Palin-Biden October 2nd! Lightheavyweight championship!

[FeatsofClay]

The Palin/Biden debate is October 2nd.

Any bold predictions?

[Harry]

SEXIST ELITIST PANDERING APPEASING WAFFLER!!11!!!!

[Ink Bleeder]

Biden will slaughter her. It's party time! Come on over - I'll supply the popcorn!

[Name Lips]

Biden will slaughter her.

Yup. She doesn't have a prayer.

[Harry]

Sorry, I just cannot see how Biden can "win". He's gonna be portrayed as the big meanie one way or the other.

[obryn]

The best he can do is to answer questions clearly and concisely, and to hold himself well, without attacking her at all - concentrating on McCain, not on her.

Chivalry ain't dead, and if you look like you're beating up on a girl, you're going to look bad, period. Ironically, this will have an even greater effect if it looks like she's faltering - which she likely will.

-O

[Ink Bleeder]

The best he can do is to answer questions clearly and concisely, and to hold himself well, without attacking her at all - concentrating on McCain, not on her.

Chivalry ain't dead, and if you look like you're beating up on a girl, you're going to look bad, period. Ironically, this will have an even greater effect if it looks like she's faltering - which she likely will.

-O

I don't recall him having any trouble debating a woman when he was facing Hillary. In fact, I don't recall any of the candidates pulling their punches with her. Why should it be different this time?

[Trainz]

She was so weak in that previous TV interview, how will she fare in a full fledged debate?

[Hatter]

I think Biden's experience will show there.

[Random Encounter]

I only hope Biden can get some air time during and after the debate. And it's not billed as all about Palin and her performance.
Right now it's going to be airing as
Governor Palin, hockey-mom/pitbull in lipstick
VS
That other guy. You know the one I'm talking about. Hangs with Obama now. Damn, his name is on the tip of my tongue

Win or lose Biden has to get his name out there in the media.

[obryn]

I don't recall him having any trouble debating a woman when he was facing Hillary. In fact, I don't recall any of the candidates pulling their punches with her. Why should it be different this time?
Because, so far, asking Palin tough questions about her experience and background has been repeatedly labeled "sexist." All of a sudden, the GOP is championing political correctness when it comes to sexism (just not racism), and they're squealing about anything other than outright deference. Their army of dittoheads is repeating this sentiment over and over again, and a lot of folks believe it. It all feeds into Rovian politics - when the important issues don't favor you, concentrate on other stuff. Bad press? The press is biased. Asking Palin good questions? The press/other candidate is sexist. If it's good and controversial, the press will pick up on this narrative, and drive it home on a 24-hour news rotation.

Secondly, some former Clinton supporters are only mildly pro-Obama, and anything that's overtly - or repeatedly called - sexism could drive some of those to the other team.

Finally, Clinton is clearly a tough woman who can take care of herself, and has never shown otherwise. Whether or not Palin is a tough woman who can take care of herself depends on which convenient narrative is selected at any given moment. The best way to deal with her is not to deal with her at all - let the press have a field day looking into her background, and keep your own hands clean. Concentrate on the real target - McCain.

-O

[doc]

I hope Palin wins because I don't like Biden

[obryn]

I hope Palin wins because I don't like Biden
And I hope Biden wins because I don't like Palin. (oooh! sexist!)

-O

[doc]

And I hope Biden wins because I don't like Palin. (oooh! sexist!)

-O

Admit it if she was a democrat you'ld be on the Palin bus

[obryn]

Admit it if she was a democrat you'ld be on the Palin bus
Um... huh?

If her policies lined up even remotely with mine, then of course I'd be more favorably inclined towards electing her to a high office.

She'd first need to show character traits which would make me believe she's ready to be President, first, though.

I'd rather concentrate on policies, positions, and demonstrated intelligence than on whether or not I "like" someoene, though.

-O

[Utrecht]

What is the debate format - IMO, this will go a loooong way towards who "wins"

Further, remember that it is not necessarily about who debates better, but who comes up with the better press-ready sound bites.....

[Ink Bleeder]

What is the debate format - IMO, this will go a loooong way towards who "wins"

Further, remember that it is not necessarily about who debates better, but who comes up with the better press-ready sound bites.....

"Being president is hard work!" :rolleyes:

[Freedom Canadian]

Any bold predictions?

Yes: When it's over, both parties will claim their candidate trounced the other.

[Name Lips]

The media will claim that Biden is the winner, and the conservatives will use this as proof of the liberal media bias instead of proof of Palin's ineptitude.

(How exactly does the Right get out their message about the media being liberal, anyway? Surely the liberal media wouldn't broadcast such an accusation... Or do right-wing pundits not count as "media?")

[Utrecht]

The media will claim that Biden is the winner, and the conservatives will use this as proof of the liberal media bias instead of proof of Palin's ineptitude.


Probably truth to that



(How exactly does the Right get out their message about the media being liberal, anyway? Surely the liberal media wouldn't broadcast such an accusation... Or do right-wing pundits not count as "media?")

Because there is one subject that the media loves talking about - the media.

[AZRogue]

Biden will win the debate, IMO, and Palin will strive to appear as sincere as possible. That's her angle and she has to play it. They'll leave it to the campaigns to spin things later and make use of any slip ups that Biden makes.

[Sobek]

(How exactly does the Right get out their message about the media being liberal, anyway? Surely the liberal media wouldn't broadcast such an accusation... Or do right-wing pundits not count as "media?")
To a lot of people on the right, it's actually pretty self-evident. Kinda like Fox really does look "fair and balanced" to me -- at least by comparison. I just don't consciously catch the zings that I'm sure are there.

[AZRogue]

To a lot of people on the right, it's actually pretty self-evident. Kinda like Fox really does look "fair and balanced" to me -- at least by comparison. I just don't consciously catch the zings that I'm sure are there.

Hey, I like Fox. They usually have on people from both sides and it isn't bad if you don't listen to the editorial pieces from some of the commentators. But mostly I like it because I like watching Geraldo when he goes to report something, like his recent hurricane coverage. I fully expect to see Geraldo lowered into an active volcano by his brother the next time one erupts.

[Hatter]

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between the Republican nominee for vice president, Gov. Sarah Palin, and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.


Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1222139523-O+/XSRhBhGMloHVCwqTPhg)

[Freedom Canadian]

Link (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1222139523-O+/XSRhBhGMloHVCwqTPhg)

:lol:

[shiningbrow]

Palin's major strategy for winning any argument seems to be loudly screeching mischaracterizations of her opponent's views. If we have any luck, her head will implode like that glass Ella Fitzgerald broke on the Memorex commercial.

Biden has his work cut out for him. How to win a debate with a moron without looking like a "sexist." If he attempts to debate by treating her as he would treat any other opponent, he'll be crucified by the Feminazis of the Right. If he patronizes her, as any courtly gentleman would when debating with an idiot who happens to be a woman, he'll be attacked for that, too. He can't win, even if he wins. :(

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Biden has his work cut out for him.

He sure does. He's going to have to answer questions on his own and resist the urge to lift them from what other people have already said. After all, this man's presidential campaign came to a screeching halt for just such shennanigans. In other words, Joe Biden is a bona fide liar. So are all politicians, but that just makes him a stupid liar because he got caught.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#1988

1988
Main article: Joe Biden presidential campaign, 1988

Biden's 1988 campaign logoIn 1987, Biden ran as a Democratic presidential candidate, formally declaring his candidacy at the Wilmington train station on June 9, 1987.[74] When the campaign began, Biden was considered a potentially strong candidate because of his moderate image, his speaking ability on the stump, his appeal to Baby Boomers, his high profile position as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the upcoming Robert Bork Supreme Court nomination hearings, and his fundraising appeal—$1.7 million raised in the first quarter of 1987 was more than any other candidate.[75][76] Biden received considerable attention in the summer of 1986 when he excoriated Secretary of State George Shultz at a Senate hearing because of the Reagan administration's support of South Africa, which continued to support a system of apartheid.[77]

By August 1987, Biden's campaign, whose messaging was confused due to staff rivalries,[78] had begun to lag behind those of Michael Dukakis and Richard Gephardt,[75] although he had still raised more funds than all candidates but Dukakis, and was seeing an upturn in Iowa polls.[79][76] In September 1987, the campaign ran into trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.[80] Kinnock’s speech included the lines:

"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?"

While Biden’s speech included the lines:

"I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?"

Though Biden had cited Kinnock as the source for the formulation many times before, he made no reference to the original source at the August 23 debate in question or in another appearance.[81] While political speeches often appropriate ideas and language from each other, Biden's use came under more scrutiny because he somewhat distorted his own family's background in order to match Kinnock's.[40][81]

A few days later, Biden's plagiarism incident in law school came to light.[13] It was also revealed that when earlier questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school, Biden had inaccurately recollected graduating in the "top half" of his class when he actually graduated 76th from 85, that he had attended law school on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees in college.[82] In fact, he had earned a single B.A. with a double major in history and political science, and had received a half scholarship to law school based on financial need with some additional assistance based in part upon academics.[82] Biden also released his unexceptional undergraduate grades.[13]

The Kinnock and school revelations were magnified by the limited amount of other news about the nomination race at the time,[83] when most of the public were not yet paying attention to any of the campaigns; Biden thus fell into what Washington Post writer Paul Taylor described as that year's trend, a "trial by media ordeal".[84] Biden lacked a strong demographic or political group of support to help him survive the crisis.[79][85] He withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by "the exaggerated shadow" of his past mistakes.[86] After Biden withdrew from the race, it was revealed that the Dukakis campaign had secretly made a video showcasing the Biden–Kinnock comparison and distributed it to news outlets.[87]


Yes, it's Wiki, but I think the facts are pretty much well known by now.

And come on guys, graduating 76th out of 85? If this was George W. Bush you'd be having a field day about that!

[AZRogue]

Palin an idiot and moron? Please. Just because she doesn't believe what you believe doesn't make her an idiot or a moron ... it just makes you feel better when you spout your hyperbole.

As to the debate, I don't think Biden will have much problem, even if they did change the nature of the venue a bit (which wasn't needed, and pretty cheap). Biden has a lot of experience and he's going to use it. Those who already love Palin will continue to love her, and those who hate her will still do that, too. Those few that remain undecided are the ones he has to go after, IMO, and I think he knows how to do that. The largest thing going against him is the fact that people EXPECT him to win, since he has the experience, and if he screws up just a bit it will be amplified.

Palin, though, will probably do very well, if only because she's new and expectations are low. If she stands up straight and speaks clearly, she'll come across as having a good night.

[shiningbrow]

He sure does. He's going to have to answer questions on his own and resist the urge to lift them from what other people have already said. After all, this man's presidential campaign came to a screeching halt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#1988




Yes, it's Wiki, but I think the facts are pretty much well known by now.

Ted Kennedy had people write his term papers for him in college, and he's still been a great senator. The Biden plagiarism thing was unfortunate, but it does not negate the fact that he can ratiocinate rings around that goofball from Alaska.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Ted Kennedy had people write his term papers for him in college, and he's still been a great senator. The Biden plagiarism thing was unfortunate, but it does not negate the fact that he can ratiocinate rings around that goofball from Alaska.

That's a weak counter. Kennedy's was in college. This was while Biden was a Senator and running for president, when you should be smart enough to know you are going to be coming under great scrutiny.

And the assertion that he's been a great senator would have much to do with which side of the aisle you lean politically, don't you think?

[shiningbrow]

That's a weak counter. Kennedy's was in college. This was while Biden was a Senator and running for president, when you should be smart enough to know you are going to be coming under great scrutiny.

And the assertion that he's been a great senator would have much to with which side of the aisle you lean politically, don't you think?
Clearly, we come from different sides of the aisle politically, but I really respected John McCain until he decided to run for president. This was not only because of his heroism, but because he used to be an independent thinker, (until Bush decided to invade Iraq). I suspect he continued to support Bush's failed Iraq policies for geopolitical and various strategic reasons, and I can understand that, but it hurt him in his most recent Presidential bid.

Sadly, McCain now appears to have lost his moral compass. He ran last time on the "Straight Talk Express," and began this campaign with a morally respectable position. As that position flagged and his campaign foundered, he took on some rather unsavory advisors--persons tutored in the Karl Rove school of lies and dirty tricks. Now he does not hesitate to abandon positions he has long supported in favor of those that are more likely to win votes. He can't answer difficult questions about his own ideas, but relies instead on mischaracterizing and attacking his opponent. His most recent performance on 60 Minutes yesterday was pretty weak.

His selection of Sarah Palin, an undistinguished appointment even by Republican standards, seems to have been a pragmatic choice rather than one based on merit. He needed to draw the radical right into his camp and he has succeeded. How else can one explain his passing over more accomplished Conservative women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or Christine Whitman? Palin's virtues seem to be her political talent for shouting out lies about her opponent, her hatred of individual liberties for women and her insistence on abstinence-based sex education, apparently offered too late even to help her own daughter.

Even measured against her own standards, Sarah Palin falls short. Family values? What kind of mother is she? What kind of attention can she possibly expect to give her youngest child if she is Vice President? I have a close friend who has a special needs child, one who is severely disabled because of a genetic defect. Although she is an accomplished professional woman, her daughter has curtailed her professional advancement. Out of choice and necessity, she spends every spare moment outside of work with her daughter. She is determined to give that child the best life experience she can. In Palin's case, ambition appears to have come before taking care of her own children. You might call this sexist, but I'm only applying the standards she holds up as the basis of her political ideology. Those are sexist, but they are the ones she promotes. Frankly, as a woman and a feminist, her selection sickens me and represents a giant step backwards for women's rights.

[Utrecht]

Clearly, we come from different sides of the aisle politically, but I really respected John McCain until he decided to run for president. This was not only because of his heroism, but because he used to be an independent thinker, (until Bush decided to invade Iraq). I suspect he continued to support Bush's failed Iraq policies for geopolitical and various strategic reasons, and I can understand that, but it hurt him in his most recent Presidential bid.


I think that you, like a great many have bought into the image that is John McCain - to say that any long term senetor is an independent thinker is stretching it a bit.


Sadly, McCain now appears to have lost his moral compass. He ran last time on the "Straight Talk Express," and began this campaign with a morally respectable position. As that position flagged and his campaign foundered, he took on some rather unsavory advisors--persons tutored in the Karl Rove school of lies and dirty tricks. Now he does not hesitate to abandon positions he has long supported in favor of those that are more likely to win votes. He can't answer difficult questions about his own ideas, but relies instead on mischaracterizing and attacking his opponent. His most recent performance on 60 Minutes yesterday was pretty weak.


I hear what you are saying on the direction of the campaign - I too am disapointed in it.


His selection of Sarah Palin, an undistinguished appointment even by Republican standards, seems to have been a pragmatic choice rather than one based on merit. He needed to draw the radical right into his camp and he has succeeded. How else can one explain his passing over more accomplished Conservative women like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or Christine Whitman? Palin's virtues seem to be her political talent for shouting out lies about her opponent, her hatred of individual liberties for women and her insistence on abstinence-based sex education, apparently offered too late even to help her own daughter.


Couple of things - Kay Baily Hutchinson flat out told folks that she was not interested and Whitman's time has passed.

As for your characterizations of Palin - you really need to take of the partisan glasses -and the jibe about her daughter really has no place here.


Even measured against her own standards, Sarah Palin falls short. Family values? What kind of mother is she? What kind of attention can she possibly expect to give her youngest child if she is Vice President? I have a close friend who has a special needs child, one who is severely disabled because of a genetic defect. Although she is an accomplished professional woman, her daughter has curtailed her professional advancement. Out of choice and necessity, she spends every spare moment outside of work with her daughter. She is determined to give that child the best life experience she can. In Palin's case, ambition appears to have come before taking care of her own children. You might call this sexist, but I'm only applying the standards she holds up as the basis of her political ideology. Those are sexist, but they are the ones she promotes. Frankly, as a woman and a feminist, her selection sickens me and represents a giant step backwards for women's rights.

OK, this is a very slipperly slope that you are on (which you try and tip-toe around)- but it really sounds like you are advocating a traditional role for women - and reading a lot into her "ideology" based off of your personal beleifs - but given the fact that you proclaim yourself a "feminist" - I am suspecting that you really only advocate your kind of feminist ideal - and dont see the fact that there are other approaches.

Finally, people make decisions based off of a lot of things - and the reasons that you came to your are certainly valid - but I think that you really need to take of the glasses and look at the other side (I am assuming you are voting Obama - Biden) - All of the strawman constructs that you espoused on McCain/Palin can be easily told about Obama/Biden (the details are different of course - but the sense of moral outrage that you seem to have about McCain/Palin seems to be earily lacking for Obama/Biden)

[shiningbrow]

1) I think that you, like a great many have bought into the image that is John McCain - to say that any long term senetor is an independent thinker is stretching it a bit.
2) Couple of things - Kay Baily Hutchinson flat out told folks that she was not interested and Whitman's time has passed.

3) As for your characterizations of Palin - you really need to take of the partisan glasses -and the jibe about her daughter really has no place here.

4) OK, this is a very slipperly slope that you are on (which you try and tip-toe around)- but it really sounds like you are advocating a traditional role for women - and reading a lot into her "ideology" based off of your personal beleifs - but given the fact that you proclaim yourself a "feminist" - I am suspecting that you really only advocate your kind of feminist ideal - and dont see the fact that there are other approaches.

5) Finally, people make decisions based off of a lot of things - and the reasons that you came to your are certainly valid - but I think that you really need to take of the glasses and look at the other side (I am assuming you are voting Obama - Biden) - All of the strawman constructs that you espoused on McCain/Palin can be easily told about Obama/Biden (the details are different of course - but the sense of moral outrage that you seem to have about McCain/Palin seems to be earily lacking for Obama/Biden)

Utrecht, thanks for your response. I have a few comments based on your remarks, which I have numbered for convenience (above)

1) I am not buying into anything. I've long been an admirer of John McCain. I've listened to him talk for years about Campaign finance reform and many other issues. He has stood against the "herd" on many issues, until recently. I make my own decisions. I gather information from many sources and arrive at my own opinions after careful reflection on that information. For you to dismiss my assertions based on their difference from yours on the grounds that I have "bought into" something is at best a misunderstanding on your part, and an ad hominem attack at worst. I'm not a robot without the capability of independent thought, despite the fact that I've arrived at conclusions different from your own.

2) What you say may be true, but I could provide a long list of other Conservative women with many more years of experience in public life and in executive positions who would have provided a much better exemplar of distinguished public service. Do you really believe that Sarah Palin has earned the right to be President of the United States (this is something that must be considered, given McCain's advanced age, his history of Melanoma, etc.)? Are you saying that the pool of Republican women is so small that she is truly the best they could come up with? That is very sad if it's true.

3) Sarah Palin is the person who outed her own daughter. She, alone, chose to thrust her and her unplanned pregnancy into the public arena. My observations that a woman who characterizes herself as a "hockey mom" should be judged on her abilities as a mother are not unreasonable. Furthermore, it is completely just to assess those abilities by measuring the success of the end products--her children. Is an unwed 16 year old child who will need to leave school to marry her high-school-drop-out boyfriend the best example of superb mothering? I think not. Sarah Palin can't have it both ways. She's either a great mother and great mayor or she's not. If she offers those accomplishments as evidence of her ability to lead, it is completely reasonable to assess those accomplishments. No. It's not only not beyond the pale to assess them. It's our DUTY as citizens.

4) As for your assumptions about my feminism, you are dead wrong. I think the women's movement was about allowing and enabling women to pursue their own lives-- to make determinations about what they want to do as adults, to seek their own paths. Sarah Palin would limit education and reproductive freedom--two elements essential to women's self fulfillment. All the while, she steps on other women to get to where she wants to be. That disgusts me. It's like finding the most misogynistic person alive and putting them in a dress and calling them a feminist. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. Great Garuda!

5) As for my "glasses," see my response to #1. I'd like for you to explain your remarks about Obama-Biden, since I just don't understand this reference. A short list would suffice. This is not a question of tit for tat. It's a difference of styles in campaigns. McCain has chosen the low road, personal attacks instead of advancing policy positions (other than his "Right to Life," "Let's Win in Iraq," and "No taxes" positions). None of these seem particularly fresh or likely to dig this country out of the hole it's currently sinking into. Obama at least engages the issues primarily in his speeches.

I fully respect ideological differences, and think they enrich our political discourse. Two heads are better than one when it comes to determining the best ways forward on many issues. But that's not what the Republicans are offering, or advocating, sadly.

This low road approach by the Conservatives has gone on for long enough and I feel beholden to speak out against it when I see it. It's one of the reasons we are where we are today.

[The Theocrat of Poon-Tang]

Do you really believe that Sarah Palin has earned the right to be President of the United States...

Do you really believe that Barack Obama has earned the right to be president? His main accomplishments appear to be: that he was a senator for about two years before running for president; he is half black; and that he is very eloquent.

[Utrecht]

1) I am not buying into anything. I've long been an admirer of John McCain. I've listened to him talk for years about Campaign finance reform and many other issues. He has stood against the "herd" on many issues, until recently. I make my own decisions. I gather information from many sources and arrive at my own opinions after careful reflection on that information. For you to dismiss my assertions based on their difference from yours on the grounds that I have "bought into" something is at best a misunderstanding on your part, and an ad hominem attack at worst. I'm not a robot without the capability of independent thought, despite the fact that I've arrived at conclusions different from your own.


Fair enough - however, I strongly beleive that anyone who thinks that McCain is some new kind of politician is fooling themselves - is he perhaps more ethical than most, sure - but then there is the whole Keating 5 situation (that quite frankly I am stunned is not a bigger deal). Further, as a Senetor, he has to make deals - and as Obama is fond of pointing out, he did vote with the president 90% of the time.

So I am continuously surprised that people have accepted this maverick image of him - when history suggests that he is a maverick of convinience.


2) What you say may be true, but I could provide a long list of other Conservative women with many more years of experience in public life and in executive positions who would have provided a much better exemplar of distinguished public service. Do you really believe that Sarah Palin has earned the right to be President of the United States (this is something that must be considered, given McCain's advanced age, his history of Melanoma, etc.)? Are you saying that the pool of Republican women is so small that she is truly the best they could come up with? That is very sad if it's true.


I would consider has earned the right to be Palin to be no more (or less) than Biden has - but that is the nature of the VP slot in modern politics - the only people who have earned the right is the person who has the most electoral votes on Nov 5th.

Are there other conservative women out there, yes but there is a lot more to selecting a VP than just the number of years of experience (again, if that argument was true, Obama would be no where near the presidency) Further, based off of the public reaction, the Palin pick was pretty darn good - in fact, it could be suggested that he could not have picked better. Granted, the measuring sticks that you are using is likely different than what the Rupublican base is using.....


3) Sarah Palin is the person who outed her own daughter. She, alone, chose to thrust her and her unplanned pregnancy into the public arena. My observations that a woman who characterizes herself as a "hockey mom" should be judged on her abilities as a mother are not unreasonable. Furthermore, it is completely just to assess those abilities by measuring the success of the end products--her children. Is an unwed 16 year old child who will need to leave school to marry her high-school-drop-out boyfriend the best example of superb mothering? I think not. Sarah Palin can't have it both ways. She's either a great mother and great mayor or she's not. If she offers those accomplishments as evidence of her ability to lead, it is completely reasonable to assess those accomplishments. No. It's not only not beyond the pale to assess them. It's our DUTY as citizens.


First of all, Bristol Palin is 18, not 16 - further, I don't buy your assertion that she "outed" her daughter or thrust her into the public spot light - she did the very typical politician thing of having her family on stage with after her speech. To my knowledge Bristol has never campaigned for her mom - and as such, she should be off limits (the minute she campaigns/has a public presense beyond scenery, my opinion on this changes)

Second, I think that you are infering waaaaaaaay to much into the Palin personal life based off of a pregnancy (happens to a lot of kids) - further, alll accounts that I have seem Palin seems to be a very good mother and wife.

Finally, your black and white way of looking at things is very concerning - she is either a good mother or she is not??? There is a lot of grey in the world my freind.


4) As for your assumptions about my feminism, you are dead wrong. I think the women's movement was about allowing and enabling women to pursue their own lives-- to make determinations about what they want to do as adults, to seek their own paths. Sarah Palin would limit education and reproductive freedom--two elements essential to women's self fulfillment. All the while, she steps on other women to get to where she wants to be. That disgusts me. It's like finding the most misogynistic person alive and putting them in a dress and calling them a feminist. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig. Great Garuda!


Fair enough on the feminist comment - but you need to understand that label carries alot of baggage - and implicite assumptions

Now as to your specific points. While we clearly know what Palin's personal view of abortion and sex education - I think that it is VERY important to understand that she did nothing to to enforce them when she had the opportunity - showing an understanding and seperation between public policy and personal belief - which based off what you have stated - falls very neatly into your view of feminism. Not sure what you are saying about education - need more information there.



5) As for my "glasses," see my response to #1. I'd like for you to explain your remarks about Obama-Biden, since I just don't understand this reference. A short list would suffice. This is not a question of tit for tat. It's a difference of styles in campaigns. McCain has chosen the low road, personal attacks instead of advancing policy positions (other than his "Right to Life," "Let's Win in Iraq," and "No taxes" positions). None of these seem particularly fresh or likely to dig this country out of the hole it's currently sinking into. Obama at least engages the issues primarily in his speeches.


Bullet list:


Obama the candidate of change picks Biden a 26 year vetern of the senate
Both Obama and Biden use and have been influence and rewarded lobbyist - after the misrepresnet McCain's ties to lobbyist
Biden - misrepresenting his wife's death (blaming it on a DUI when in fact, his wife ran the stop sign) (aka, using his family for sympathy)
Linking McCain to Bush thought his voting - this is a horrible distortion of what is occuring (Obama voted with the congress 97% of the time - does that mean that Obama is tied to Pelosi?)
Obama's use of race when convienient (much like Palins use of sexism when convienient)



I do agree that in general - the democrats have tried to keep the discussion on policies and issues (why wouldnt they - the opposition has a lame duck, unpopular president) more than the republicans. However, the Democrats are dealing from the bottom on the deck too as the above list illustrates


I fully respect ideological differences, and think they enrich our political discourse. Two heads are better than one when it comes to determining the best ways forward on many issues. But that's not what the Republicans are offering, or advocating, sadly.

This low road approach by the Conservatives has gone on for long enough and I feel beholden to speak out against it when I see it. It's one of the reasons we are where we are today.

no, it is the low road by politicians - as I said above, I take umbrage with you painting republicans and conservatives as the guilty party here. This is definately a tango that both parties are dancing in.

[Ergeheilalt]

[QUOTE=Utrecht;63360]
Bullet list:


Linking McCain to Bush thought his voting - this is a horrible distortion of what is occuring (Obama voted with the congress 97% of the time - does that mean that Obama is tied to Pelosi?)



Senate and House bills are usually quite different, which is why there is the joint committee designated to making equitable bills that have to then be pass again both the house and the senate.

Obama voting with the Congress is not exactly a good comparison, since what he voted on in the senate could be quite different than the House version.

[FeatsofClay]

"LET'S GET READY TO RRRRUUUUUUUUUUMBLE!

Last minute predictions?

[PWD]

"LET'S GET READY TO RRRRUUUUUUUUUUMBLE!

Last minute predictions?

Whatever happens, Republican shills will declare victory, and democrats will be morose.

[Ascarel]

Do you guys know if the debate will be broadcast online?

[Ink Bleeder]

To quote some journalist, "If tomorrow's talk isn't all about Palin, then Biden will have had one hell of a bad night."

[FeatsofClay]

Do you guys know if the debate will be broadcast online?

Cspan is good at such things. Fox and CBS had it last time as well.

[shiningbrow]

Whatever happens, Republican shills will declare victory, and democrats will be morose.

QFT. I feel morose already. I listen to Sarah Palin and it makes me cringe, but she's shrewd enough to understand that most people don't listen, don't think critically, and so it doesn't matter, as long as she comes across like some kind of aggressive cheerleader, she'll be fine.

Biden can be a Nobel Prize Laureate and the American people won't really care and most of them won't notice even if he slaughters her with his rhetoric and grasp of the issues. I watched John Kerry get taken down by the Swift Boat Veterans. That was possible because people were too stupid and lazy to care about the truth and it was what most of those who believed it wanted to believe. Thank god I have a strong stomach, or I'd be living on antacids by this point. I'll watch it anyway, although I'd prefer a good Greek tragedy.

[Trainz]

So here's the little montage I made. It's not too good, but hey...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjiSQeQWd6Q

[FeatsofClay]

I have no idea what any of you are talking about so here is a Vice Presidential Candidate with some pancakes on her head.

[AZRogue]

Just got home, it's already on, damn it. I'm not sure what's going on or what she's answering ... energy and oil taxation of some kind, and I'm watching the CNN little lines judging the little "approval" lines drop down and down as she's talking.

But it's all good. I was exercising my cringe muscles on the drive home.

[AZRogue]

They're both doing well so far. Palin is hitting some high approval, though Biden is doing it more consistently. Sorry for any misspellings, I'm typing while watching the TV. :)

[Brynja]

zomg she nearly Godwined the debate with the Holocaust mention!

[AZRogue]

Hey, I'm happy. I've been watching for 15 minutes and she hasn't made me cringe. She's not winning, but she's not using a Lifeline for each question, either. I can live with that. Debate, mofos! Debate!

[Brynja]

She is holding her own- she is clearly out of her depth but she isnt crashing and burning.

[Name Lips]

She's doing much better than her interviews suggested. At least she's looking competent enough that it doesn't look like Biden's being mean when he one-ups her.

Again, I'm listening not watching, so if there's body language and subtitles I'm missing them.

[AZRogue]

She's doing much better than her interviews suggested. At least she's looking competent enough that it doesn't look like Biden's being mean when he one-ups her.

Again, I'm listening not watching, so if there's body language and subtitles I'm missing them.

Body language so far is relaxed for both. Palin, though, is smiling more and turns her body to look directly at Biden when she answers. Biden's looked at her though, just not often. He's not pulling a McCain.

Both seem confident, relaxed, and remarkably, IMO, FRIENDLy. Even the attacks don't seem to have an edge of anger to it. Still too many attacks, though. They both do better while talking about their own positions, and that starts dropping when they talk about voting histories. So far.

[Brynja]

oooh biden pulled the great depressioncard!
OBAMA=FDR

[AZRogue]

Ouch. Took a big hit when she mentioned that they're mavericks. That sound bite has been heard too much I think.

[AZRogue]

She's getting some blows in. Her education points scored very well. I have to say I like the atmosphere they're building while debating; much more than I did the more antagonistic atmosphere that Obama and McCain had going.

[AZRogue]

Okay, it's over. Sorry for the crap fest I left in the threads. I was enjoying myself and didn't mean to litter.

[FeatsofClay]

Palin sounded great if you don't take the questions into account.

[Singularity]

I was surprised by how well Palin did. seriously surprised because I was expecting the same person who was interviewed by Katie Couric. I'm not changing my vote, she wasn't that good, but she wasn't an easy kill either.

[AZRogue]

She wasn't the same woman that we saw in those interviews. Whether this was due to the poor strategy and training of her handlers combined with her fear of a hostile media representative, I'm not sure we'll ever know for sure. She wasn't a train wreck, though, so that was a plus because those interviews set America up to see one.

[Random Encounter]

I thought Palin exceeded expectations. But that Biden won the debate.
I also think that Palin's more celebrity nature in the media helped the democrats with this debate. Not because Palin did poorly, but because Biden did so well and the extra viewership Palin brought in among even swing voters helped put him in the spotlight in a way that came off well. He's not a newcomer on the political map but in this election he's been mostly off the media map. This debate let him shine in the media glow for a bit.

Still, my synopsis.

[Hatter]

I tuned in to see if Palin would crumble and she didn't, but Biden clearly did better overall. The moment where Biden got choked up talking about his kids was very powerful. I think Palin did well to not hurt McCain while shoring up his base, while Biden played better to independents. Overall, I see this debate helping Obama more than McCain on election day.

[FeatsofClay]

CBS Poll: More Uncommitted Voters Saw Biden As Winner
Posted by Brian Montopoli | 5


CBS News and Knowledge Networks have conducted a nationally representative poll of 473 uncommitted voters to get their immediate reaction to tonight's vice presidential debate.

After the first presidential debate, a similar survey showed that more uncommitted voters identified Barack Obama as the winner

Final numbers from tonight's poll have yet to come in, but we do have some early results. (These numbers may change as more respondents complete the survey.) They suggest that once again more voters have responded favorably to the Democratic candidate.

Forty-six percent of the uncommitted voters surveyed say Democrat Joe Biden won the debate, compared to 21 percent for Republican Sarah 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.

We will have a full report on the poll later on. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.

The knowledgable part is what gets me. I don't think Palin answered a question in the first 20-30 minutes.

[Hatter]

The knowledgable part is what gets me. I don't think Palin answered a question in the first 20-30 minutes.

Did you know that there's energy in Alaska? It's true!

[Radu]

You betcha there's energy up there! And Alaska is a big state, doncha know! I've got all kinds of experience making myself appear to be one of you-- I even make references to hockey and soccer! How much more folksy can I get? Perhaps if I put an extra "u" in nuclear? Oh, for shore!

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

All Biden had to do was not be an asshole or make a gaffe... he did well. Obama lost nothing by his performance. Palin had to exceed her expectation though, in order to quell nervous rumblings on the Right. I think she accomplished that. So in the end, this debate was pretty much like the last one in effect... a tie, and one that helps each side solidify their own partisans.

[obryn]

All Biden had to do was not be an asshole or make a gaffe... he did well. Obama lost nothing by his performance. Palin had to exceed her expectation though, in order to quell nervous rumblings on the Right. I think she accomplished that. So in the end, this debate was pretty much like the last one in effect... a tie, and one that helps each side solidify their own partisans.
Polling showed that more Undecided and Independent voters leaned towards Obama/Biden after the debate, but there are still quite a few Undecided.

Otherwise, yeah, partisans on both sides are saying they won. Par for the course.

-O

[obryn]

Also, found this today...

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Polling showed that more Undecided and Independent voters leaned towards Obama/Biden after the debate, but there are still quite a few Undecided.

Otherwise, yeah, partisans on both sides are saying they won. Par for the course.

-O

That's because most of the undecideds are Democrats to begin with... likely many of them would have been Hillary supporters. Which makes a lot of sense why they would like Biden, actually. I still don't think Obama has a shot in hell at winning, so next month I'll be around to either gloat or take my punches. :D

[Utrecht]

That's because most of the undecideds are Democrats to begin with... likely many of them would have been Hillary supporters. Which makes a lot of sense why they would like Biden, actually. I still don't think Obama has a shot in hell at winning, so next month I'll be around to either gloat or take my punches. :D


Methinks you will taking some punches......:)

and unlike the previsous two elections - at least the "other" guy has some upside.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Methinks you will taking some punches......:)

and unlike the previsous two elections - at least the "other" guy has some upside.

Yeah, if you like socialism and afro-militancy.

[Trainz]

Yeah, if you like socialism and afro-militancy.

Maybe (and I like the first part for sure), but like Bush, no man is an island. As I fault the whole republican party for the past 8 years, so do I also believe what's coming with Obama will be as much the doing of the whole dems party.

[Hatter]

McCain is on the defensive and several states that were locks for him (such as Florida) are now contested. He has a lot of ground to make up in only a month. Obama's key states are fewer in number and by forcing McCain to go back and retake his previous territory he can make bigger gains where he needs them (Pennsylvania and Ohio).

[Name Lips]

McCain just gave up on Michigan. Pulled all his funding. One more blue state joins the cult of democratic socialism! :D

[Freedom Canadian]

Yeah, if you like socialism and afro-militancy.

Come on, McCain is not that much of a socialist !

[Trainz]

Come on, McCain is not that much of a socialist !

What do you call running back to Washington to push measures encouraging the government to help out big companies?

That's right, socialism. Capitalism would encourage only the strong to survive.

[Critter]

I watched it for a little while. I was mostly curious, not knowing or having seen a lot of Biden much. From the bit I watched, he seemed alright enough to me, I suppose.

I clicked it off when Palin was going on about her kids in education, and Biden's wife being a teacher for years and she said something along the lines of "by golly, her reward is in Heaven".

That sat wrong with me for some reason.

[Ancalagon]

What do you call running back to Washington to push measures encouraging the government to help out big companies?

That's right, socialism. Capitalism would encourage only the strong to survive.

It's AMERICAN socialism - it's socialism for the rich only, so it's ok!

:grey:

[AZRogue]

I'm starting to keep track of our Generals, especially the ambitious and charismatic ones. When the coup hits Washington I want to know whether or not it's a good thing. I'll either raise a glass, or be the anti-coyote and smuggle myself to Mexico. Or Canada. Anyone have a couch to crash on?

[FeatsofClay]

I'm starting to keep track of our Generals, especially the ambitious and charismatic ones. When the coup hits Washington I want to know whether or not it's a good thing. I'll either raise a glass, or be the anti-coyote and smuggle myself to Mexico. Or Canada. Anyone have a couch to crash on?

You can always come and crash in my thrid world country of southern WV.

[Radu]

Stop through New, Improved Mexico on your way south and I guarantee I can get you a place to stay until you can arrange a transport further south.

[Northcott]

I'm starting to keep track of our Generals, especially the ambitious and charismatic ones. When the coup hits Washington I want to know whether or not it's a good thing. I'll either raise a glass, or be the anti-coyote and smuggle myself to Mexico. Or Canada. Anyone have a couch to crash on?

So long as you agree to teach me what you know about guns. Then it's time for the crazy militant commune/camp to start up.

[AZRogue]

And so the Pink Railroad begins.

And it's a deal, Northcott. ;)

[Random Encounter]

I haven't heard one way or the other, but has there been any backlash from either side on the whole Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin platforms basically agreeing that Civil Unions for gay and lesbian couples should be the law as long as they aren't legally called "marriages", like they already do in the great state of Alaska where we have lots of energy dontcha know. Because gosh golly gee whiz we wouldn't want to discriminate against anyone or destroy the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman having missionary sex with the lights out.

[Trainz]

I haven't heard one way or the other, but has there been any backlash from either side on the whole Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin platforms basically agreeing that Civil Unions for gay and lesbian couples should be the law as long as they aren't legally called "marriages", like they already do in the great state of Alaska where we have lots of energy dontcha know. Because gosh golly gee whiz we wouldn't want to discriminate against anyone or destroy the traditional concept of marriage as between a man and a woman having missionary sex with the lights out.

Here's the thing. If civil unions give the same exact advantages as marriages, I don't have a problem with that. If a gay couple wants to absolutely be recognized by the catholic church, then they have a problem.

Beleiving in God /= being christian.

Christianity has it's head up its arse, I don't understand why a gay couple want to associate with it in the first place.

[Random Encounter]

Here's the thing. If civil unions give the same exact advantages as marriages, I don't have a problem with that. If a gay couple wants to absolutely be recognized by the catholic church, then they have a problem.

Beleiving in God /= being christian.

Christianity has it's head up its arse, I don't understand why a gay couple want to associate with it in the first place.

And that's what both parties are saying, let gays "marry" legally without forcing any religion to recognize them as married unless it wants to.

[Trainz]

And that's what both parties are saying, let gays "marry" legally without forcing any religion to recognize them as married unless it wants to.

So what's the problem???

[there_is_no_bob]

So what's the problem???
People.

[Scarbonac]

People.

People suck.

[Name Lips]

People suck.
People either suck too much, or they don't suck enough.

I can't decide.

[Random Encounter]

So what's the problem???

No problem with that stance from me.
But some on the left think it doesn't go far enough and cite the era of "separate but equal" civil rights questions as proof that treating heterosexual and homosexual unions as separate things will only lead to trouble.
And some on the right think it goes too far and that homosexual relationships shouldn't be recognized by the state at all.

Basically both platforms are adopting the position of true compromise, a solution neither side likes.

I was mostly curious as to how that part of the debate is playing amongst the conservative base that Palin is supposedly rallying around the republican ticket.

[Trainz]

I was mostly curious as to how that part of the debate is playing amongst the conservative base that Palin is supposedly rallying around the republican ticket.

So she's pro legal union for gays, but against a girl taking the morning after pill if she's been raped by her own father.

10-4.

[Hatter]

Actually, she thinks rights should only be forged through contracts and doesn't want any kind of government recognized same-sex unions, Biden just got her tripped up.

[Name Lips]

I still think the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business at all. If two people want to sign a legal contract that grants all rights and priveleges currently assigned to "marriage," they should be allowed to do so, regardless of who they are. If they want to thereafter call themselves "married," fine, let them. If somebody wants to combine this paperwork with a ritual, fine, go ahead. Call it a "wedding" if you want.

[FeatsofClay]

I still think the government shouldn't be in the "marriage" business at all. If two people want to sign a legal contract that grants all rights and priveleges currently assigned to "marriage," they should be allowed to do so, regardless of who they are. If they want to thereafter call themselves "married," fine, let them. If somebody wants to combine this paperwork with a ritual, fine, go ahead. Call it a "wedding" if you want.


I disagree. I think the government is and should be in the marriage business. I think we need to make people realize that marriage is a legal contract through the state and that the church part is just for show. Currently the mindset seems to be that the church part is marriage and the License is just an inconvenience.

[Name Lips]

I just don't see why the government should be involved at all. What benefit is there to it? I suppose you could argue that the state has an interest in creating stable family environments... But that implies procreation, which a lot of people aren't interested in for various reasons. It makes sense to me to keep it strictly a private affair.

[Caliphis]

I just don't see why the government should be involved at all. What benefit is there to it? I suppose you could argue that the state has an interest in creating stable family environments... But that implies procreation, which a lot of people aren't interested in for various reasons. It makes sense to me to keep it strictly a private affair.

How you do guarantee the rights granted to people through marriage without federal support?

[The Winslow]

What do you call running back to Washington to push measures encouraging the government to help out big companies?

That's right, socialism. Capitalism would encourage only the strong to survive.
And the really strong are those that can bribe the government to save their ass when they're losing money.
People either suck too much, or they don't suck enough.

I can't decide.
They suck, but not in the good way.
I disagree. I think the government is and should be in the marriage business. I think we need to make people realize that marriage is a legal contract through the state and that the church part is just for show. Currently the mindset seems to be that the church part is marriage and the License is just an inconvenience.
Come to France. Church marriage is just for people who want to have a ceremony in a church and only the state-approved marriage has any legal effect. "To go see the mayor" has become the euphemism for "to get married."

It makes more sense this way because a marriage change your tax status (there's an income tax cut and it also affects inheritance if your spouse survives you), may change your identity (Miss Something become Mrs. Something-Else) and other effects (public function workers can usually avoid being given a new post at the other side of the country by arguing it'd separate them from their spouses).

[Name Lips]

How you do guarantee the rights granted to people through marriage without federal support?

The same way you enforce any legal arrangement between consenting parties.

[AZRogue]

The same way you enforce any legal arrangement between consenting parties.

I'm with Name Lips on this one. I think contracts, enforceable and as secure as civil marriages are now, between individuals, witnessed by the State, would be great. Provided you could set up your contract for, say, different time periods with an option to renew. You should want to marry your partner all over again each time the marriage nears term.

[FeatsofClay]

I just don't see why the government should be involved at all. What benefit is there to it? I suppose you could argue that the state has an interest in creating stable family environments... But that implies procreation, which a lot of people aren't interested in for various reasons. It makes sense to me to keep it strictly a private affair.

Taxes, right of ownership, right to decide medical care, right of parenthood, all of these are benefits to having the government recognize the marriages. It is what a marriage IS. It has nothing to do with stable families and everythign to do with legal rights.

[Hatter]

I doubt you could successfully sell this plan to straight people. Contracts such as this bear a financial burden that is currently eased by the government prepackaging the contracts in a cheap, easy to aquire form.

[there_is_no_bob]

It makes sense to me to keep it strictly a private affair.Marriage boosts productivity, life expectancy and health outcomes. That isn't of interest to the state?

[Name Lips]

Taxes, right of ownership, right to decide medical care, right of parenthood, all of these are benefits to having the government recognize the marriages. It is what a marriage IS. It has nothing to do with stable families and everythign to do with legal rights.

Yes, and all of that can be granted through legal documents. The government can encourage people to enter into such a contract if it believes it's in the state's best interest, but I don't see why it needs to be involved in the process.

[there_is_no_bob]

Yes, and all of that can be granted through legal documents. The government can encourage people to enter into such a contract if it believes it's in the state's best interest, but I don't see why it needs to be involved in the process.That doesn't make any sense to me.

Please define process, and list those who should be involved. Also, describe how the state is currently involved in the process beyond providing cheaply packaged legal agreements to be signed by the parties entering into the agreement.

[FeatsofClay]

Yes, and all of that can be granted through legal documents. The government can encourage people to enter into such a contract if it believes it's in the state's best interest, but I don't see why it needs to be involved in the process.

Yes! And those legal documents are called a Marriage License. Therefore, instead of all these estates being distributed and challenged in the coursts because it isn't standardized, there is a much smaller rate of challenge and direct legal route between these people. Just like others who do it.

[Hatter]

Right, from a legal standpoint it's cheaper and easier to just expand the current qualifications to include same sex couples.

[Varaj]

Yes! And those legal documents are called a Marriage License. Therefore, instead of all these estates being distributed and challenged in the coursts because it isn't standardized, there is a much smaller rate of challenge and direct legal route between these people. Just like others who do it.

You can get them outside of a marriage license it is just insanely expensive and you often have to prove your work in court which isn't very helpful when your spouse is dying in the hospital.

Spouse is in car wreck rushed to ER.
You go to hospital to sit with them.
Hospital: "Are you family?"
You: "Yes"
Them: "His father says you aren't."
You: "I have power of attorney granting me this right."
Them: "Please provide copy we will have our lawyers review it. Until then leave or the police will have you removed."


Yup name lips plan is a great idea. :grey:

Marriage by a church means nothing legally so, in my opinion, the position of both candidates is fucking retarded from any view point accept one designed to offend the least amount of people.

Personally I believe the best solution* is to remove marriage from any government recognition and the government only gives civil unions. Anybody can get married if they find a church to do it but it provides no legal benefits.
Anybody can get a civil union but it provides no church benefits.


*Not the cheapest or easiest but best for long term expansion and equality.

[Trainz]

Personally I believe the best solution* is to remove marriage from any government recognition and the government only gives civil unions. Anybody can get married if they find a church to do it but it provides no legal benefits.

Anybody can get a civil union but it provides no church benefits.


Varaj '08!

[Freedom Canadian]

Right, from a legal standpoint it's cheaper and easier to just expand the current qualifications to include same sex couples.

Right. Marriage has always been more about civil law than religion anyway. I don`t know why a lot of people think it`s the other way around.

I say you guys (because gay marriages are legal here anyway) should get the church out of the marriage business. They should celebrate religious unions and the state can grant marriage licenses.