Republican National Convention '08

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

To me, legislating from the bench includes a lot more issues than just abortion and gay rights. There are a lot of other judgments they'd like overturned.

I read this that way too, although I will grant iSm, that I do think he meant to appeal to the fundies on this one.

I did notice that not all that he was saying was received all that enthusiastically by the crowd - which made me happy. Not from an electoral standpoint, but from a what-if-he-wins standpoint. I'm glad he's departing from party line, and I'm glad what he wants to do makes the party faithful (eg: delegates) uncomfortable. IF we get stuck with him, it won't be as bad as it could have been.

[innerSpaceman]

When you read the transcript, scaeagles, the wink won't be there.


Don't pretend the wink doesn't affect the meaning of the words "legislate from the bench." John McCain's loathesomeness last night proved the transcript doesn't tell the real story.

[scaeagles]

You see, that's exactly why I read instead of listen or watch.

I have no doubt in your sincerity in how you've interpretted it. If I was watching, I really doubt that I'd have interpretted it that way (even if I caught the wink). I haven't heard or read any analysis of it being interpretted that way.

The mannerisms and visual queues mean different things to different people. The words are the words. You could be right that I miss what the body language is saying in reading rather than watching, and you're probably right to an extent. But I think this is a case where you read something into it that many or most don't or didn't.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

You see, that's exactly why I read instead of listen or watch.

I have no doubt in your sincerity in how you've interpretted it. If I was watching, I really doubt that I'd have interpretted it that way (even if I caught the wink). I haven't heard or read any analysis of it being interpretted that way.

I suppose you wouldn't have interpreted Palin's "Part the Waters" remark about Obama to refer to the false-messiah baloney the Republicans are tying to paint him with.

If you're not up on the code book, good for you, scaeagles. But it's got nothing to do with "interpretation."

It's rather a matter of TRANSLATION. Look it up in the Official Republican Code Book: "Judges Legislating From the Bench" = Approving the Constitutionality of Gay Marriage Rights.


Don't give me any crap about interpretation. The wink wasn't even necessary, it was just the bit that sold it .... and sold him down the river as far as I'm concerned. He can rot in Hanoi Hilton Hell in his foreverafterlife.

[sleepyjeff]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

It's rather a matter of TRANSLATION. Look it up in the Official Republican Code Book: "Judges Legislating From the Bench" = Approving the Constitutionality of Gay Marriage Rights.

Republicans have been complaining about legislating from the bench for decades.......long before Gay Marriage became a major issue.


Imo the "wink" was for the pro-lifers who have been very wary of this candidate.

According to a google search in which I typed in "judges legislating from the bench" + "blank"

When "blank" was "gay marriage" 6,150 results turned up
When "blank" was "guns" 6,680 results turned up
When "blank" was "immigration" 6,990 results turned up
When "blank" was "abortion" 9,830 results turned up.

So isn't it, if not highly likely, at least conceivable that he was not winking about gay marriage at all?

[Strangler Lewis]

I think I said this before about John Edwards, but last night John McCain's smile flashing also reminded me of Dan Aykroyd's impression of Jimmy Carter.

[Betty]

McCain says that Obama is sexist because he questioned Palin's experience... Therefore that must mean that McCain is racist for questioning Obama's experience - right?

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNe...edName=topNews

ST. PAUL (Reuters) - John McCain and his fellow Republicans rallied behind his vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, on Tuesday and his campaign accused Democrat Barack Obama of sexism for questioning her level of experience.

I don't think either of them are sexist or racist by the way. I'm just so annoyed at the game playing and finger pointing over things that things that are just so over the top.

I want to hear specifics about things not vague ideas. I want to know, for a fact, exactly what a candidate will do, won't do, and how they plan on doing that.

[Gemini Cricket]

Total double-standard. According to some Republicans it's not sexist for Republicans to bash Hillary Clinton when she was running and yet it is when the same is done to Palin.

????

[Gemini Cricket]

Okay, I'm going to post this link because it freakin' ticked me off:

9/11 Tribute at the RNC

I don't always agree with Olbermann, I think he is an O'Reilly horse of a different color (blue), but he does have a point this time.

I think it's totally and completely distasteful. More fear, more manipulation, more of the same. How can a rebel and a maverick be okay with exploiting the attack on the World Trade Center 7 years later just to become president? Oh, and if he had nothing to do with it, then he should have come out and disagreed with it being shown at the RNC.

I hope Obama becomes our next president because stunts like this are just horrible...

[flippyshark]

It is certainly the case that in Evangelical circles, "activist judges" and "legislating from the bench" means we're talking about gay marriage issues. That one will warm the cockles of James Dobson's heart.

Gak! What am I doing commenting in a political thread!?! Sorry, folks, I lost my mind. *runs away*