It seems you did mean “idiotic” and “leash”. Well, if I come here again I will consider the source before thinking your words mean anything.

This whole piece is a lot more idiotic than anything Joe Biden says. Ordinarily I don't use “idiotic” for anyone, not even when I'm outraged, but if that's the language you choose, so be it.

As the parent of a boy with a developmental disability, i think Biden asks a damn good question. And if you bother to actually read what he said, he's not dragging Trig into this debate – Sarah Palin did that, by pointing to him during her convention speech as evidence that parents like me will have “a friend in the WH” if she wins. This despite her record of slashing funds for special education in Alaska, making it harder for kids with a DD to get therapy & a good education; and her stated position opposing on narrow THEOLOGICAL grounds (which to me are distinct from MORAL grounds) research that might make DDs less common & easier to live with.

And what outrages you is that Biden would ask a legitimate question about a topic that his opponent has already brought up as a basis for voting for her? Really, Jazz?

Between you & Gandelman relentlessly talking down the Democratic ticket (you by harping on imagined slights like this, Joe by talking up every poll that shows Obama hasn't won the election yet, both of you by determinedly changing the subject every time public policy threatens to intrude on the campaign) I'm getting real close to dropping TMV from my feed.

How about economic grounds? No one seems to be talking about that part — least of all McCain.

Well said. h/t to CO too. It is indeed unfortunate that a connection was made, because nothing about one's opinion about stem cell research enlightens the choice the Palins made. Then again, it isn't exactly the first time a connection was implied, and real people, even children were used as rhetorical — or worse, actual — props to make a political point. Regarding stem cell research I think the worst example was Bush's parading a handful of snowflake babies before the cameras. Had he been honest about the magnitude of the problem he would have had to appear in front of enough freezers to fill a stadium. And of course there was Rush's criticism (and caricature) of Michael J. Fox. And even Nancy Reagan beseeched memories of her husband in the name of the cause.

Meanwhile, if you want a real-world case of exposure of failed behavior of the opposition, look at the nature of opposition to nuclear power that is on political instead of scientific grounds (naturally).

Still, now that I have the image of Joe Biden's audience standing up and cheering this line, I'm sure the line was more about emotion than logic. Is that wrong? Is it OK for Sarah Palin and John McCain to be both mean-spirited and liars in their attacks on Democrats, but these words from Joe Biden means he should be put on a leash?

Most people who aren't liberal support stem cell research and other research — it's been the Left that (with some exceptions where they infuse science with politics or when they use technology to further their causes, like notorious lefty playpen blogs) has been anti-technology and anti-progress since the Sixties.

You make some pretty damn brazen assertions. It's time for you to back some of them up. Go.

The real problem here is that the Left is unrealistic about stem cell research and what it can achieve, in what amount of time — same with alternative energy and other favored pet causes. Stem cell research is the object of idolatry by the Left as a political weapon against the religious right — that is the explanation for the fulminant nature of the agitation for it.

[shrug] Washington can just boost funding and efforts in R&D for this as well as other things, if the money can be found to allocate a sensible additional amount for it.

Caring for a special needs child and believing or not believing there should be public funding of stem cell research strikes me as pretty much a non-sequitur.

It makes perfect sense if you believe the problems of a special needs child can be ameliorated by treatments derived from stem cell research.

Take it a step further, if stem cell research could correct genetic defects or otherwise aid a troubled child and by extension their parents, might not less genetically defective children be aborted?

To me, the Bidenesque quality of the comment was the stretch of logic that the two are necessarily linked issues.

Caring for a special needs child and believing or not believing there should be public funding of stem cell research strikes me as pretty much a non-sequitur.

“The line received a standing ovation from the crowd of several hundred.”

Now, who's right, those people or Jazz? Beats me. Biden's words don't make me angry. They also don't make me stand up and cheer, saying, “That's sticking it to them, Joe!” They're just saying something obvious to me, not something mean. The McCain campaign called it a low blow, but then they say that about many criticisms. Why can't evangelical Republicans just say that their version of God prohibits them from supporting all kinds of stem cell research? Are they afraid swing voters might blame them instead of God? What's a low blow about any of this?

Funny, you should bring that up. I read that Gibson will tail Palin around Alaska for two days as the mechanics of the interview.