VP Debate: Palin’s Questionable Substance

[Joanne98]

On one front, Palin did not disappoint: She remains a habitual liar, a flip-flopper and someone who has no idea what she’s saying.

In the debate, she espoused strong support for equal benefits for same sex couples. But Palin told the Anchorage Daily News, “I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens on (sic) our Constitution.”

Palin sidestepped Biden’s claim that McCain argued against greater regulation on Wall Street, contributing to the debt crisis. Palin’s claim is that McCain supported the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, which would have created a new government agency to oversee Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other federal housing programs. In fact, the bill would have done nothing to stop the rash of predatory subprime lending that preceded the housing bubble. It only provided oversight for Fannie and Freddie – but it said nothing at all about the companies that issued subprime mortgages. So while Palin brought it up as an example of how McCain is the “re-regulator,” she avoided Biden’s straight rebuttal.

by Charley James in LA Progressive: Sarah Lives to Gaffe Another Day

http://gratefuldread.wordpress.com/2008/10/03/vp-debate-palins-questionable-substance/

[question everything]

1. I think that the State of Alaska does provide benefits for same sex partners

it should be easy enough to find out, I think.

[patrice]

2. Her statement was support for any "contracts" between Same Sex Couples. She did NOT say that she

would support anything based solely upon a Civil "Marriage" license.

Joe Biden said what constitutes a Marriage should be left up to Religion and we should honor relationships based upon Civil Rights, which we can assume includes the right to a Civil "Marriage" License.

It's clear here that what we need is some other way to refer to Marriage Licenses, so that Marriage can be whatever your church decides it is and CIVIL partnerships, identified by the License that the state issues, can be whatever they are.

[patrice]

3. My point is that she most definitely avoided saying that she recognized legal obligations

based solely upon a "Marriage" License.

Contracts only.