The Candidates Debates

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Did you not read the whole story like you said. It was already disclosed to the public in August and early September. Why bring it up again? I am more than sure the Commission was well aware of it even w/o her mentioning it again. If I saw a fellow getting their as* beat on T.V, I dont have to ask that person about the fight.

Again, I read the whole story like I said.

Did you know about the book before all this came up? Did Obama and McCain? (Looks like no for McCain) Did the Commission? So how public is "public"

The whole point of disclosures is that you bring stuff up that might be important to be considered. It's not supposed to be an easter egg hunt. Like when you fill out forms and it asks you to list any felonies... try leaving it blank and saying "Oh, but it was all public!"

The reason this doesn't pass the smell test is because it stinks.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

We just need to take our real intelligence and bomb Bin Laden on Friday and get it over with and move all our troops home from there as well. Its not like we dont know where he is. The problem is that we cant get Bush to do it, because of all his family business with Bin Laden family. Like they say. Kill the head and the rest will follow.

Well then, here's hoping Obama bombs him. (If he doesn't, what does that mean?)

[mary]

I just want to make a few points.

1. This is NOT a race issue.

2. It would've been better to bring it up to the commission, even if she thought it was public knowledge.

3. Yes, she'll sell more books if Obama is elected.

4. No, she's not going to throw her otherwise well respected journalism career down the toilet just to "throw" a debate. Credibility is everything to a journalist.

5. I wouldn't have minded if she stepped down, but it's really too late to do anything about it now.

[Usually Lurkin]

Columbia Journalism Review on Ifill's conflict
http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/drudge_raises_a_point.php

[Mavdog]

gwen ifill is doing a fantastic job, isn't she?

palin is also very comfortable, she has handled biden with ease so far.

[ocelot_ark]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

gwen ifill is doing a fantastic job, isn't she?

palin is also very comfortable, she has handled biden with ease so far.

Yep. I can't point out a "winner," but Palin has been much better than I expected.

[Mavdog]

palin has just brought the mccain campaign off of life support.

the public is screaming for change, and she sure talked the talk.

biden did just fine, but that was expected.

I expect to see a bounce for mccain/palin from this debate.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

palin has just brought the mccain campaign off of life support.

the public is screaming for change, and she sure talked the talk.

biden did just fine, but that was expected.

I expect to see a bounce for mccain/palin from this debate.

I have to tell you that I really respect your honesty.

[chumdawg]

I expect that Palin supporters got a charge out of that. She definitely showed me moxie in spades. And truthfully, I doubted that she had that in her. I'll say that she did even better than most anyone thought she could do.

However, I'm someone who listens to the answers on their merits, and in that respect I didn't expect her to do anything besides recite McCain talking points. (And to have nowhere near the best of it even then.) My guess is that if broke this debate down on transcript alone, having not seen it, we would wonder why it is that she did not address many of the questions, at least with any depth.

I thought Biden was absolutely terrific in terms of doing what he needed to do.

So, I will give them both high grades for their performances, even if I believe that one of those performances was greater on substantive terms.

[mary]

The whole audience reaction measurement is really stupid. Its just people turning a knob...seriously, its really dumb.

Anyway, I told someone today Palin's strategy would be to basically ignore questions that she was uncomfortable with and stick to her talking points. I don't think I was wrong.

That being said, she exceeded my expectations, low as they were.

I thought Biden did a good job - I would say he was a bit heavy handed on throwing out big numbers all night.....probably came off as rambling a bit.

[Flacolaco]

That's an age old political strategy....a pretty annoying one. I always thought Bubba was the king of not answering the question he was asked.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by mary

Anyway, I told someone today Palin's strategy would be to basically ignore questions that she was uncomfortable with and stick to her talking points. I don't think I was wrong.

You certainly weren't wrong about that. After all, she came out and said exactly that.

I found it grating, but I understand its usefulness.

[Murphy3]

Palin beat Biden like a drum. Bring out the dea..... bring out the dead..

I'm sure the newspapers and the liberal baby killers will say otherwise, but it was rather obvious.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

That's an age old political strategy....a pretty annoying one. I always thought Bubba was the king of not answering the question he was asked.

And to illustrate that, right off the bat the Obama book writer smartly said:

IFILL: Governor, Senator, neither of you really answered that last question about what you would do as vice president. I'm going to come back to that...

[mary]

I kept lookng for bias in the moderation. I really didn't see any. She didn't really seem to press either candidate as much as Leher did.

Maybe it was the format.

[Flacolaco]

Originally Posted by mary

I kept lookng for bias in the moderation. I really didn't see any. She didn't really seem to press either candidate as much as Leher did.

Maybe it was the format.

Not to sound so partisan, but after the last 24 hours of media attention on her (surprising amount of media attention imo) she had little choice. But she may have done that anyway, there would be no way of knowing of course. I thought she did a satisfactory job (although I confess I did not watch the entire debate)

[Mavdog]

there are a many people who owe ifill an apology.

[kg_veteran]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

palin has just brought the mccain campaign off of life support.

the public is screaming for change, and she sure talked the talk.

biden did just fine, but that was expected.

I expect to see a bounce for mccain/palin from this debate.

Good analysis. I agree.

[rabbitproof]

I thought Palin played to her strengths and held her own, doing it her way. It was definitely an unconventional style but it will work better than her interview character.

Biden also did well but as others have said, just hit par. I really think he'll be a great VP now though. He knows his stuff, his own strengths and his weaknesses and looks like a great pick - both from an electability and interview POV.

So with an even performance, that's a win for Palin. The debate did well to assuage fears about Palin being "smart/ready/experienced" enough to be VP, not unlike the dynamics of the first debate which helped answer questions about Obama's "American-ness".

So, I would also expect a 1-2 point shift towards McCain in the polls - depending on how the bailout bill goes.

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

gwen ifill is doing a fantastic job, isn't she?

palin is also very comfortable, she has handled biden with ease so far.

Yes, Gwen did a fantastic job as usual. I just hate that they had to attack her like that. It was just plain dumb and stupid to accuse her. That is why I was so surprised that someone wanted to bring up that stupid issue like it was just so unfair and she was a monster.

Palin did exactly what she is good at, and we should have figured that. I read someone that she spent the last two days at McCain house going over what to say and give her a crash course on politics she should have already known

[Silk Smoov]

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

VP debate moderator Ifill releasing pro-Obama book
Focuses on blacks who are 'forging a bold new path to political power'




http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=76645

Oh well that sounds perfectly fair.

Here is the post. This is where you posted the silly mess on here for us to debate. Maybe you should have just left it with the first sentence, but you had to add the second part about it focusing on blacks. I think you should have left the entire post off, and let that blogger guy be the stupid one, instead of agreeing.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Good analysis. I agree.

That's your take?

Mavdog's first line was that Palin brought the McCain campaign up off life support. I don't disagree with you or him, but I'm sure you know that this is a left-handed compliment.

His second line was the public is screaming for change, and she talked the talk. That may well be so, but if the public goes to the box to vote on change, do you think she won the public over? If "change" is the variable, Mac doesn't win against Obama.

He said Biden did fine, but that was expected. I thought Biden did far better than fine. It is hard to imagine any VP giving a better performance in support of his candidate than Biden gave tonight.

His fourth line was to expect a small bounce for Mac/Palin. I agree with you both here. But I would caution you to consider the history of his campaign, particularly in regard to Palin's first "energizing" of the base, and realize how short-lived it proved to be.

Nice night for Palin, given how bad it really could have been given the circumstances, but not much help to the ticket. Biden, with a lot to lose, served his ticket in a big way.

On the whole, I think this debate wasn't markedly different from the campaign we have seen over the last month or two.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

there are a many people who owe ifill an apology.

no matter how she behaves there in the moderator seat, he presence is a commercial for Obama.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

no matter how she behaves there in the moderator seat, he presence is a commercial for Obama.

Dude, what agenda are you promoting?

Think about it.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Dude, what agenda are you promoting?

Think about it.

that we should have a more clearly defined division between promoters of a candidate and reporters, and that moderators should come from the latter.

[chumdawg]

Just watched it a second time. If it was a "debate," Palin half the time didn't participate.

But of course, it's not a debate, in the sense of that word. It's a joint infomercial--at least as far as most people are concerned.

Kudos to Palin for surviving the 90 minutes, through art or artifice. But Biden? I wish I could vote for him for the top office. Easily the most "presidential" candidate of anyone in the field, from the beginning, on either side.

Way to go, Joe.

[rabbitproof]

If we hold them to equal standards, Biden blew Palin out the water, he spoke with facts and intelligence while she said things like "We'll fight for your freedom. We will. We'd be honored to fight for your freedom."

So 2001, sister.

As Jon Stewart talked about earlier this week, politicians, stop talking to us like we're dolts.

[chumdawg]

Not to be too hard on her, because I know she's in over her head, but McLellan was a Civil War general you learned about in high school.

"Say it ain't so, Joe." "May I call you Joe?"

[Usually Lurkin]

I know there are a lawyer or 2 around here. Is this correct:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

[rabbitproof]

UL,

From wikipedia:

The Vice President of the United States[1] is the first person in the presidential line of succession, becoming the new President of the United States upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president. Every presidential term ends on January 20 of the year immediately after a presidential election. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber.[2] He or she may be assigned additional duties by the president but, as the Constitution assigns no executive powers to the vice president, in performing such duties he or she acts only as an agent of the president.


Can't eff with the constitution...

[chumdawg]

Oh, goodness. A lawyer isn't going to help you. You are going to need a constitutional scholar at the least, and the Supreme Court at best. This issue has long been in play.

And just so you know, and so you don't think it's a trivial distinction, it (the idea that the VP position constitutionally spans both branches) is a distinction Cheney has used in order to avoid the publication of many of his dealings.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by rabbitproof

UL,

From wikipedia:

The Vice President of the United States[1] is the first person in the presidential line of succession, becoming the new President of the United States upon the death, resignation, or removal of the president. Every presidential term ends on January 20 of the year immediately after a presidential election. As designated by the Constitution of the United States, the vice president also serves as the President of the Senate, and may break tie votes in that chamber.[2] He or she may be assigned additional duties by the president but, as the Constitution assigns no executive powers to the vice president, in performing such duties he or she acts only as an agent of the president.


Can't eff with the constitution...

Thanks. further down at wikipedia, it sounds like Article 1 talks about the VPs legislative role (not executive), and that it does give more power to the VP than just breaking the tie - but that that power is just traditionally not used.

As President of the Senate (Article I, Section 3), the vice president oversees procedural matters and may cast a tie-breaking vote. There is a strong convention within the U.S. Senate that the vice president not use his position as President of the Senate to influence the passage of legislation or act in a partisan manner, except in the case of breaking tie votes.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Oh, goodness. A lawyer isn't going to help you. You are going to need a constitutional scholar at the least, and the Supreme Court at best. This issue has long been in play.

And just so you know, and so you don't think it's a trivial distinction, it (the idea that the VP position constitutionally spans both branches) is a distinction Cheney has used in order to avoid the publication of many of his dealings.

here's a link:
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
it's definitely some vaguery and I don't know the history of the use of the power, but it's quite clear that the constitutionally defined legislative role of the VP is more than just breaking ties (or is at least open to more). Even if the Article 1 thing is a flub, Joe must know this about the role, right?

[chumdawg]

UL...the Constitution has existed a long time, and for the great, great majority of time folks have generally been able to understand what was meant. In other words, it wasn't broke, and no one thought it needed fixin'.

Cheney asserted that he didn't have to turn over certain records of his dealings in office (as someone in the executive branch would have) because his duties didn't fall under the umbrella of the executive branch.

In other words, it's only an issue if you have something to hide.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Even if the Article 1 thing is a flub, Joe must know this about the role, right?

I may have mistaken where you were coming from. No, it was not at all a flub. And the question--as much as I know you might not like it, given your views on Ifill--was clearly (at least, to those who have followed the issue) meant to address the issue of Cheney's perhaps unConstitutional interpretation of the office.

Cheney has raised a Constitutional issue in the way that he has treated the office.

It is an undecided issue.

That's what Ifill was getting at.

[rabbitproof]

UL,

Of course, a VP can *influence* a vote. Anybody can influence anybody and as somebody who may be a potential President someday and, in theory, has the ear of the President, you got some sway. But as far as legal rights granted to the VP by the Constitution (the part you quoted is Wikipedia, not the Constitution), it's pretty limited (to that one right, in fact). In fact, many US VPs have decried the VP position as meaningless.

[mary]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2...in_debate.html

Good stuff over at factcheck this morning - misspeaks and half-truths by both. Much of it I was already familiar with- alot of the accusations were just rehashed from their campaigns, as well as the Presidential debate. But this was in particular had me scratching my head last night. I couldn't, for the life of me, figure out how a tax credit was "budget neutral".

Palin's Health Care Hooey

Palin claimed that McCain's health care plan would be "budget-neutral," costing the government nothing.


Palin: He's proposing a $5,000 tax credit for families so that they can get out there and they can purchase their own health care coverage. That's a smart thing to do. That's budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything ... a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax, that's budget neutral
The McCain campaign hasn't released an estimate of how much the plan would cost, but independent experts contradict Palin's claim of a cost-free program.

The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that McCain's plan, which at its peak would cover 5 million of the uninsured, would increase the deficit by $1.3 trillion over 10 years. Obama's plan, which would cover 34 million of the uninsured, would cost $1.6 trillion over that time period.

[Kirobaito]

I've only read the transcript, but the #1 thing that sticks out to me is Palin seemingly reciting the same BS about how only Republicans understand family values and 'being a parent.' Biden then talked about how his wife and daughter were lost in a car accident and raising his two sons as a single dad (and I've heard that he also choked up at this point) - and she responds with a talking point about McCain being a maverick?

What a heartless bitch.

[Kirobaito]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Not to be too hard on her, because I know she's in over her head, but McLellan was a Civil War general you learned about in high school.

"Say it ain't so, Joe." "May I call you Joe?"

From the transcript I can't seem to figure out where the hell she got McClellan from anything. What does he have to do with this? She just seems to pull him out of thin air on a question about Afghanistan. Does she mean George, the general and 1864 presidential candidate, or Scott, the press secretary? Or someone else?

Also, does she not know what an Achilles' Heel is? Or did she just decide not to answer a single question?

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Silk Smoov

Here is the post. This is where you posted the silly mess on here for us to debate. Maybe you should have just left it with the first sentence, but you had to add the second part about it focusing on blacks. I think you should have left the entire post off, and let that blogger guy be the stupid one, instead of agreeing.

I'm not sure who you're talking to here. I'm the only person you've been discussing this with, and I didn't post that.

Are you feeling ok?