That she and Biden are in essence in agreement on the issue of gay civil rights. Here, from the debate itself: Biden: The bottom line, and I'm glad to hear the Governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she thinks 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: (To Palin): Is that what you said? Palin: Your question to him is whether he supported gay marriage, and my answer is the same as his, and it is, uh, that I do not. Ifill: Wonderful, you agree, on that note, let's move forward. Now, Palin has a problem. She earlier said precisely what Biden said she said - outside of the pablum response, "I'm tolerant, my family has diverse views," she indicated she wouldn't have an issue with visitation rights, and wouldn't support discrimination contracts. Biden picked up on this, and made his statement above. Looking at the video, at precisely that moment, Palin seizes up, and, at least from what I see, I see a woman realizing, "crap, I just blew it," and in terms of her response here and the religious wing of the GOP, she'd be right. Her face says it all (2:44 of the debate portion on the subject): So, yes, I do expect a repudiation of this line of thought. Wade, for reasons I show above, I'd respectfully have to disagree. Ifill asked a legitimate question, and the question was different than the one Palin replied to. Flatly, Ifill asked Palin: "do you agree with": And Palin provided a non-answer to the question. Hazarding a guess, as I show above, I think it's because she immediately realized her error, and hoped to clamp down it by answering another question. But it was a non-answer to the question nevertheless.
Yes, great point, Dave. What she posed was woefully ill-informed, constitutionally, Biden's response was absolutely on the money, and what her view portends should give anyone serious pause. I do expect this may grow to more of a firestorm than it is now.
I will have to assume by your answer that you believe that people "of faith" think that gays should lose their civil rights then? Because she didn't say anything that I see that would get "the religious right" panties in a bind.
No, debunked, I think a lot of people of faith don't believe this at all. I do think Sarah Palin's record is demonstrably anti-gay civil rights, and that is part of why the evangelical conservative movement inside the G.O.P. considered her their voice, for this, and other reasons, along similarly theological lines.
What rights did she try to remove from a gay person. And you say she avoids answering questions and is vague, I have never seen you so vague before. Usually you come out swinging hard.
Well, would healthcare be a good start? Doing everything in her power to deny same-sex, committed couples from enjoying the same healthcare benefits given to committed straight couples, until forced to do so by the Alaska Supreme Court? Again, this isn't about "defining marriage as between a man and a woman." It's about deciding that one class of citizen isn't entitled to benefits given to another class of citizen. It comes from a theological viewpoint, which is why she was wildly approved of by the religious right. And her statements last night stood dangerously close to abrogating her long-time stand - the very reason she tap-danced on a precipice of scree, and put on the brakes in short order, realizing her potentially disastrous flub. As shown above. I do expect some kind of subtle line, now, denying last night's comments. We shall see. Debunked, I'm sorry, but I feel that's simply untrue, some kind of strawman that doesn't work, particularly when I've taken pains to deal with the specifics of last night's debate. Can I ask you to please provide an instance of my being vague, here?
When we go back and add that FULL context in, the actual question ifill asked, this is a non-issue. Let's revisit with the full context: So there we have it. No BS, no nuance, no shades of gray on Palin's part. Ifill asked a directed question to Biden. Biden responded by saying neither he nor Obama support that along with some nuance. When Ifill asked Palin if that's what she said, Palin stuck to the question asked of Biden and provide a simple response to the question, with no nuance. Palin did not suggest she was in agreement with Biden on gay civil rights. Ifill did, when she said they were in agreement, but Palin's response was very direct and she made sure to clarify what the original question was, not what it was turned into by Biden with his nuance. I have no idea why this bothers you. I guess I just "don't get it." All I see are shades of grey around an issue and a response that was pretty black and white to me. How about some real issues? Like how many times Biden lied last night? Now that's something to get outraged over! Real outrage
Oh well I vote the 'Party Line' whats your problem with that? I don't see anything Significant to make me "Vote" for any other political party? -Chris
Still not following where she has removed or denied someone their civil rights. No strawman. Well I have to admit, instead of typing back and forth and never getting the answer - I was goading you, kind of a double dare type of thing that would get you to spit it out. Still not sure of what your answer is though, it seems like you are running the direction pizzaboy did with his "palin's daughter is pregnant" thing.
Wade, we can go back further, for the "fuller" full context, because you've truncated it at the question to Biden. Here it is, in toto: IFILL: The next round of -- pardon me, the next round of questions starts with you, Senator Biden. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples? 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. Hence, Ifill's question was about civil rights, not a re-definition of marriage. IFILL: Governor, would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation? PALIN: Well, not if it goes closer and closer towards redefining the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman. And unfortunately that's sometimes where those steps lead. [Not the question]. But I also want to clarify, if there's any kind of suggestion at all from my answer that I would be anything but tolerant of adults in America choosing their partners, choosing relationships that they deem best for themselves, you know, I am tolerant and I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue. [dodging] But in that tolerance also, no one would ever propose, not in a McCain-Palin administration, to do anything to prohibit, say, visitations in a hospital or contracts being signed, negotiated between parties. [oops - slip up] But I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman, and I think through nuances we can go round and round about what that actually means. But I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non- support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage. [cover your tracks] Hence, Palin both introduced the notion that this is a "slippery-slope" to gay marriage; coupled with a last-minute response that affirms an agreement with Biden on the issue of civil rights, providing specific examples. IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage? Ifill cuts to the chase. 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. Biden reaffirms what Palin introduced. And he did so forthrightly, answering both to the issue of gay marriage, and civil rights. Again, let's recall it was Ifill who was asking about the issue of civil rights, and it was Palin who introduced the notion of this leading to a slippery slope to a redefinition of marriage. IFILL: Is that what you 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. Hence, I restate my contention. Biden directly answered Ifill's question, and every question following; he replied with the ticket's support for all citizens enjoying the same rights, regardless of whether they were gay or straight. Palin attempted to say she was in agreement with this notion of civil rights, until she realized she had painted herself into a corner, and immediately covered tracks (again, see the picture, at that very moment, posted above). Ifill sought to confirm, and Palin dodged. I've shown why I can't agree, Wade. The rest, I'll come back to - appointment. Mostly, yep, both candidates got some facts wrong - nothing new. I'll return to it.
Then you don't see it, I guess. Debunked, firstly, I don't see any of this as a game. If that were so, I find there are a helluva lot better ways of wasting time. "Goading" for effect is childish, to me. Secondly, I've asked you to provide an instance of my being vague, and you haven't. Thirdly, I'd ask you to provide an instance of "typing back and forth and never getting an answer." Fourthly, your attempt to align what I do, anywhere, with "Pizza's comments on Palin's daughter," is either game playing, intended to get a rise out of me, or ignorant, since, I've done nothing like that. Either way, it's ridiculous - not the least of which is my sustained and vigorous condemnation of the attack, as it had no business in an appraisal of Palin's candidacy. If I have, once again, please provide evidence of where. Quite honestly, I thought we had moved past this kind of crap. As it stands, it seems to me you are simply pursuing some kind of agenda, and cannot seem to find the means to make your case. Please don't go down this line, once again. If this is how you want to proceed - please honorably just say so, as I'm sincerely not interested.
We can, but I'm not going to get involved in clouding up a non-issue made up out of thin air by responding to wayward nuance that appears to attempt to make an issue out of what I see as a non-issue. I didn't truncate anything. I added to what you truncated, which was the question to Biden. And once we do that, we clearly see that not only did she answer the question very reasonably, but not in the manner being suggested. For clarity, I'll repost it, so that it's not lost in all the shades of gray: I'll check back for your responses to Joe's outlandish lies. My bookmark folder for Obama, McCain, Biden and Palin is overflowing right now, so I'm eager to start correcting things
Wade, I've posted the entire line of question on the subject. It's completely transparent. Your characterizing me as "making up a non-issue out of thin air" is fine, your opinion, but there isn't any reason not to actually look at the text, in full, and having looked at that, I conclude accordingly. I won't go round and round on this - it's fully available, and we're all free to draw from it what we will. I'm quite comfortable with my conclusions, for reasons shown. Cheers, see you later. A general note, and this is for all: I wrestle with this all the time, obviously: a good many times, the belief I'm right, and the desire to prove it so against an opposing view. I know it's cost considerable time, energy and even health, over the course of the last couple of years. At the end of the day, I've rarely seen anyone convince anyone else away from their position, and to fight about it, well, a lot of times it just gets old, right? I will say that the largest transformation I've had over the last several months is to take a serious look at some of the political economic underpinnings guiding Guerilla's thoughts, and that was an eminently worthy thing. It came at the end of a good deal of turmoil, for both of us; we fought, both of us, badly, and it poisoned far too much that could have been fruitful. In a word or few, I'm interested in an honest exchange of views, as I'm interested in learning something new. I don't think I'm really all that interested any longer in being a missionary for a given point of view, and I'm certainly not interested in spats that devolve to the kinds of things displayed, in some ways, in this thread. I'll do my best to stay honest, and considerate, and I'd ask others to do the same. Sound like a plan?
Wade, we were old "enemies," before we became "friends," and it seems we're heading back down a path I just don't want to go down any longer. I can present fact checks that address many of your contentions on "whoppers" ostensibly told by Biden, and equally show where the McCain ticket, or Palin herself, got it wrong - but it serves nothing. We will see in individual words what we want to see. For example, you're comment: And McKiernan's actual statement: The full text of his speech is here. We'll interpret either, according to our beliefs, quite likely. I see his speech as corroborating Obama's approach to the issue - a multifaceted approach that does not reduce to what I see as the reductionist vision offered by Palin last night, comparing Iraq to Afghanistan. You see the comments as a corroboration of the McCain/Palin view. We would dispute this in an endless round, and no one needs it. I've never doubted your love for your country, if I don't agree with how you believe we should make it a better country. Guess I just don't want to fight any more, as it costs me, and adds nothing, for no one. I think I've worn out my usefulness here. Thanks, all, for some great learning experiences. Peace.
Not sure what to add, Paul. I was hoping for some good debate on Joe's whoppers and more than prepared to go up against some of the attempted distortions by the left against Palin. Being friends doesn't mean I'm going to let disagreements slide when I have something to contribute. My wife and I are friends. We used to argue a lot (not so much anymore), but I didn't rush out to divorce her because we disagreed! Like you have so passionately defended your candidates and hounded Palin, I too am passionate about who I support as well, and will offer them the same support. We're like most others...we know who we support and we're not ashamed to get out there and do it. A few are ashamed, they want to appear "independent," it shines through anyway, and everyone sees it! I hope you'll change your mind. I'm not going to walk on egg shells, and I wouldn't ask that of you either.
Because it's close minded, and irresponsible towards your fellow US citizens who make decisions based on the big picture, not what party they are associated with. Our government procedures are largely broken, because that type of thinking is so prevalent. The absolute best presidential candidate ever could be right in front of your face, simply because he's Independent, or Republican, you and others will miss him, all because your too busy voting party lines. If you support Obama, then fine, but don't support him because he's a Democrat. Take the box off your head, and think with some free will.
Sorry if you have mis understood what I was saying. Still not sure where Palin is going against the "religious right" on what she said. And You still will not narrow it down to an answer. Quoting her isn't an answer. Bolding parts isn't an answer. And I still see you being vague in the last 4 or so posts on this specific subject since the post before I responded to you asking how she was going to get in trouble with her contingency. And if someone reading this is thinking "debunked he answered you" please show me where, cause I am not seeing it. This was what I tried to avoid. Posting back and forth and getting no where. I tried to get you mad enough to spit it out and that didn't work, but now I guess that was being childish....
Yea I will Never in my life vote for a Republican because I have seen how the country has virtually Collapsed Economically because of our current Failure we have in office now who which will be gone soon and I could see this happening again if or when we get a republican in office again... I would never vote Independent because I never hear much about them... So I have chosen to 'VOTE' all Democrat or straight ticket for the Majority or all of the future elections....I just don't see any reason to ever vote Republican because of the current situation we are in...But I might give a Independent a look if I knew more about the person running because I have yet to see any advertisements for anyone but Obama and McCain this election.. -Chris