IFILL: Final question tonight, before your closing statements, starting with you, Sen. Biden. Can you think of a single issue -- and this is to cast light for people who are just trying to get to know you in your final debate, your only debate of this year -- can you think of a single issue, policy issue, in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?
BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.
And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.
That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.
And so that -- that -- that was one of the intellectual changes that took place in my career as I got a close look at it. And that's why I was the first chairman of the Judiciary Committee to forthrightly state that it matters what your judicial philosophy is. The American people have a right to understand it and to know it.
But I did change on that, and -- and I'm glad I did.
PALIN: There have been times where, as mayor and governor, we have passed budgets that I did not veto and that I think could be considered as something that I quasi-caved in, if you will, but knowing that it was the right thing to do in order to progress the agenda for that year and to work with the legislative body, that body that actually holds the purse strings.
So there were times when I wanted to zero-base budget, and to cut taxes even more, and I didn't have enough support in order to accomplish that.
But on the major principle things, no, there hasn't been something that I've had to compromise on, because we've always seemed to find a way to work together. Up there in Alaska, what we have done is, with bipartisan efforts, is work together and, again, not caring who gets the credit for what, as we accomplish things up there.
And that's been just a part of the operation that I wanted to participate in. And that's what we're going to do in Washington, D.C., also, bringing both sides together. John McCain is known for doing that, also, in order to get the work done for the American people.
...She talks about "working together" but she's never had to "compromise."
...She talks about she's "quasi-caved in" but how it was the legislature's fault, not hers.
...She talks on Thursday about "bringing both sides together" while on Saturday she accuses Barack Obama of "palling around with terrorists." (AP via the AZ Republic)
Can you say "Damn the facts! Full smear ahead!"??
Most of her answers on Thursday were crap (being a Republican will do that :) ), she did OK in "didn't step on her tongue" sort of way.
However, that last answer is reason #1 why Sarah Palin is the scariest major party candidate for a national office...EVER. Like George W. Bush before her, she is pathologically incapable of ever admitting to making a mistake but masks that fact with a sort of smarmy folksiness that even Bush at his worst couldn't achieve.
I know the old truism, that no one votes for the Vice President, but undecided voters need to stop and consider whether Palin is tempermentally and intellectually suited to live life 'one heartbeat away' from the highest office in the land.