47 comments

  1. Doug Deal says:

    Palin won it. That is the most clear cut debate win since maybe Reagan promised to not use Mondale’s youth and inexperience against him.

    What is scary is that she could have made it more devastating if she was more comfortable in the beginning. Biden left himself open for a few big uppercuts to the chin, but she didn’t take them, opting instead to win a unanimous decision on points.

    It will be interesting to see the bounce on this one.

  2. umustbekidding says:

    It will be more interesting to see the media SPIN on this one.
    Palin did a great job. It is easier for her to talk when Katie Coric isn’t giving her the dirtiest looks ever.

  3. debbie0040 says:

    Sarah Barrucuda is back!! McCain needs to keep the Bush people away from her…

    Even the NYTimes thinks Palin did well in the debate.

    url:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03brooks.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin

    The Palin Rebound
    comments Sign In to E-Mail or Save This Print Share
    LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

    By DAVID BROOKS
    Published: October 2, 2008
    There are some moments when members of a political movement come together as one, sharing the same thoughts, feeling the same emotions, breathing the same shallow breaths. One of those occasions occurred Thursday night when Republicans around the country crouched nervously behind their sofas, glimpsed out tentatively at their flat screens and gripped their beverages tightly as Sarah Palin walked onto the debate stage at Washington University in St. Louis.

    Skip to next paragraph

    David Brooks

    Go to Columnist Page »

    The Conversation
    Times columnists David Brooks and Gail Collins discuss the 2008 presidential race.

    All Conversations » Readers’ Comments
    Share your thoughts on this article.
    Post a Comment »There she was, resplendent in black, striding out like a power-walker, and greeting Joe Biden like an assertive salesman, first-naming him right off the bat.

    Just as the midcentury psychologist Abraham Maslow predicted, Republicans watching the debate had a hierarchy of needs. First, they had a need for survival. Was this woman capable of completing an extemporaneous paragraph — a collection of sentences with subjects, verbs, objects and, if possible, an actual meaning?

    By the end of her opening answers, it was clear she would meet the test. She spoke with that calm, measured poise that marked her convention speech, not the panicked meanderings of her subsequent interviews.

    When nervous, Palin has a tendency to over-enunciate her words like a graduate of the George W. Bush School of Oratory, but Thursday night she spoke like a normal person. It took her about 15 seconds to define her persona — the straight-talking mom from regular America — and it was immediately clear that the night would be filled with tales of soccer moms, hockey moms, Joe Sixpacks, main-streeters, “you betchas” and “darn rights.” Somewhere in heaven Norman Rockwell is smiling.

    With a bemused smile and a never-ending flow of words, she laid out her place on the ticket — as the fearless neighbor for the heartland bemused by the idiocies of Washington. Her perpetual smile served as foil to Biden’s senatorial seriousness.

    Where was this woman was during her interview with Katie Couric?

    Their primal need for political survival having been satisfied, her supporters then looked for her to shift the momentum. And here we come to the interesting cultural question posed by her performance. The presidency and the vice presidency once was the preserve of white men in suits. As the historian Ellen Fitzpatrick pointed out on PBS Thursday night, if, in 1984, Geraldine Ferraro had spoken in the relentlessly folksy tones that Palin used, she would have been hounded out of politics as fundamentally unserious.

    But that was before casual Fridays, boxers or briefs and T-shirt-clad Silicon Valley executives. Today, Palin can hit those colloquial notes again and again, and it is not automatically disqualifying.

    On Thursday night, Palin took her inexperience and made a mansion out of it. From her first “Nice to meet you. May I call you Joe?” she made it abundantly, unstoppably and relentlessly clear that she was not of Washington, did not admire Washington and knew little about Washington. She ran not only against Washington, but the whole East Coast, just to be safe.

    To many ears, her accent, her colloquialisms and her constant invocations of the accoutrements of everyday life will seem cloying. But in the casual parts of the country, I suspect, it went down fine. In any case, that’s who Palin is.

    On matters of substance, her main accomplishment was to completely sever ties to the Bush administration. She treated Bush as some historical curiosity from the distant past. Beyond that, Palin broke no new ground, though she toured the landscape of McCain policy positions with surprising fluency. Like the last debate, this one was surprisingly wonky — a lifetime subscription to Congressional Quarterly. Palin could not match Biden when it came to policy detail, but she never obviously floundered.

    She was surprisingly forceful on the subject of Iran (pronouncing Ahmadinejad better than her running mate) though she stepped over the line in claiming that Democrats sought to raise the “the white flag of surrender.”

    Biden, for his part, was smart, fluid and relentless. He did not hit the change theme hard enough. He did not praise Barack Obama enough. But he was engaging, serious and provided a moving and revealing moment toward the end, when he invoked the tragedy that befell his own family and revealed the passion that has driven him all his life.

    Still, this debate was about Sarah Palin. She held up her end of an energetic debate that gave voters a direct look at two competing philosophies. She established debating parity with Joe Biden. And in a country that is furious with Washington, she presented herself as a radical alternative.

    By the end of the debate, most Republicans were not crouching behind the couch, but standing on it. The race has not been transformed, but few could have expected as vibrant and tactically clever a performance as the one Sarah Palin turned in Thursday night.

  4. Chris says:

    Not reading the comments and spoiling it, but my prediction is that if you went into the debate thinking Palin was an under qualified uneducated hick from the backwoods of Alaska, then Joe Biden beat her pants off and she asked for more.

    If you though Sarah Palin was the second coming here to suffer on behalf of the sins of the GOP then She wiped the floor with gaf-Biden.

  5. John Konop says:

    The poll numbers did not look good for Palin. I think she did a good job holding the base which may help the GOP hold the base for down ticket elections. Yet Palin did not reach independents according to polls after the debate.

    CBS Focus Group: Biden Wins Early numbers from a nationally representative poll of 473 uncommitted voters give Biden a significant edge: 46 percent say he won compared to 21 percent for Palin. Thirty-three percent said it was a tie.

    Eighteen percent of previously uncommitted percent say they are now committed to the Obama-Biden ticket. Ten percent say they are now committed to McCain-Palin. Seventy-one percent are still uncommitted.

    Both candidates improved their overall image tonight. Fifty-three percent of those surveyed say they now have a better impression of Biden. Five percent say they have a worse opinion of the Delaware senator, while 42 percent say they debate did not change their opinion.

    Fifty-five percent say they now have a better opinion of Palin. Fourteen percent say they have a worse opinion, while 30 percent say their opinion hasn’t changed.

    After the debate, 66 percent see Palin as knowledgeable about important issues – up from 43 percent before the debate. But Biden still has the advantage on this – 98 percent saw him as knowledgeable after the debate. That figure was 79 percent before the debate.

    CNN poll had similar results.

  6. I thought they made a nice couple. Too bad America is blinded by the pseudo-partisanship. Great delivery of talking points, no real substance. Sad that either one will most likely be the next VP. If you think either one is good for America, you’re delusional. Come November, pick your poison.
    Or…
    Barr Root 2008

  7. Three Jack says:

    konop, you can’t rely upon cbs/cnn polls, come on.

    any chance mccain can suspend his campaign again and let sarahcuda step up on tuesday against obama?

  8. debbie0040 says:

    Frank Luntz had a focus group for FoxNews just l ike he did for the McCain-Obama debate. For the McCain-Obama debate Luntz said the focus group thought Obama scored points and would probably see an increase in the polls.

    Last night they thought Palin won the debate and some even changed their vote to McCain. They were impressed with Palin’s one of you demeanor. Luntz predicted a shift in the polls in McCain’s direction

  9. debbie0040 says:

    url:http://www.nypost.com/seven/10032008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/palin_wins_big_with_a_reagan_like_flair_131936.htm

    PALIN WINS BIG WITH A REAGAN-LIKE FLAIR
    Comments: 13Read Comments Leave a Comment By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
    Posted: 4:40 am
    October 3, 2008

    LAST night was a big, big win for Sarah Palin.

    She showed originality, charisma and sass – a style that is refreshing and different in our politics. She didn’t just win the vice-presidential debate, she showed that she belongs with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as among the best communicators of our modern political times.

    Her sallies against big government were brilliantly conceived and well executed. Her line that she didn’t understand how Washington worked because politicians vote for something right after they vote against it, for example, was just wonderful.

    Another classic came when she bit back at moderator Gwen Ifill and opponent Joe Biden and said she’d answer the questions as she wanted to, not necessarily as they wanted her to do.

    Gone, long gone, are the worries about how good or well-prepared Sarah Palin is.

    Most important, she showed how John McCain would bring change to Washington. Would that McCain could articulate his own sense of change as well as his running mate did!

    For his part, Biden sounded like the warmed-over has-been that he is – he seemed to be on downers. Where she was thrilling and exciting, he was hypnotically boring. He seemed like more of the same, while she seemed like a breath of fresh air.

    Without trepidation, she tossed aside the Bush years and spoke of the “blunders” in Iraq. She was able to skewer Wall Street and show Republican opposition to the greed there.

    She even handled Biden very well on his turf, foreign policy – meeting him head-to-head on every issue, and winning.

    Everyone realizes that Palin has been in this field for only five weeks; her ability, nonetheless, to prevail against a veteran like Biden is a testament to her intellect and skill.

    That smiling face, those novel phrases, that informal style – it was all a pleasure and a refreshing change.

    And she got her ticket off on the right foot for October – making the tax issue stick and zinging Barack Obama’s economic programs and his big-spending plans.

    The Alaska governor did a wonderful job of displaying her experience and justifying her candidacy in terms of her expertise on energy issues. It’s now far harder to dismiss her as an unqualified flake.

    More, she connected in a way that few politicians do: She speaks for us.

    Palin did a lot to help McCain last night – illustrated the best about him. But she did more to help herself – vaulting to a leading role among women in American politics. Her authenticity and unique style will be with us for years to come.

    Last night’s Palin victory will have an immediate impact on the presidential race – arresting McCain’s fall and slowing Obama’s surge.

    The only question is whether it will be enough to reverse Obama’s gains of the past week. It might go a long way in that direction.

  10. debbie0040 says:

    PALIN WINS BIG WITH A REAGAN-LIKE FLAIR
    Comments: 13Read Comments Leave a Comment By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
    Posted: 4:40 am
    October 3, 2008

    LAST night was a big, big win for Sarah Palin.

    She showed originality, charisma and sass – a style that is refreshing and different in our politics. She didn’t just win the vice-presidential debate, she showed that she belongs with Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as among the best communicators of our modern political times.

    Her sallies against big government were brilliantly conceived and well executed. Her line that she didn’t understand how Washington worked because politicians vote for something right after they vote against it, for example, was just wonderful.

    Another classic came when she bit back at moderator Gwen Ifill and opponent Joe Biden and said she’d answer the questions as she wanted to, not necessarily as they wanted her to do.

    Gone, long gone, are the worries about how good or well-prepared Sarah Palin is.

    Most important, she showed how John McCain would bring change to Washington. Would that McCain could articulate his own sense of change as well as his running mate did!

    For his part, Biden sounded like the warmed-over has-been that he is – he seemed to be on downers. Where she was thrilling and exciting, he was hypnotically boring. He seemed like more of the same, while she seemed like a breath of fresh air.

    Without trepidation, she tossed aside the Bush years and spoke of the “blunders” in Iraq. She was able to skewer Wall Street and show Republican opposition to the greed there.

    She even handled Biden very well on his turf, foreign policy – meeting him head-to-head on every issue, and winning.

    Everyone realizes that Palin has been in this field for only five weeks; her ability, nonetheless, to prevail against a veteran like Biden is a testament to her intellect and skill.

    That smiling face, those novel phrases, that informal style – it was all a pleasure and a refreshing change.

    And she got her ticket off on the right foot for October – making the tax issue stick and zinging Barack Obama’s economic programs and his big-spending plans.

    The Alaska governor did a wonderful job of displaying her experience and justifying her candidacy in terms of her expertise on energy issues. It’s now far harder to dismiss her as an unqualified flake.

    More, she connected in a way that few politicians do: She speaks for us.

    Palin did a lot to help McCain last night – illustrated the best about him. But she did more to help herself – vaulting to a leading role among women in American politics. Her authenticity and unique style will be with us for years to come.

    Last night’s Palin victory will have an immediate impact on the presidential race – arresting McCain’s fall and slowing Obama’s surge.

    The only question is whether it will be enough to reverse Obama’s gains of the past week. It might go a long way in that direction.

  11. Tinkerhell says:

    From the average guy perspective, those I talk with feel it wasn’t anythign spectacular on way or the other. Basically Bidden was an experienced politician and Palin did a good job of holding her own. I think they each had a few good parts and a couple of gaffs.

    Anyone who thinks that someone majorly won this would have told you the same thing prior to the debate taking place…

  12. Doug Deal says:

    John,

    You can’t be serious. I know you must still be smarting from that 50-60 point womping in your primary, but your Seemingly Mindless Attacks on Anything GOP Tour 2008 is getting ridiculous.

    While you read this paragraph, take the time to think about what could be flawed about those polls. This is the second sentence, so your time is running out. Well, here we go, time’s up.

    The debate ended at 10:30 PM EDT. The bulk of the USA lives in 2 time zones. Eastern where it was after 10:30 and Central where it was after 9:30. If they instantaneously called people at the very second the debate ended that would be the earliest they could call the first caller AFTER the debate.

    How many east coast people are going to answer the phone? How many central time zone people? I know I wouldn’t and almost everyone I know doesn’t like getting calls after 9PM, so it gives them 30 minutes for the Mountain Time zone for a lot of people.

    Plus, they are claiming that they are reacing “previously uncommitted” voters. This is impossible to police. I was once polled when I had a landline and because of my dislike of governance by polls I pretty much answered randomly to every question. How many people are truly “uncommitted”? And, if they are uncommitted, how can they balance the Gop-Dem balance to be sure they do not have a very skewed poll?

    My final point is that anyone who trusts a poll conducted “overnight” without its methodology posted is a little naive to believe it is anything other than a coin toss.

    However, it does allow those with agendas to latch onto them and post them to blogs.

  13. rugby fan says:

    Not to be too pedantic but debbie that was not an editorial on behalf of the NYTimes’ Editorial Page, it was just Brooks’ column for the day. So no, you still can’t say even the Times thought she did well.

    Echoing what rat-bastard said; no more than a 1.5 point bounce for either side.

  14. Doug Deal says:

    As far as winners and losers in the debate, I think the big difference between people is that some look at who was more likeable, some look at who referenced more “facts” (whether accurate or inaccurate), and some look to the whole point of the process, its effect on the strategic bottom line, changing the likelihood of winning the election.

    Biden spouted off a lot of nonsense confidently, and if you were looking to “substance”, one could point to that. Palin was by far more likeable, but both of these are irrelevant.

    Political campaigns are like stocks. Stocks do not move on revelations of “known-unknowns” they move on revelations of “unknown-unknowns”. Stocks have certain expectations in their earnings, and the current price of the stock takes into account that news already. If the earnings are revealed to be off from projects, the stock then jumps to meet that.

    A company expected to lose 100 million this quarter might go through the roof, if instead it lost 50, but a company expected to earn 100 million that only earned 50 million could be the day’s biggest loser.

    The same can be said for political campaigns. An image of Palin was created in the minds of the voter by a hostile press, and McCain’s poll numbers took into account a bad performance by Palin in the debate. Now that illusion has been shattered, and McCain’s stock will take into account whatever new view of her this creates.

    The winner and loser claim has to be about how it will affect the final and only important poll, the one conducted at the ballot box, with a sample size of 120,000,000.

  15. jsm says:

    This whole thing has turned into a contest of wit and making the opponent appear to be a liar.

    Will national ticket candidates ever talk about principles anymore? Some of our greatest leaders in history have spoken to the people about what they believe and how it affects their decisions as they govern. People today are so focused on what government can “give” them, and politicians oblige without telling them the long term consequences.

    I can’t believe Biden said he wanted government to not only lower people’s mortgage interest rates but also their principal. Are you kidding me? He wants government to buy down people’s principal when they bought a house they couldn’t afford? Palin should have pounced on that and called him a socialist.

    She did okay, but it’s obvious the debate was a contest of poise, wit, and comparative experience. Palin spoke to the people and stumbled through a few questions. Biden parsed words to best misrepresent his ticket.

  16. Palin looked almost, but not quite over-coached. Given the expectations for her, Palin was impressive. But she didn’t look presidential. Biden did. If Biden had performed like that in 1988 (sans the Neil Kinnock gaffe), he would have gotten the nomination, not Dukakis.

  17. Chris says:

    Will national ticket candidates ever talk about principles anymore?

    If they did it would expose the fact they have none.

  18. rugby fan says:

    I thought Palin did remarkably well. Then again I was paying more attention to her than Biden.

    Do I think this will change the outcome of the election? Not in the slightest.

  19. John Konop says:

    jsm

    FYI

    This is the plan for the bailout when the government buys the loans. BTW McCain/Obama vote for this.

    “I can’t believe Biden said he wanted government to not only lower people’s mortgage interest rates but also their principal. Are you kidding me? He wants government to buy down people’s principal when they bought a house they couldn’t afford? Palin should have pounced on that and called him a socialist.”

  20. debbie0040 says:

    Taft, When i try to just post the title and the url or a brief snippit, it will not post. Something in the setting..

  21. John Konop says:

    Doug Deal

    I guess you had too much coffee in the morning? What in my post is an attack of anyone? The numbers are the numbers and if you want to be a cheerleader than fine.

    As far as my election who was right or wrong about the economy years ago? At the end people who did not listen to me lost their money! Who was the real loser?

  22. Doug Deal says:

    John,

    All you do is attack anything Republican. You show a lot of bias in everything you post, and a whole lot of negativity and bitterness. You used to not be that way, but each and every post it seems to increase.

    The Republicans suck, the Democrats suck, everyone else in the race is irrelevant. All we have left on which to base a decision is who will do the least harm. If you think whole sale victory by the Dems would be good for this country, you have completely lost it.

    She exceeded expectations, and from a strategic point, that is the one and only thing that matters. It will not be the one thing that will decide this election, but it takes away a major potential liability for McCain, which has an effect. I am sorry if you cannot see that.

  23. John Konop says:

    Doug Deal

    I am not sure I get your point. I am frustrated with the policy coming out of both parties ie the latest bailout package. Does it not bother you the Dems ad pork to a bad bill so the Republicans will vote for this? Both parties have been playing this game for years ie No Child Left Behind, Farm, Highway……

    I am just a bottom-line businessman who is tired of the BS on both sides! And unless Americans stand up and demand change then we are at fault. And must the time all I read about is both sides making excuses why they gave away our tax dollars, while promising something for nothing.

    I realize my message is not popular with both sides but the truth is the truth. And once again I could care less if I ever win an election. I am only doing my small part to inform people. And as I said when many called me “chicken little” was I right or wrong about the economy years ago?

  24. My kin folks call me Nick says:

    I thought she was OK. She was over coached and did not answer a lot of the questions. She broke down her points into sound bytes that will replay good. I don’t think that this debate will have a big impact on the election.

    It does beg the question of what/why have they been sheltering her? If she is half way knowledgable and articulate why not turn her loose and let her do all the interviews?

  25. Icarus says:

    “I don’t think that this debate will have a big impact on the election. ”

    That’s the major takeaway from last night. Both candidates did what they wanted, neither had a major gaffe. After being shocked by her pick, the MSM and the Kos Kids have spent the last few weeks paiting Palin as a rube from the sticks who couldn’t possibly understand the issues of the lower 48 because she couldn’t keep her kid from getting knocked up. (Not that the Kennedys ever had any troubles with their kids)

    The Palin pick filled the vaccum created by Obama fatigue, Iraq fatigue, and no real other news. The economy is now all people care about, and they would elect Rev Wright if he could convince swing voters that they will feel no pain and have higher 401K’s 4 years from now.

    The VPs are now irrelevent.

  26. My kin folks call me Nick says:

    “The VPs are now irrelevent.”

    As it should be!

    Still, the question remains. Why did they cage her up for so long? Is this tactical error # 12121 for the campaign?

    If she could have been out there making the case all along, why not?

  27. I repeat: “What debate?”

    There was no debate. There were two establishment politicians, standing on a stage, speaking well-rehearsed soundbites that are completely empty and meaningless, and are forgotten as soon as they leave the lips.

    Give me a REAL debate, and include more than just one party.

  28. Doug Deal says:

    John,

    How many times do I have to call Isakson and Shambles idiots, corrupt, morons, an empty suit, an empty pair of overalls, socialists, and RINOs before I get credit for calling out both sides. How about my hatred of DeLay, Rove, Cheney, George Bush, Boehner and others.

    Both parties scrape the very rotted bottom of the barrel, it is just that the Democrats have always been able to scrape a little bit deeper.

    I think the last Republican leader I respected was John Kasich.

  29. c_murrayiii says:

    Maybe I am nit-picking here, but there was one comment from Biden that told me all I needed to hear about him, they were talking about the role of the Vice President’s role in the Congress and how Cheney has viewed that role and how Palin or Biden would view their role. Palin said she believed that the VP has a clear role in the Senate as dictated by the Constitution. For the record, the Constitution says the VP is president of the Senate but does not vote unless there is a tie. Biden basically bashed Cheney and then said that Article 1 of the Constitution sets out the duties of the Executive branch and that the VP is not part of the Legislative branch, etc. Heres my issue, Article 1 of the Constitution deals with the Legislative branch, the Congress, and clearly mentions the VP as the President of the Senate. Article 2 outlines the Executive branch. Why is that a big deal? Well, a Senator for over 30 years doesn’t even know the most basic parts of our Constitution, something he has taken an oath to uphold and defend every six years since he became a Senator. And now he wants to become the second highest ranking Constitutional Officer in our country. That is scary. I know, some of you probably think it was a slip up, but I believe Biden really doesn’t know the Constitution, and the fact he thinks the Executive Branch would be the first Article of the Constitution says a great deal about how he views the role of government. Just my opinion though.

  30. Doug Deal says:

    c_

    And he was so confident and smug about it. And that pretty much sums up the problems with the Democrats. They are clearly wrong on many things, yet still confident proclaim their own brilliance.

    The interesting thing is that there are Constitutional scholars that believe that the Vice President is actually a legislative officer, and as such has no constitutional right to act on behalf of the President due to seperation of powers issues.

    Remember that the original purpose of the vice president was not to be the President’s right hand man (or woman) but to be a position for the person who was favored second most for President. Putting the political opponent as the presiding officer of the Senate allowed for the Presidents chief rival to be directing one branch of the legislature.

    It is just another check removed from our system of checks and balances over the years that I think has harmed our country.

  31. Doug Deal says:

    rugby,

    You do realize that Andrew Sullivan is about as reliable as a climate forcast. He uses himself as his source, and the logic of his posts is ridiculously slanted.

    “Well she said a couple of days, and it couldn’t been a couple of days, at most one day. LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR”.

    Do you actually read his articles, or do you just read the headline and the summary and not dig to the meat of his articles. Obviously not.

    I do not fault people for being slightly off on a statistic in a speech, calling one person by the name of another when it is obvious who they meant. Andrew Sullivan makes absurd and exaggerated claims about the inaccuracies about her statements by choosing to interpret her comments in the most unfavorable light and by choosing to use “evidence” that has been filtered against anything that will dilute his pre-made conclusion.

    Biden’s gaffs go to a fundamental understanding of the Constitution about the VERY JOB HE SEEKS. He is also a lawyer on the Judiciary committee who has the gall to lecture learned judges on his interpretations of the Constitution. His error is not one of misremembering a statistic that may be calculated on several different basis that could effect its calculation (such as the energy example).

    One of them cannot even be stretched into a lie at all no matter what the interpretation. She said that she had not met with the Police Chief and therefore there was no firing and no meeting. She added that she was going to meet with him later that afternoon.

    At that meeting she fired him. Do you prefer people to discuss personnel moves with everyone else before they are mentioned to the person being fired? Until you can point out how saying that there has not been a meeting and there hasn’t been a firing is a lie BEFORE there was a meeting or a firing, you and your buddy Sully are just full of the usual partisan hot air.

  32. rugby fan says:

    Hrm, well considering in that story he always ultimately links back to a primary source so your concern there is unfounded (additionally, it is not always a crime to cite yourself as proof. Although, had he done so in any of those examples it would have been inappropriate).

    So if we were to ask you if you dig into the meat of his posts, your response in this instance would have to be “no”.

    Now, is Sully prone to the odd lapse? Yes, aren’t we all. Are some of his claims specious? Yes, aren’ t we all guilty of that? Now, in respect to the link at hand, it is hardly a reach to claim that well, Sarah Palin has repeatedly lied about several of her claims. I say that because many times she has been asked to clarify her statement and she will stand by her original claim even if it is easy to debunk.

    As for Biden’s “gaffs[sic]” in regard to the Constitution, I believe is a misnomer because he has only made one this campaign, as far as I know. Do I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution? I actually have no idea, but it is a big leap to go “he slipped up once, he has no knowledge of the Constitution”. He did go to law school, he would likely have some comprehension of it (and likely, a better one than people who haven’t studied it have). I am not sure what you are trying to say in your last sentence there but I will close on this note.

    Biden made a gaffe in a speech. You say that shows he doesn’t get the Constitution. Yet you say: “I do not fault people for being slightly off on a statistic in a speech, calling one person by the name of another when it is obvious who they meant.” My guess is we have to read your statement quite literally and not apply your judgment to being slightly off when citing a document, or calling one role by the name of another when it is obvious what they meant”.

  33. Doug Deal says:

    rugby,

    It was not a mere slip; it is a total misunderstanding of what the Vice President is. He has only one power, the presiding officer of the Senate. He can be elevated to the Presidency, making him an executive officer, but then he is no longer the Vice President at that point.

    His misnaming the article is forgivable and it is silly to criticize him for that, but he is running for the job, and should at least know the Constitutional basis of the office at the very minimum.

    To be sure, I think it should be unconstitutional for the Vice-President, a legislative officer, from having any executive responsibility due to separation of powers.

Comments are closed.