Bring It On!

Biden - Palin Debate Winner

October 3rd, 2008 | by Papamoka |

I’ll start off with just one reference from Governor Palin. Who the hell is this guy McClellan in charge of the military in Afghanistan? I think she meant to say General David McKiernan. That was a stumble on her part and one of many throughout the night and the debate. One thing was very clear was the fact that Governor Palin did not directly answer many of the questions she was asked. Biden did so with facts and figures and to some that may seem boring but this is not the television series “24”! It’s politics that in this time in our nations path needs facts and figures to move forward.

Joe Biden spoke from facts and corrected many of the topics that Palin went off topic on. She was quoting voting records of Obama, Biden, and McCain and Joe Biden knew the facts behind each of the votes which Governor Palin was not privy too. Big mistake on her part on specifics.

It seemed that most of the questions coming to each of the Vice President candidates was answered more so on what the men actually running for President will do. Which is what you would expect in a VP debate. All but one, the role of Vice President and what it entails. Governor Palin sought the same stretch of executive privilege from the Bush administration where as Senator Biden stated the Constitution and the dangerous damage Cheney has morphed the Vice Presidency into.

Asked on what each of the Vice President candidates Achilles heal was, Governor Palin skipped the question entirely and offered just a stump speech of the McCain platform. Senator Biden listed several items that he is weak personally first then went on the Obama platform strengths.

All said and done, Governor Palin tried her best to hold her own but she was up against an encyclopedia of information on government and voting records. For every point she tried to make for McCain, Biden could recite several votes where McCain voted against it from health care, to taxes, to energy issues, and where she was wrong on Obama‘s votes in the Senate.

Two key phrases did come out, Bridge to Nowhere against Palin and a correction to Biden from Palin to get the phrase right? Drill baby Drill! That would be a drill here and everywhere in America point from the Governor. And of course Biden pointing out the fact that John McCain would not sit down with Spain, a NATO member becacuse he thought it was a hostile nation against America?

Biden pretty much linked McCain to Bush over and over again and that will be the mud that sticks to the wall of this debate. What also will stick to the wall is the fact that Governor Palin did not answer many of the questions thrown at her. She dodged the questions to go back to previous points that Biden had made. Gwen Eiffel had to ask the questions back to Governor Palin repeatedly.

On a scale of one to ten I would give Governor Palin a six overall and Senator Biden an eight.

Last thought, when the debate was over the two candidates families all came up on stage and stayed there for a long time interacting with one another. One of the things that warms my heart is children, Joe Biden bent almost all the way over to talk to the Palin family younger kids. Biden went beyond what is normal in a post debate format and introduced his wife, family and grandchildren to Governor Palin and her family, and talked with Governor Palin’s father for a good spell of time.

Papamoka

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • e-mail
  • YahooMyWeb
Sphere: Related Content

  1. 17 Responses to “Biden - Palin Debate Winner”

  2. By windspike on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    Palin = there is no there, there. Biden = tons of experience. Which one is more qualified to be Veep? Definitely not Palin.

  3. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    I don’t know. As I’ve said in the past, I think Palin was a mistake, inexperienced, under investigation, sounding like she has spent most of her time thinking about issues important to Alaska but little time on national and international issues. I’ve said from the beginning, I expected Biden to mop the floor with her. He didn’t. I won’t go so far as to say that I think Palin won, either on points or on some silly “she won by not making an utter ass of herself and McCain” gift. I think she held her own as a debater. This was the Sarah Palin I saw in earlier (Alaskan politics) debate: feisty, tough, folksy, and sounding like she knows what she’s talking about (whether she does altogether or not) and at several points besting Biden. I would not like to meet Palin in a debate on any topic. She’s good.

    Substantively, I think Biden showed more depth of knowledge on issues one would expect from someone who’s spent decades on a foreign affairs committee, a depth Palin couldn’t match no matter how quick a study she was. On the other hand, Palin studied up for this thing and it showed. She was nowhere near the simpering idiot she’s been made out to be by many of her critics.

    I was suitably impressed with both v-p candidates’ performances.

  4. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    Winspike,

    I agree that Biden is the more qualified of the two for v-p. Then again, Biden is vastly more qualified than OBAMA for president, as is McCain. Between Biden and McCain, experience-wise, I think it’s a wash. But as it stands now (post v-p debate) no one (including myself) will be voting in November on which of the two v-p candidates is the more experienced. Sarah Palin, in my opinion, did what she needed to do in order to neutralize the impression that Palin is just unacceptable as McCain’s v-p.

  5. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    On a scale of one to ten I would give Governor Palin a six overall and Senator Biden an eight.

    I think I’m roughly in agreement with this judgment. Which, I think, is all that could be expected of a first term Governor tapped for v-p. She didn’t win the debate but, on the other hand, a six is much better than I and many expected her to do.

  6. By Windspike on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    if I’m not mistaken, Palin is running for Veep. McSame, prez. I’m voting Obama/Biden because McSame, to me is no different than Bush. Palin not qualified. Obama may be new, but he is qualified.

  7. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    And I’m back (provisionally) to voting for McCain/Biden because Obama’s just way too liberal and way underqualified (not necessarily in that order) and, and these are the real issue for me: I’d rather the government be split (there’s no way Republicans are going to take back either of the chambers of Congress so I want a Republican president to offset Democratic-led Congress in a way Obama will never do) and I prefer the kinds of judges that McCain has said he would put forward for the bench than the sort Obama would (again in no particular order). I think Iraq is a wash, at this point, meaning that we have so won in Iraq that Obama’s pulling out will probably not cause irreparable harm to our interests in the region.

    Plus, I don’t think repeating McSame hundreds of thousands of times makes McCain=Bush rational. On a number of very important issues, McCain has NOT been the same as Bush and I judge that a McCain at the helm the last seven and a half years would have looked vastly different than they have. No way to prove it of course, but voting with the leader of one’s Party is nothing like being the leader of one’s party and setting the policy agenda.

    And I judge Palin to have proven herself qualified enough at this point for me to be able to vote for McCain/Palin.

    I mean, I respect your take and all, I just don’t agree with it.

  8. By Paul Watson on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    Craig,
    Warning: Complete and total threadjack up ahead! Warning!

    Now that that’s out of the way, the split government thing only comes into effect when the other party is in power. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004 because Republicans controlled Congress? Did you vote Democrat two years ago because George Bush as in the White House? Doubtful. It’s only important to people (on both sides, I’m not picking on you) to have a split house when it’s the other guy’s agenda who’ll be implemented if there isn’t. It’s a it of a disingenuous argument, no matter who uses it (unless they’re consistent, of course, but that’s not likely).

    On another matter, I don’t understand why you guys thought politicising the judiciary to this extent was smart. The Supreme Court should really be made up of moderates who either party could support, especially as they can’t be gotten rid of. I’d suggest a 9 person panel (4 Republican, 4 Democrat and the VP) and require a 6-3 majority to get appointed. That way, you can’t appoint complete and total partisan nutcases (again of either party). You’ve got to at least try to get someone who won’t be divisive. It’s just an idea.

    We now return you to the thread in progress.

  9. By Lisa on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    It seems in 5 weeks we know more about Palin than we know about Obama in 3 years.

  10. By Lisa on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    He’s a seasoned politician and he’s used to double talk.
    I think she is more real than Biden or Obama.
    I think she is the biggest “change” on the ticket . I think people are getting tired of “typical” politicians.
    She’s not phony,like a breath of fresh air.

  11. By manapp99 on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    “Joe Biden spoke from facts and corrected many of the topics that Palin went off topic on. She was quoting voting records of Obama, Biden, and McCain and Joe Biden knew the facts behind each of the votes which Governor Palin was not privy too. Big mistake on her part on specifics”

    However from Factcheck.org…

    “Biden incorrectly said “John McCain voted the exact same way” as Obama on a controversial troop funding bill. The two were actually on opposite sides.”

    Snip…

    “Biden wrongly claimed that McCain “voted the exact same way” as Obama on the budget bill that contained an increase on singles making as little as $42,000 a year. McCain voted against it. Biden was referring to an amendment that didn’t address taxes at that income level.”

    You say that Joe Biden “knew the facts”.
    Then he must just be lying about them then.

    Of course, what do you expect from a man who would steal another mans work and present it as his own.

    Who would you have for vice president? Someone who just doesn’t know the facts yet or one that knows them and lies about them?

  12. By Jet Netwal on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    Oh, factcheck.org had plenty to point out about Palin too. Based on your criteria (Who would you have for vice president? Someone who just doesn’t know the facts yet or one that knows them and lies about them?), she isn’t qualified either.

  13. By manapp99 on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    Jet, since Biden has been on the national scene for 30 years and was in the senate when the bills he misrepresented were voted on you would have to call him a liar.
    Since Sarah has not been on the national scene at all and was not present when the bills were voted on you would have to say she was just incorrect or ill informed. She can learn the details, but can we trust that Joe will not lie to us? He was, after all, busted stealing the works of other and trying to pass them off as his own.

    This just goes to Obama’s poor judgement by chosing a lying thief.

  14. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    Paul W.,

    Did you vote for Kerry in 2004 because Republicans controlled Congress?

    Alas, no, but I voted Democrat for Congress from my district and state.

    Did you vote Democrat two years ago because George Bush as in the White House?

    Actually, I didn’t vote in 2006. We had just moved and hadn’t registered in time to vote.

    It’s a it of a disingenuous argument, no matter who uses it (unless they’re consistent, of course, but that’s not likely).

    Given my vote in 2004 for Democrats in Congress, I plead consistency. But inconsistency doesn’t mean that splitting the government isn’t a good idea, even if it is only pleaded when the other guys are in power. The first six years of the Bush administration is an excellent illustration of the excellence of this idea.

    I don’t understand why you guys thought politicising the judiciary to this extent was smart.

    That happened when the Supreme Court decided to politicize life and death decisions rather than leaving them in the hands of the political process where they belong. I speak, of course, of Roe v. Wade, the invention of a right supported by nothing but the raw power to make a thing so by a body that is beyond review and beyond being held accountable for its actions. Blame Justice Brennan and the ultra liberal Justices who signed on to his legal fiction. I refuse to apologize for re-politicizing the protection of innocent human life. When moderate in judges means respecting the limitations placed upon them by the Constitution, the willingness to leave such matters in the hands of the people from whom the courts derive their authority, I’m perfectly willing to leave the courts to moderates. Unfortunately, moderates no longer exist. They are either hell-bent on instituting the liberal agenda throughout the land or protecting the Constitution. Given this, I’ll take judges that protect the Constitution every time.

    Any such suggestion would require an amendment to the Constitution. Unlikely. I don’t know what the solution is, or, indeed, if a solution is needed. But if the solution means giving Barack Obama the court picks he has promised to pick, there won’t be a moderate in the courts for Obama’s entire term(s), particularly considering that Democrats are likely to extend their majority in both chambers of Congress. He’ll get the most liberal justices and judges approved.

    Now I understand liberals liking that idea but, hopefully, you will understand a conservative choking on the idea.

  15. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    To the above discussion, the part about courts, I would add that a President John McCain, is unlikely to get strong conservatives approved by the Democratic lead Senate. If moderate judges and SCOTUS Justices is the goal, then McCain’s the man for moderate judicial picks are the only ones likely to be approved by the Senate.

  16. By Craig R. Harmon on Oct 3, 2008 | Reply

    If moderate judges and SCOTUS Justices is the goal, then McCain’s the man for moderate judicial picks are the only ones likely to be approved by the Senate.

    Just a clarification: I mean to say that, inasmuch as McCain has promised to nominate the likes of Roberts and Alito and inasmuch as the Democratic majority in the Senate is unlikely to let another Roberts or Alito anywhere near an up or down vote for approval, a well qualified McCain judical pick that passes approval by a Democratic-led Senate is not going to be a strongly ideological conservative. Nor, given McCain’s promise regarding judicial picks, are his nominees likely to be strongly ideological liberals. What is left is an O’Connor/Kennedy “swing” type justice that is unlikely to satisfy anyone. I’m just arguing that a President Obama has promised to nominate ideological liberals to the court and the chances of a weak Republican minority in the Senate stopping such picks from being approved are roughly zero. If moderates on the courts are the ideal, then McCain is the ONLY choice for President.

  17. By Matthew O'Keefe on Oct 4, 2008 | Reply

    Taxi please! When is the next bus?

  1. 1 Trackback(s)

  2. Oct 3, 2008: Biden - Palin Debate Winner

Post a Comment

Fish.Travel