frankly, a side show IMHO.
Posted by: KristinMH | October 3, 2008 1:16 PM
Gary: I was weeping out of envy. Though winters here in Toronto are nowhere near as rough as in, say, Edmonton.
SfO: What Nick Gotts said. There is a middle way.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 1:17 PM
""I get it: since no "pure" free market has ever existed, it cannot ever be the case that lack of regulation should be blamed for anything.""
No, apparently, you don't get it. In the case of the US, fraud laws on the books are more than necessary to handle this situation. The failure was in the enforcement of those laws.
The core problem was the Federal Reserve Bank trying to manipulate the markets, not the markets.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 1:18 PM
Oooh. Looking over my last comment I realize that I use the word "frankly" like Joe Biden uses "literally."
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 1:19 PM
Sven:
Nah, I'm too nosy to use killfile: I always want to know what everybody's saying. Besides, there must be a certain amount of cognitive dissonance involved in seeing all the angry, snarky replies without having seen what they're replying to.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | October 3, 2008 1:20 PM
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 1:10 PM
Your reading comprehension needs work. Never did I say I agreed with the tenets of this bill. But all those economists you referenced do agree on the fact that if something is not done to stem the bleeding, our market will suffer, and as a result the global economy will do so as well. Changing the subject is a tactic quite familiar to your side. You can pretend to be an independent all you want, but when all your arguments tend to blast the Democratic stance while also defending the actions of the Republicans, it is painfully obvious that you have, in fact, chosen a side.
Posted by: Eisnel | October 3, 2008 1:25 PM
From a news article:
"For you Constitutional scholars, by the way, Senator Reid was able to grab ahold of the bill, a 'revenue raiser' usually required to leave the starting gate on the House and not the Senate side of the Hill, by a procedural provision that allows the Senate to take an old House bill that never passed, scratch out the text and drop in new language--in this case the bailout bill."
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 1:27 PM
SfO,
Be more specific. What fraud laws have been broken by whom, and what failures of enforcement have there been? How do you know that if there had been none, the problem would not still have arisen? In what way was the FRB trying to manipulate the markets, and how did this cause the problem?
A large part of the problem seems to be that the banks do not know whether other banks are solvent (hence won't lend to each other), or even whether they are themselves, because of the complexity of the "financial instruments" they were using, such as mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps. These were not illegal, nor did the FRB force banks to use them.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 1:29 PM
". . . a procedural provision that allows the Senate to take an old House bill that never passed, scratch out the text and drop in new language"
It's a neat trick, if rather underhanded (but nothing compared to the shenanigans the Republicans have pulled over the last 12 years). Could result in some interesting litigation, for people who are interested in that kind of thing.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 1:31 PM
S.G.E.W.:
I bow to your constitutional expertise, but as a clarification, I'll note that the definition of "revenue" relates entirely to income, not expenditures... which is the distinction I think SteveM was trying to make.
I agree, though, that it's a trivial quibble in the context of the argument about the bailout bill... or in the larger conversation about whether conservative commitment to anti-government ideology affects the way Republicans govern.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 1:33 PM
"You can pretend to be an independent all you want, but when all your arguments tend to blast the Democratic stance while also defending the actions of the Republicans, it is painfully obvious that you have, in fact, chosen a side."
I indeed have. It is the third leg of the political stool that never gets mentioned anymore. That of personal responsibility, sound money, small Federal Government, more local government and control of local assets and revenue...
The whole idea that we have a government "too big too succeed" fits in nicely with my ideology.
And of course I rail against the Dems. They brought us a war in Iraq, FISA, The Patriot Act, 11 trillion in debt, 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a military spread across the globe, wasting huge amounts of oil and polluting the earth...
Of course, they did have help in this by the Republicans...
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 1:38 PM
SfO,
"""Be more specific. What fraud laws have been broken by whom, and what failures of enforcement have there been? How do you know that if there had been none, the problem would not still have arisen? In what way was the FRB trying to manipulate the markets, and how did this cause the problem?""
This guy is not a great orator like Obama, but he is spot on with his analysis...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paG-PawqWHM&eurl=http://aeleope.blogspot.com/
There are four additional minutes of his speech on another vid here--
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7vX13pp8CA&eurl=http://aeleope.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 1:39 PM
News just in - House backs bailout 263-171.
You can give the credit (or blame) to my dog. I told her before I left this morning that if she got it through, I'd give her a biscuit. She insisted on having the biscuit in advance, but she's obviously kept her side of the deal.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 1:42 PM
Nick:
What does your dog think about withdrawal from Iraq, same-sex marriage, and single-payer healthcare. I'm a cat person myself, but we'll take all the help we can get! ;^)
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 3, 2008 1:46 PM
Bill,
She's completely mercenary - she'd go with whichever side is offereing more biscuits. Kind of like a member of Congress...
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 1:47 PM
Bill Dauphin:
"I'll note that the definition of "revenue" relates entirely to income, not expenditures... which is the distinction I think SteveM was trying to make."
Ah. I think I git it now. As I said, it's not really my area of knowledge (and you shouldn't bow to my "expertise" at all . . . I'm jest a po' ol' student learnin' this stuff after all. And there are a lot of really good law blogs out there that should be heeded before any random commenter anyway.).
Scott from Oregon:
"And of course I rail against the Dems. They brought us a war in Iraq, FISA, The Patriot Act, 11 trillion in debt, 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities, a military spread across the globe, wasting huge amounts of oil and polluting the earth..."
I have to say "Right On" to your sentiment there, Scott. But (for me) the important distinction is that all of these were Republican policies and the Democratic party's culpability is that they did not stop them. (yes, yes: they caved, they have no spine, they "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory," they're accessories to the crime, etc. etc.).
Now, with this new election cycle, the vote is about increasing the Democratic majority in the House and Senate, and grabbing the Executive so that Republican policies are no longer at the top of the agenda. Dig?
The whole thing about choosing between the "lesser of two evils" (never mind the semantic debate over the use of the word "evil") is that, if you choose correctly, you wind up with less evil.
Isn't that a good thing?
(apologies for so much italics. I am emphatic)
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 2:03 PM
"The whole thing about choosing between the "lesser of two evils" (never mind the semantic debate over the use of the word "evil") is that, if you choose correctly, you wind up with less evil.
Isn't that a good thing?"
When both ideologies keep growing the government and the amount of money we owe as a nation and refuse to acknowledge dire problems within the system, then you will get what you see shortly.
Look for this "bailout" to be followed by another one, as Spring will bring the next wave of huge foreclosures in housing morgages which will spill over into mass credit card defaults. The derivitives that are being propped up along with all of the other bad paper will go ballistic again. What's next? Another bailout? Handing over the market to the Federal Reserve? What?
China is going to stop lending us money, the Federal Reserve will keep printing it, and inflation will go hyper.
Go Dems! Weee.....
Posted by: Becca | October 3, 2008 2:03 PM
Did anyone else notice that if you follow their own lines of reasoning, that both Palin and Biden are unqualified for the office of VP?
Palin says that we need to 'allow the flexibility' for the VP to be part of the Legislative branch. Yet the Govenor has no Legislative experience.
Biden says the VP is firmly in the Executive branch. Yet, as a Senator, he does not have that (buzzword) "Executive Experience".
In this respect, the only thing to recommend Biden over Palin is that Biden is inexperienced but applying for a (comparably!) "entry level" job with minimal powers. Palin is unqualified for a much more powerful job- if we really believe she'll continue Cheney's interpertation, they should really call it a Palin/McCain ticket.
Posted by: S.G.E.W. | October 3, 2008 2:17 PM
Becca:
Just needed to point this out: Sarah Palin's contention that "we need to 'allow the flexibility' for the VP to be part of the Legislative branch" is simply incorrect, constitutionally speaking. It's a preposterous and dangerous position to take (see, e.g., Cheney, Dick). Biden's response was the consensus position. As far as the "experience" canard goes, well, I'll leave that one alone.
Scott from Oregon:
I wish to enter no dog into this hunt. The financial market meltdown, in my opinion, is a different matter than questions of constitutional merit (Rep. Paul, et. al., aside - I have absolutely no desire to get into that thicket). I leave with this sentiment: A pox on both houses is a counter-productive prophylactic measure.
Posted by: SplendidMonkey | October 3, 2008 2:30 PM
She said "nuclear weapons would be the be all and end all for a lot of people in a lot of parts of the world"...
(clearly pronounced new-queue-ler in this case)
"Be all and end all" - supreme aim?
Maybe she misspoke...
Posted by: SteveM | October 3, 2008 2:39 PM
Exactly, thanks, Bill. The rationale for that clause would seem to be that since "raising revenue" is essentially a euphemism for "raise taxes", that it has to come from the branch that most closely and directly represents the people who will be taxed; ie the HoR. Once the government has the funds, how it is to be spent can be proposed by either house.
But, yes this is a trivial tangent off of the main arguments about whatever the hell this thread is discussing.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 3, 2008 2:45 PM
"Once the government has the funds, how it is to be spent can be proposed by either house."
So when Biden and Obama, both Constitutional scholars (cough cough) vote to spend 850 billion dollars WE DON'T HAVE, one wonders where their authority comes from?
They are voting to inflate, which TAXES every individual who works for or saves US dollars.
Posted by: frog | October 3, 2008 2:53 PM
SfO: But you can easily compare countries who are MORE free market to those that are LESS, and see the differences in ingenuity, productivity, quality of life etc...
Well, pony-up then boy. Give us your list, and compare results. Then we can argue empirically rather than just spouting ideology. Which states do you call "more free-market" and which "less". And please exclude the command-economies - we all know that Lenninism failed miserably beyond building a basic industrial base.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 4:00 PM
Becca:
IMHO, he's perfectly correct about that, all contrary opinions of Darth Cheney notwithstanding.
The idea that "executive experience" is a prerequisite to be president (and fitness to be president is the primary criterion for fitness to be vice president) is one that I emphatically dispute. We've had great (Lincoln), arguably great (JFK), and highly-capable-even-if-you-hated-his-policies (LBJ) presidents whose prior experience had been exclusively legislative, and arguably the worst president in our history (certainly the worst in my lifetime) was both a governor and a corporate CEO. What matters, IMHO, is capability to do the job rather than having done the job, and I have no doubt that Obama has greater personal capability to perform the duties of the POTUS than McCain or Palin. That's based on 2 years (or 4, if you go all the way back to his 2004 convention speech) of observing him, listening to him speak in both formal and informal settings, reading his books and policy positions. He gives every evidence of being thoughtful and humane, and of being an intelligent, logical, evidence-based decision maker.
Of course, I can't prove any of that... but then, nobody can prove anything similar about McCain or Palin, either. The proof, when it comes, will be after the fact. But I feel very confident placing my bet on Obama.
Posted by: Arthur | October 3, 2008 4:20 PM
I have to dissent with everyone on the "nuke-yuler" issue. From my brief study of linguistics, I have come to critically examine my own preconceptions and ideologies about language, and I have realized that the imposition of a "standard" dialect with a "standard" pronunciation is arbitrary, and inherently favors those who just happened to grow up speaking a dialect similar to the arbitrary standard. One dialect is no more "correct" than any other. This sense of correct pronunciation is simply an artificial standard that we make up. This nuclear-nucular issue is probably just a normal example of language shift, just like "aks" changed into "ask" a few hundred years ago. The "aks" speakers were probably making just as much fun of the "ask" speakers as all of you are making fun of "nucular."
Posted by: Norman Doering | October 3, 2008 6:21 PM
My note on the VP debate:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/10/vp-debate.html
A lot of Republican spin doctors out there were calling the debate a win for Palin. But I think Matt Taibbi has their number.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 3, 2008 6:26 PM
To this...
...I meant to add that Poppy Bush had one of the most glittering political resumes possible when he ran as Reagan's running mate: Congressman, UN Ambassador, national party chairman, envoy (ambassador-level) to China, Director of CIA, and various positions in business and (briefly) academia. Yet (and despite how much better he looks than his own son) history will remember him as a mediocre president at best, and possibly as an outright failure. "Experience" really isn't a very good predictor of presidential success.
Posted by: frog | October 3, 2008 7:09 PM
Arthur: This nuclear-nucular issue is probably just a normal example of language shift, just like "aks" changed into "ask" a few hundred years ago.
And what would we say if a presidential contender continually said "aks" for "ask"? These aren't purely dialectical issues -- they are also register issues. The language for presidential contenders is high-register, so someone who continually speaks in the wrong register is either incompetent, or intentionally using a low-register.
The latter case implies condescencion to the audience -- a fake folksiness intended to imply a common position against the very elite you belong to. It's tricksy and lying.
Posted by: Monado | October 3, 2008 7:50 PM
I wouldn't trust her to run a department store.
Posted by: Xavier | October 3, 2008 10:22 PM
I don't know about that debate thing, but SNLs latest cold open was awfully long and dull. It looked like Tiny Fey couldn't remember her lines, but Jim Belushi did a really good Jimmy Stewart.
Posted by: tigtog | October 3, 2008 11:07 PM
(Way back upthread, sorry) Dark Matter said at #551
I'm sure everybody would oppose forcing churches to give marriage rites to anybody that they don't want to, but how is this idea of "force" relevant to the government legislating that the state recognises marriages between same-sex couples?
The local rector of the Anglican parish for many years refused to marry any couple unless the bride vowed to obey her husband (which is why there were only three weddings in that church in the last twelve years). Nobody was able to force him to marry anyone against his own conscience just because the state recognises marriages where women don't vow to obey. Why would it be any different if the state recognised same-sex marriages?
Posted by: Notkieran | October 4, 2008 12:19 AM
tigtog @#646:
You're perfectly right, of course. But whether or not the government can force pastors to marry people against their will isn't really the relevant issue.
The relevant issue is that the pastors _are_ able to force the government to _not_ allow people to "marry" in any sense of the word.
What Biden's approach would do, _if_ it worked (I give it no better than 50% odds, though), would be to marginalise the pastors, as people come to accept that maybe you don't need a church wedding.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 4, 2008 6:06 AM
Scott from Oregon@627,
First, thanks for the links, which I've now watched. Bunning does indeed point to unenforced regulations. Howver, this does not make a case that there was no failure of the market: it shows that the government failed to intervene to prevent such a failure. The claim that the CRA was an important factor has already been discussed here, and shown to be false: the banks were not coerced into lending, and most of the bad debt is not to poor people. On the manipulation of interest rates, I think Bunning is probably right; this, like the failure to enforce regulation, stemmed from trying to fight two expensive wars while cutting taxes for the rich, and at least not raising tax rates in general. However, booms and slumps, bubbles and crashes, have existed as long as capitalism has, with or without central banks with the power to set interest rates. Detailed explanations vary between economists, but it seems to be a natural feature of a system in which many interacting agents make investments decisions with a view to maximising profit, and there are built-in time-delays. The "hog cycle" is often used as a simple, small-scale example. If the price of pork is high, farmers will increase the number of pigs they keep, but since many will do so at the same time, the result is that in a year or two there is over-supply, the price falls, and many of the same farmers stop raising pigs, or reduce the number they keep, leading in time to a price fall, and a new cycle. The same thing tends to happen on longer timescales with housing starts and industrial investment.
As Bunning himself said, an economy "will have its ups and downs". What the proponents of non-intervention miss is that these are likely to be just as large or larger in an unregulated as in a regulated economy. The Austrian school claim that manipulation of the money supply is responsible for such cycles, rather than merely affecting their timing, but this simply ignores the fundamental mechanism involving multiple agents and time delays.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 4, 2008 11:17 AM
"most of the bad debt is not to poor people"@648
"to" should of course be "owed by"
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 4, 2008 11:51 AM
"The claim that the CRA was an important factor has already been discussed here, and shown to be false: the banks were not coerced into lending, and most of the bad debt is not to poor people."
Not shown to be false at all. What the CRA did was create a culture within lending. You start fudging the books... nothing bad happens... you start fudging them more... Eventually, others start doing the same. "Everybody is doing it" becomes the thought behind the action, which is fraud. To say it was a part of this is in no way racist, as has been claimed here and there. The point was that fannie and freddie, both government creations, were asked to be fraudulent to make social remedies. It spilled over into the entire loan business.
My brother and I actually commited fraud on our last loan application, and the mortgage lender pushed us into it. Meaning she commited fraud twice, by asking us to lie, and then lying to the lender she had lined up. That was at the bottom of all this, and my clue to sell and buy silver...
No. The majority of the money is probably in the higher middle class loans where houses were used as cash cows. People bought 400,000 dollar homes they could afford, and then went on a borrowing spree off their houses. Everytime their house value went up 50 grand, they pulled out 30 and spent it. I used to wonder where all the new SUV's were coming from all of a sudden, and then I realized what was happening. California, Nevada and Florida I suspect have substantial losses, as immigration to these markets adding new buyers to the mixes spurred the rising prices even more.
"What the proponents of non-intervention miss is that these are likely to be just as large or larger in an unregulated as in a regulated economy. The Austrian school claim that manipulation of the money supply is responsible for such cycles,"
From what I gather, the "corrections" of the market that are artificially postponed by manipulation would be smaller and shorter, as in your pig example. What if government stepped in and gave farmers subsidies to farm pigs?
Interesting times we live in...
Posted by: SC | October 4, 2008 2:26 PM
So I guess that's a "Yes, please!" to Pinochet-Friedman-Hayek. Quite a model of free-market democracy there. Can't imagine why all of those millions of people in Latin America would be rejecting it.
SfO's comments get more sickening by the day.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 4, 2008 2:42 PM
Scott has quite a good imagination, when he puts his, ummmmmm, mind to it.
Look for this "bailout" to be followed by another one, as Spring will bring the next wave of huge foreclosures in housing morgages which will spill over into mass credit card defaults. The derivitives that are being propped up along with all of the other bad paper will go ballistic again. What's next? Another bailout? Handing over the market to the Federal Reserve? What?
I think you should follow up on your panic, Scott.
Sell everything you own, including the dog, and move to an isolated tropical island somewhere. I hear there are thousands of them in the French Polynesian chain.
It's the only way you'll be safe!
there's no time left to lose.
go man, go!
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 4, 2008 3:50 PM
"Sell everything you own, including the dog, and move to an isolated tropical island somewhere. I hear there are thousands of them in the French Polynesian chain."
Nahh. No need. We own this place outright and have socked away some change. Part of the benefit of seeing what was happening, and taking advantage of it.
Although I do enjoy a nice quiet tropical island every now and then.
"So I guess that's a "Yes, please!" to Pinochet-Friedman-Hayek. Quite a model of free-market democracy there. Can't imagine why all of those millions of people in Latin America would be rejecting it."
One way to appear stupid and a bit crazy is to make assumptions and then argue with the assumption. I can't imagine anyone holding up South America as a positive model for anything. Economic models are always accompanied by cultural intrusions, and while I really like the cultural aspects of female Brazilian mud wrestlers...
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 4, 2008 4:13 PM
What the CRA did was create a culture within lending. - SfO
That's pure assertion. Do you have any evidence the CRA was responsible?
From what I gather, the "corrections" of the market that are artificially postponed by manipulation would be smaller and shorter, as in your pig example. What if government stepped in and gave farmers subsidies to farm pigs? - SfO
What you gather from where? Do you just mean "Someone has told me"? There were large booms and slumps in the early nineteenth century, when there was much less government intervention than now. As to the subsidies, it would depend on what subsidies were given. Guaranteed prices made EU farming pretty stable for many years, reducing tendencies for farmers all to switch out of particular products at once when their market price fell. There are other reasons to oppose such subsidies, but instability is certainly not one.
One way to appear stupid and a bit crazy is to make assumptions and then argue with the assumption. I can't imagine anyone holding up South America as a positive model for anything. - SfO
It was in relation to South America (specifically Chile) that you said "no" to Cuba, North Korea etc. Implicitly, you were indeed saying "yes" to Chile, as the "free-market" heroes Friedman and Hayek did. If you weren't, you should have made that clear.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 4, 2008 4:23 PM
We own this place outright - SfO
Well, if the government collapses, there just might be some native Americans who'd have something to say about how the land you "own outright" was stolen from their ancestors, and they'd like it back. In Oregon, that wouldn't even be that long ago, would it? Second half of the nineteenth century?
Posted by: SC | October 4, 2008 5:04 PM
What Nick Gotts said. Yours was an evasive rhetorical move that deceived no one. You have not responded to the content of the article, which was about the involvement of Friedman and Hayek with Pinochet's policies and how they viewed his dictatorship in terms of the relationship between "free markets" and human freedom and democracy. Again, I encourage everyone to read it and to draw your own conclusions.
I should have known! In Sfo's view the problem was that those damned Latinos can't do anything right! Forget that the article dealt primarily with the policies developed and championed by Friedman and Hayek and their unstinting support for Pinochet (apparently this mutual understanding overcame cultural boundaries). It takes a special kind of racist and intellectually-dishonest ideological zealot to attempt this sort of subterfuge.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 4, 2008 5:08 PM
It takes a special kind of racist and intellectually-dishonest ideological zealot to attempt this sort of subterfuge.
...or just a moron trying to play at being an intellectual because he's lonely.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 4, 2008 5:23 PM
"...or just a moron trying to play at being an intellectual because he's lonely."
The irony here is nearly deafening.
"In Sfo's view the problem was that those damned Latinos can't do anything right! Forget that the article dealt primarily with the policies developed and championed by Friedman and Hayek and their unstinting support for Pinochet "
Whatever their support for Pinochet has nothing to do with the viability of the model. Cultural influences (like killing for political reasons) has a lot to do with what happened in Chile as well as many other S American countries. The same "kill to make a point" is nothing new and is what keeps the ME full of bloodbaths. I'm not interested in having a Chile Pinochet argument with anybody.
"Well, if the government collapses, there just might be some native Americans who'd have something to say about how the land you "own outright" was stolen from their ancestors, and they'd like it back."
I'm an eighth Choctaw. Ya think they'll give me free stuff? Go have your "stole the land" argument with Europeans who came to the Americas. We Americans aren't much interested in rehashing two hundred year old wars with ourselves.
"I should have known! In Sfo's view the problem was that those damned Latinos can't do anything right!"
Once again, arguing with yourself is a sign of mental deficiency.
Posted by: SC | October 4, 2008 5:28 PM
I can't imagine anyone holding up South America as a positive model for anything.
Oh, really? Apparently, SfO has only seen the article in question, not read it. Some highlights:
Posted by: SC | October 4, 2008 5:40 PM
I'll add this to the list of ignorant sociocultural pronouncements made by SfO. I'm often amazed at how closely the market fundamentalists resemble Communists in their self-delusion, excuses, evasions, and rationalizations.
Color me unsurprised.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | October 4, 2008 5:41 PM
I'm an eighth Choctaw. SfO
Since the Choctaws live in Mississippi and Oklahoma, I'm not sure that's particularly relevant to land theft in Oregon. And the other 7/8? None of them descendants of "Europeans who came to the Americas" and stole the land? You do know that native Americans still have the lowest average income and life expectancy of any group in the US?
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 4, 2008 5:46 PM
The irony here is nearly deafening.
apparently you meant projection, and you were speaking of your common employment of same.
happy to put up my education against yours any day, though that would be childish, right?
can't figure out why you stick around here, frankly.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 4, 2008 5:49 PM
"You do know that native Americans still have the lowest average income and life expectancy of any group in the US?"
And? Some group has to be last. Which group is first? Do you even know?
"I'm often amazed at how closely the market fundamentalists resemble Communists in their self-delusion, excuses, evasions, and rationalizations."
Awesome argument. "He won't argue with me about the evil Pinochet making me a far superior being"...
Wow.
Posted by: Ichthyic | October 4, 2008 5:56 PM
before I continue to ignore Scott's inane ramblings again, I just want to at least thank him for his severely reduced usage of "ummmmmmmmm"
It was like fingernails on a blackboard.
OTOH, it was indicative of his level of discourse.
*plonk*
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 4, 2008 5:59 PM
"can't figure out why you stick around here, frankly."
Like I said, being a big fella I don't usually get to be abused verbally. I find it amusing.
Besides, like I said, there are those who may peruse by whose minds aren't scrambled by group think. I'm interested in changing the way Americans see their own governance. The fact that you're from Oz and Nick is from the UK and SC just likes to make up shit and argue with it, is just a bizarre and amusing aside.
Posted by: SC | October 4, 2008 6:17 PM
SfO was already riding a rusty old tricycle on a rocky path running not exactly parallel to reason's highway, but now he's veered off into a gully beside that...and broken his leg.
I remember SfO mentioning this before. I found it very interesting. I think the translation is: I'm physically intimidating and thus people haven't challenged me on my ignorance and the flaws in my thinking. I therefore have never had to learn to construct my arguments logically or convincingly or to support them with evidence.
You, however, ceased to be a source of amusement long ago.
Posted by: cicely | October 4, 2008 7:03 PM
Scott from Oregon @ 658:
Maybe your 1/8 Choctaw isn't interested, but I went to college in Tahlequah, OK. As of the late '70-early'80s, there were a lot of Cherokees who were intensely interested in rehashing, and reclaiming. I also met a few Choctaws there who also took a dim view of history as-it-played-out, and would have loved the chance to play catch-up. I suspect there are some among the younger generation who would agree with them.
Posted by: Knurl | October 4, 2008 7:12 PM
OT!
With god as my witness (Loki - my cat), I wish I'd come across this site a LONG time ago. I stumbled across http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/03/astrology-in-retrograde/ and found a link to this site. I'm still rebuilding because my DFI motherboard died (have a new MSA board, overclocked a new AMD 5600 AM2 Dual) and I don't have time to check out what's going on here now. I'll be back after all's installed and screaming. I'd really like to go with Linux now. My Win 2K Pro won't completely support a dual (or quad) processor. I can get XP Pro here that should, but drivers can be a problem. Vista is totally absolute bloatware crap that has been forced down people's throats by a monopoly in order to force everyone to buy the newest, fastest hardware. Even then, it's pure junk.
Talk to ya soon.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | October 4, 2008 7:17 PM
"Maybe your 1/8 Choctaw isn't interested, but I went to college in Tahlequah, OK. As of the late '70-early'80s, there were a lot of Cherokees who were intensely interested in rehashing, and reclaiming..."
I'm sure there are many who want to live in the past. A good friend of mine was involved with the jump up and down on Alcatraz in 69. He's now the owner of a succesful woodstove store.
Does he want to go back and live like his ancestors? What? And take away his football on plasma TV?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | October 4, 2008 9:29 PM
Sorry to parachute back into the thread, but I just wanted to note that today I purchased the Thomas Frank book, The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule, from which I quoted way up-thread. So far I've only read the introduction and part of Chapter 1, but already I feel confident in doubling down on my earlier recommendation. Of course, conservatives are probably going to consider him just another liberal hack, but the book is well documented (~75 pp of notes, plus an extensive index), and what I've read so far is lucid and well argued. Plus, it's a very entertaining read. I never read Frank's celebrated What's the Matter With Kansas, but maybe now I'll go back and pick it up.
Posted by: cicely | October 5, 2008 9:54 PM
Scott from Oregon @ 669:
I'm sure going back to the "good old days" of no modern medicine, plumbing or refrigeration, to say nothing of the plasma TV, would not be 'his' first choice; but we were talking about "if the government collapses". If that happens, 'he' would probably lose interest in whether his suddenly unpowered TV could pick up the no longer relevant and probably un-played football game.