Comments on: Joe Biden: Experience With A Big Heart Is A Winning Combo

By: TheShadowKnows

TheShadowKnows — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:00:09 +0000

This was a replay of Dan Quayle - Sen. Benston debate.

Quayle basically ignored most of the questions, went straight to the same repeated TALKING POINTS every chance he had. Ditto for Palin.

The Republican paid pundits raved about how Quayle was focused, and on-point. In fact he was showing disrespect for the debate questions, and disrespect for the American people who tuned in to hear positions, instead of pre-manufactured slogans and disproven charges.

At least, Dan Qualye didn’t have the nerve to wink at the audience, and ask for increased powers for the vice presidency.

ENOUGH!

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:58:16 +0000

The CBS poll of “Undecided Voters” actually gave Biden a larger margin over Palin (46%-21%) than Obama got over McCain (40%-22%). So unless Palin swung back some of those people already committed to Obama-Biden (at least more than those on the other side) there could actually be a slight shift in the polls based upon this. About 18% of the Undecideds said that they waited until this and have committed now to Obama. Only 10% swung to McCain.
I’ll go with that differential!

It won’t change numbers by very much since in most States the Undecideds are only about 5%. That would mean a gain of about a point for Obama and half that for McCain. Still it might suggest a pattern of 2:1 erosion for the rest…especially as undecideds are generally followers of the National trend of opinion.

By: wesgpc

wesgpc — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:34:48 +0000

Yes, I agree. State does civil unions with eye towards portecting peoples’ rights and clearly defining their responsbilities, and faciliating socially useful legal framework for such. Only sticks its nose into religious marraige issues when needed to preserve framework of civil unions.

Would be simpler, clearer and more better all the way around, and more in keeping with separation of church and state.

By: openhope

openhope — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:17:32 +0000

In my opinion it’s not shocking, it’s exactly how I think. I think it’d be better if couples were required to register for a civil union with the state,and all the legally binding issues those unions would ensure, and marry as a religious ceremony as a community covenant thing.
But the civil union would be the legal, required format. And require legal unbinding.

By: openhope

openhope — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:11:40 +0000

I took “I love him” in the same vein as “Bless his heart”. Means you’re positioning yourself in a public forum to slam em. A meaningless phrase before the strike.

By: selise

selise — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:11:32 +0000

btw - the house rules committee had an emergency meeting today and reported out a rule to cover consideration of the sellout bailout. and it’s first on tomorrow’s agenda.

i’ll write a dairy first thing in the morning with links and details.

By: wesgpc

wesgpc — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:08:46 +0000

I am religious, but I agree. I think marriage should be a religious ceremony, with no particular state sanction for something called marriage, if marriage has any religious overtones. So, I am sure many people both gay and straight will not a gree with me, but I see the two as equivalent.

I would like the state to get out of the business of marryng people. It should be a religious consideration with as little interference from the state as possible.

I want the state to get civil unions right, set boundaries for churches can do so to protect peoples rights, and then get out of the marriage business.

Hope that aint shocking, coming from a religous person.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:07:33 +0000

I heard her say that too. A freudian slip of her tongue it was.

I think she might have been under the influence of a witch or something.

It’s time for John McCain to leav…er lead the way home.

By: Redshift

Redshift — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:05:12 +0000

That’s what I thought at first, but on second thought, I’m inclined to believe that she knows what Achilles heel means, but admitting any kind of weakness wasn’t in her talking points. (Which itself would be kind of bizarre, since “what is your greatest weakness” it the standard “turn it into a positive” job interview question.)

By: johnSwifty22

johnSwifty22 — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 05:05:00 +0000

I don’t know what sort of relationships John McCain has had or can have, but the more you seriously look into his history, he is this marvelous–almost miraculous–contrast between fact and narrative.

Everything about the “story” of the man seems to be contrasted by his own facts.

He was an idiot in school; a shitty pilot; a collaborative prisoner of war; a corrupt politician; a party line toer with aspirations of maverickisity but ultimately a lock step brownshirter to the cause.

But his story persist as Hero…reformer…maverick…changer.

I think the best thing I heard tonight was Joe Biden simply stating, “He is no maverick on the issues that matter.”

Now, if he didn’t preface that with “I love him.” Why does anybody love him? He really seems like a shitty little dude.