Biden's Best Answer: John McCain is No Maverick

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:51:43 PM EST
Tags: Sarah Palin, Joe Biden (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Biden: Can I respond to that? Look, let's talk about the maverick John McCain is. And again I love him, he's been a maverick on some issues but he's been no maverick on things that a matter people's lives. He voted four out of five times for George Bush's budget which put us half a trillion in debt this year and over three trillion in debt since he got there. He has not been a maverick in providing healthcare for people.

More...

He voted against including another 3.6 million children in coverage of an existing health care plan in the United States Senate. He's not been a maverick when it comes to education. He has not supported tax cuts and significant changes for people being able to send their kids to college, he's not been a maverick on the war, not been a maverick on virtually anything that generally affects the things people really talk about around the kitchen table. Can we get mom's MRI? Can we send Mary back to school next semester. We can't make it. How will we heat the house this winter? He even voted against what they call LIHEAP, for assistance for people with oil prices going through the roof in the winter. So a maverick he is not, on the important critical issues that affect people at the kitchen table.

< Post Debate Thread I: A Game Changer? | Biden on Change and Single Fatherhood >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Biden's Best Answer: John McCain is No Maverick | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Palin (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by prose on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:57:42 PM EST

was mavericky enough not to be bogged down by answering specific questions. I can't believe she came right out and said, "I'm not going to answer questions the way that I want."

: ya (none / 0) (#27)
by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:04:47 AM EST

I guess that plays to the base but it struck me as a rookie move. Obviously she was told one thing, "stay in your comfort zone, don't get led into non-comfort zones".
But to come out and say it? I think it looks weak.

McCain "No maverick" was the (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by No Blood for Hubris on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:07:30 PM EST

defining moment for Biden.

: abso fing lutely (5.00 / 2) (#18)
by denise k on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:43:44 PM EST

I did not see the debate, because I was on my way home from work, but I listed to it on my car radio and when he said that, I got so excited I almost ran off the road. That whole maverick thing is so much (if you will pardon the expression when applied to Gov. Palin) hog wash!
Go Joe!

Sarah let's not dig back into the past (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:09:42 PM EST

How many times did she say, "to quote Ronald Regan," and how many times did she quote him?

Maverick. (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Brillo on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:26:52 PM EST

Every single time Palin said that word, the little dial-run line things on CNN dipped. Quite noticeably. I don't think people are buying it.

It certainly made me cringe every time she said it. Which was... alot.

: Maverick, ridin' the trail to who knws where (none / 0) (#24)
by TomStewart on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:54:22 PM EST

luck is his companion, gamblin' is his game.
I think James Garner should sue.

I was watchin the debate on CSPAN (none / 0) (#1)
by Exeter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 09:55:12 PM EST

and afterwards Biden said to Palin "you're good, really good. Really good."

Biden said (none / 0) (#8)
by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:18:25 PM EST

It was really good to meet her. You're wrong.


I replayed it three times (none / 0) (#12)
by Exeter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:29:26 PM EST

He said "you're good. Really good." and she responded "Thanks You're good too"


B iden was very obvious in his (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:46:25 PM EST

reaction to Palin. Telling her she was "good" at debating was a very honorable thing to say. I think Joe Biden has enough self-confidence that complimenting someone else's performance when he is impressed by it seems very in character. I like that very much about him.

You could see in his reactions to multiple answers she gave that he was not just impressed with her, but he was enjoying the debate so much more than he would have if she had been a complete dud. Her strengths really encouraged his own to come out, and that helped him win.


Does it matter? (none / 0) (#16)
by WS on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:40:30 PM EST

He was being courteous. What did you think he would say if he indeed said that?


I agree -- it neither here nor there, (none / 0) (#19)
by Exeter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:44:21 PM EST

but I thought it was an iteresting aside and I thought he was being sincere that he thought she did a good job.


: Its common (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by WS on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:48:47 PM EST

courtesy. Its like saying "good game" to the opposing team whether you won or lost.

well (none / 0) (#28)
by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:07:03 AM EST

Being courteous and agreeable seemed to work for Obama's numbers. These maneuvers arent accidental.


'Clean' coal sponsored the debate... (none / 0) (#3)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:00:56 PM EST

No wonder BOTH VP candidates energetically over-hyped so-called 'clean' coal.

Is there NO concept of conflict of interest anymore?

'Clean' coal also sponsored most, if not all, of the Dem primary debates. Have there been any debates, or conventions, they haven't sponsored in campaign '08, for both the Dems and GOP?

P.S. 'Clean' coal defined by Greenpeace... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by FoxholeAtheist on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:07:36 PM EST

Myths and facts of "clean coal" technologies.


: Come on, its not like Obama supports (none / 0) (#14)
by Exeter on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:30:28 PM EST

nuclear energy or anything...

Biden did OK (none / 0) (#7)
by ChrisO on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:17:29 PM EST

but I really wish he wouldn't let her talking points go unchallenged. She says "the surge worked" and he just ignores it. And I wish when she talks about looking backward he would say something to the effect of "I'm sure every Republican candidate in the country is hoping we'll all forget what the Republicans have done to this country in the last eight years."

I wish he would have said (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by gentlyweepingguitar on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:19:09 PM EST

he supported gay marriage.


Why? He and Obama have both said they (none / 0) (#17)
by JavaCityPal on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:42:13 PM EST

don't. That would have been a huge mistake.

Biden clearly won this debate by being honest in his answers. Any obvious pandering like that would have intruded on his win.


: Yeah, but (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by gentlyweepingguitar on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:03:52 AM EST

gay marriage is the right thing.

Of all the things the Dems. . . (none / 0) (#10)
by LarryInNYC on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST

might want to argue about, the surge is the very, very last. True-believers on the left can successfully twist themselves into logical contortions to avoid recognizing it, but almost any reasonable measure the surge did succeed. That doesn't mean things are great in Iraq, or that the war was a good thing. But the situation on the ground is much, much better now than before Petraeus took command.


: Nope. The Nation (none / 0) (#13)
by mg7505 on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:29:29 PM EST

debunked the "surge worked" myth. It's myth #2 out of 10 foreign policy myths propagated by the Right. Worth a read.

: What the surge was/is... (none / 0) (#15)
by Dadler on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 10:32:50 PM EST

...and what worked about it is BRIBERY, the paying off of "the enemy" not to fight you. That Biden or Obama, or most any Dem for that mater, can't bring themselves to state this fact in some context is sickening. That is what worked about the surge: bribing militias we know we can't bribe forever and who will start fighting again the minute we stop paying.
And we don't need to twist ourselves into anything, it merely takes the courage to state ugly truths to counter the surge nonsense. Or the white flag of surrender sh*t that would've led me to spit right in Palin's filthy, wretched, lying face. Check that, spitting in her face would've been too good for her.
Come on, for Christ's sake, think about it for one second: When you are forced to bribe your enemies because you cannot defeat them in battle, what is more surrender-like than that?
Nothing, that's what.
I'm going to go hurl.

: well (none / 0) (#29)
by connecticut yankee on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 08:09:25 AM EST

The surge was meant to buy time for the political process. Hows that working out? There is a time limit.

The Republican analyst on CNN (none / 0) (#23)
by ruffian on Thu Oct 02, 2008 at 11:14:23 PM EST

Castellanos, I think his name is, admitted that no Republican around can make a convincing defense of the war in Iraq. I was surprised to see them talk about it so much tonight.

No kidding (none / 0) (#26)
by mutatio on Fri Oct 03, 2008 at 01:08:55 AM EST

It's a no-brainer. The world's best equipped and most highly trained fighting force effectively completed its military missions? No sh!t. How about the political progress that was supposed to be afforded by the blood of our troops? Bueller? Bueller? If I recall, Maliki et al, had mentioned on a few occasions before the surge (and then retracted, under pressure) the notion that the US was more than welcome to bud out of the country. So the surge happened and Maliki notes, again, that the US can feel free to set a timetable and it's proof of the political success of the surge? Sounds like a false positive.