He could have exposed her seven-ways-from-Sunday.

Its why we all miss Tim Russert. 

I'm just curious for those on here who have said they agree with Palin's policies, what are the ones your talking about? I have to assume some of you are against gay marriage but don't have the balls to say so. Do you agree with her abortion policy? Her stance on creationism teaching? Abstinence only sex-ed?

Even though I'm not a huge Palin supporter (I'd have much rather it been Leiberman) so not the target of your question, I'll take a stab.

I'm for gay marriage.  Since Palin's stance on it is no different than Obama's I'm not sure how that's an issue.  I am in no way in favor of civil unions.  I want full on marriage.  If a candidate doesn't back that, they are against gay marriage.  Civil unions are a watered down appeasement along the lines of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I don't agree or disagree with her abortion policy.  I abhore abortion.  I think it's a vile, horrendous thing to do.  Only in the case where the mother's life is in danger do I think it's okay.  On the other hand, I won't tell someone else what to do with their body.  For that reason I am pro-choice but I will never, ever let any politicians stance on the issue influence my opinion of them in either direction.

I am 100% with her on intelligent design since she has never asked that it be part of the curriculum, only that, if it comes up, discussion be allowed.  Intelligent design has nothing to do with Christianity.  Personally, I believe in both.  I believe evolution is a result of intelligent design.

As for abstinence only sex-ed, I don't have a problem either way.  In my opinion, it is not the public education system's place to teach kids about the birds and the bees and everything that goes along with it.  That's the job of the parents.

Does that help?

Big Tim probably wouldn't have been able to get within 1000 miles of Palin.

I'm just waiting to see the farce of Palin getting "tough" questions when she makes her first O'Reilly appearance.

Since Palin's stance on it is no different than Obama's I'm not sure how that's an issue.  I am in no way in favor of civil unions.  I want full on marriage.  If a candidate doesn't back that, they are against gay marriage.  Civil unions are a watered down appeasement along the lines of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

That is patently false.  Where did you get that idea from?  At best its an exceedingly narrow view of the position articulated by Senator Obama to the Advocate (I cited to an interview about 100-200 pages back).

In fairness to Scott he has said that he is left leaning as it pertains to social issues (presumably gay rights, abortion and the like) but right leaning on matters of fiscal policy and national defense.  Scott was a supporter of Senator Clinton's.  The question I posed, that remains unaswered, is how does the policies pertaining to Fiscal Policy and National Defense proposed by Senator Clinton differ substantively from that of Senator Obama?  What is the difference between Senator Clinton and Barack Obama that is driving him to vote for Senator McCain?

Hey Geoff.  Thanks for remembering that.  The biggest difference between Clinton and Obama (and my support) was because of Bill Clinton.  I think Bill was a great President.  I knew that he would heavily influence Hillary's presidency if she were to get into office.  He would, not in name but in deed, be her closest and number one advisor on all issues in all likely hood.  I wasn't enamored with Hillary.  It was only because of Bill that, out of all the Democrats, she had my support.  I wasn't thrilled with any of our Democratic choices.

Obama's lack of experience along with a lack of someone along the lines of Bill Clinton to help him is the biggest difference.  Based on who he has associated himself with shows extremely poor judgement in my eyes, so I would not trust that he could select a cabinet that could actually help him do the right thing.

Why you would you align yourself with a party that the majority of thinks your a disease that can be cured with prayer or at the very least thinks your less than human.

****************

Because gay people come in all stripes, just like us straight folks. Gay people care about things like national defense, taxes, government spending, education, etc. Those issues may sway some to vote Republican.

I've often thought the same of hard-working taxpayers who vote Democratic: Why would they align themselves with a party that thinks of you as an ATM to fund others who won't work as hard? But I have many friends who both work hard and vote Democratic and, hey, that's their right as Americans. They are just as entitled to their opinions - and their vote - as I am to mine.

Both parties are "big tents," made up of many different types of voters. It may seem strange at times, but I guess it's worked for 200+ years!

Since Palin's stance on it is no different than Obama's I'm not sure how that's an issue.  I am in no way in favor of civil unions.  I want full on marriage.  If a candidate doesn't back that, they are against gay marriage.  Civil unions are a watered down appeasement along the lines of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

---

That is patently false.  Where did you get that idea from?

What's false about it?  Obama came right out and stated he is against same sex marriage but is okay with civil unions.  Gay marriage = same sex marriage.

http://www.insidesocal.com/outinhollywood/2008/08/obamas-gay -marriage-position-i.html

Both parties are "big tents," made up of many different types of voters. It may seem strange at times, but I guess it's worked for 200+ years!

Amen, Brother Bruce!

Now it's that he doesn't share a bed with Bill Clinton?!?!

************

Now, Al...put "Bill Clinton" and "sharing a bed" in the same sentence and you're just asking for trouble!