Biden keeps talking about deregulation. But wasn't it Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, et al., who shielded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from regulation?

Biden's let slip a lot of outright lies, Biden said McCain voted 'the exact same way' as Obama to raise taxes on people making $42,000/year. That’s a lie. McCain didn’t vote on either bill. Biden has an easy command of the facts, even when his facts are total bullshit. The sad part is, 90% of viewers won't know when hes totally full of crap.

Sarah Palin got off to a flying start on her 2012 presidential campaign.

Unfortunately I doubt she can help McCain much the rest of the way. As long as the Wall Street meltdown dominates the headlines, this will be for all intents and purposes a single-issue campaign, and Obama couldn't have asked for a better issue for it to be. Obama basically won the proverbial lottery there. With that and the MSM on his side, if Obama manages to lose in November it'll be a disgrace he'll never be able to live down.

Both candidates had a successful debate. Palin let her personality out and Biden kept his reigned in.

So I'm the only one here who thinks she blew it...everyone else here thinks she did just fine...

She did fine. Memorized talking points, avoided questions she didn't want to answer, only got caught up reading her notes a few times. If there's no penalty to that (in yet another debate), then it's kind of expected.

Honestly though, it wasn't a debate. Gwen Ifill might as well have just said "OK, Talk now.... Now you talk... Now here's a moderately difficult question, go ahead and avoid it - oh thanks, you're telling me you're going to avoid it!".

I can't believe Biden didn't wind up with the very easy "you know, part of the reason Alaska is doing so well is because we're paying so much at the pump, and can fill>75% of the budget from oil revenue - key state #1 has more problems with that. Ordinary Americans in key state #2 and key state #3 has made thing so much easier for you."

But wasn't it Barney Frank, Charles Schumer, et al., who shielded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from regulation?
Perhaps you need to be updated on our situation. Most Americans are angry at politicians, but angrier at Wall Street for a combination of the bailout + pay, and other things, with the knowledge that one way or another (bailout or risk of 401k/pension, let alone housing) we'll get screwed.

Regulation means take Wall Street out for a beating.

Biden comes across as an experienced, slick, used car salesman. Charming but not someone you'd trust.

Palin comes across as your next door neighbor.

Verdict-knockout for Palin

Honestly, I thought it was politically a draw. Biden won on points, but Palin was expected to fall on her face, which she didnt.

But a draw isnt enough for McCain/Palin at this point, they are behind with few prospects left. Sometimes missed opportunities speak loudly, and Palin had the chance to blow up Biden on the corruption/earmark Congress issue. She's the only one outside the beltway in this race (McCain could avoid enough mud with his reputation) but just yelling 'Mavrick' doesnt get it done. She needed to call out people by name for their part in the latest drama, and explain why folks from middle America are so disgusted by business as usual. Instead she fell into the trap of fighting on Biden's playing field about who is less entrenched in DC. She could have changed the game by simply showing disdain and disguest for all the votes and issues she ended up losing a mud wrestling match over.

It all goes back to McCain- he is simply incapable of truly flipping the DC applecart (or letting his advocates). And if John McCain wont do it, no-one inside will. Period.

There was a chance to win the election for McCain tonight by changing the dynamics of the argument. But it withered on the vine. I dont blame Palin (aside from a lack of imagination). It all comes back to McCain. At the end of the day the true story usually wins, and he is usually that Obama truly is a bit more of an outsider. The man with the least amount of hours in Washington is going to win this election now. That will be the story.

I agree with the consensus. Tie goes to the runner. Last week that was Obama; this week it was Palin. But I also agree with Mark B. It's not going to make an iota of difference in the election. McCain is toast and has been since September 19. I'm still going to vote for him though, just so I can look my son in the eyes and say, "Well buddy, I did my best to prevent the disaster."

Journal of Double Standards, #278687672 ...

What would happen if John McCain showed signs of cosmetic surgery? Would it be politely ignored, as it is in the case of Biden? (Cross-posted to the Journal of Excruciatingly Obvious Rhetorical Questions)

I didn't see it as anywhere near a tie; Biden clearly understood and argued the issues better than Palin, who was basically stuck on on talking points, even when those talking points clearly bore no resemblance to the questions.

This is still within Palin's goals, which were to push the debate to issues she wants while creating a 'connection' to the viewers. She was expected to lose, all she had to do was beat the spread.

I'm more curious whether it was obvious to voters (especially swing voters)that she avoided most issues simply because she cannot knowledgably discuss them. 55% of those polled believe that she had the knowledge to be president, so I expect that McCain's poll numbers will rise a bit, as those leaning (but undecided) on McCain will feel comforted by the debate.

Still it is enough to drastically change the way the election is sliding? And if the economy stays in free-fall, and McCains give no plan except fiscal responsibility, will he be able to dent public perceptions? And will Palin continue to tank interviews where she's asked to think outside the box?

Glen: Do you have anything of substance to add on the debate, or are you just making drive-by's this morning?

"if Obama manages to lose in November it'll be a disgrace he'll never be able to live down."

Oh, Obama will win. That is for sure.

It is after 90 days in office that the wheels will come off :

1) People will finally get irate from the overuse of the race-card to deflect any questioning.
2) He will ride the 'we inherited Bush's mess' angle too far. The public will allow 90 days of that, after which further use of that excuse will be a turnoff.
3) The Democrat's ineptitude in accomplishing nothing in Congress will get magnified now that they control everything, and still deliver nothing.
4) The trickle of people moving away from the MSM (cancelling NYT/LAT subscriptions, etc.) will start to become a torrent once their gushing over Obama becomes too much for even moderates.
5) Several crises that do not call for leftism will overwhelm Obama. His attempts to play the race card on Putin will make him a laughingstock in the international circuit.

Bush took 5 years for his approval rating to dip decisively below 50%. Obama will take just 90 days.

alchemist, I'm more curious whether it was obvious to voters (especially swing voters)that she avoided most issues simply because she cannot knowledgably discuss them.

Many issues raised were simply not conservative issues. The conservative answer to many problems is not a new program that can be compared and contrasted with the other program. Conservatives are suspect of programs. They usually don't have one. So a conservative can keep talking about taxes because lower taxes is in essence the program.

And I think you misread the purpose of the debate, which is not to resolve issues. If it was we would have had a platform and the candidates (Pres. and VP) would take turn arguing for or against each point. This was about gaffes and the Cubs won that contest last night.

Biden clearly understood and argued the issues better than Palin

You mean as Biden understood the role of the Vice President, the Constitution, and how Hizb'allah was kicked out of Lebanon? It's easy to appear understanding if you can just make things up and not get called on it.

I have to pick between the ignorant who are willing to learn, and the blinkered who are living in a cocoon spun of falsehoods, I will go with the former.

FYI.

Some excerpts:

(CBS) Uncommitted voters who watched the vice presidential debate thought Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden did the best job by a margin of more than two to one, according to a CBS News/Knowledge Networks poll taken immediately following the debate.

Forty-six percent of these uncommitted viewers said Biden won the debate Thursday night, while 21 percent said Palin won. Thirty-three percent thought it was a tie.

Even a quarter of Republican uncommitted voters thought Biden won the debate.

Among these voters, there was improvement in views of both Palin and Biden. Fifty-five percent of the uncommitted voters said their opinion of Palin had changed for the better as a result of the debate; just 14 percent said they had a lower opinion of her after tonight, and 30 percent said their views of her did not change.

As for Biden, 53 percent of uncommitted viewers said their image of the veteran senator improved, while five percent said their opinion of him got worse. Forty-two percent said their opinion did not change.

Palin's rating improved after the debate on being knowledgeable on important issues - from 43 percent to 66 percent - but Biden still far outpaces her. After the debate, 98 percent thought he was knowledgeable.

Although Palin made some gains on perceptions that she could serve as president if needed, she rose just nine points on that measure after the debate, to 44 percnet. In contrast, almost all uncommitted voters think Biden would be an effective president.

Debate watchers who thought Biden won the debate cited his knowledge and experience - especially on foreign policy - often using words like "knowledgeable," "experienced" and "articulate." Others mentioned his sincerity and compassion, and mentioned finding out about his family life - particularly that he was a single parent. In contrast, they felt that Palin was overly rehearsed and dodged answering questions.

Yeah, AOG, like Palin understood the GOP position on bankruptcy, gay civil unions, and what an Achilles heel is.

And, Glen, McCain has had (non-cosmetic) surgery, four times, and is stonewalling on recent medical information.

I did indeed think Palin did better than expected. She memorized a lot of stuff and recited it regardless of applicability to the question. But she didn't choke. What amazed me is how good Biden was. I don’t know how Biden's previous presidential campaigns stuck in the Asterisk Zone.

The conservative answer to many problems is not a new program that can be compared and contrasted with the other program. Conservatives are suspect of programs.

Then the answer should be simple right? No, I don't agree on this, we must get back to fiscal conservatism. No, this program is a bad idea and a waste of taxpayer money. Government interference is the problem, not the solution. I've noticed McCain is hesitant to say this though. It also probably doesn't poll very well.

The public is looking for answers. Those answers don't have to be government answers, but they're expecting something from the next president to lead them out of this mess. I haven't seen any ideas for the future from McCain yet. I should just start calling this WWMD (What would McCain Do)? And since McCain hasn't illustrated a solution yet, it's still a rhetorical question.

It's easy to appear understanding if you can just make things up and not get called on it.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't that what a debate is all about? If a debate teammate gives bad arguments, and his opponent doesn't know enough to strike down that argument, then the opponent loses the debate. QED.

While I wouldnt put it past Biden (or practically any senator) to have spent 30 years in the body and not know the VPs role, that doesnt really bother me.

What sent chills down my spine was his view on Hezbollah, Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan. Here's why:

Each one of those positions he delineated (and this is Obama as well) have been crafted directly and completely as opposition to Bush's policies. IE- whatever Bush has done, the opposite must be correct.

There is no string of logic or philosophy to connect these positions. The only thing that connects them is opposition to Bush, which has been the only foreign policy the Democrats have had in the last 4 years. But you cant govern based on opposition.

This is what truly scares me about Obama/Biden. As soon as Bush is out of office, their only touchstone (that we know of) on foreign policy disappears. So what happens then? What we haven't learned is what sort of philosophy Obama will govern with outside of a Bush context. Anyone who actually believes its about invading Pakistan and abandoning Iraq is kidding themselves, neither will happen. We really have no idea how these guys will handle things, and last night if anything reiterated that.

alchemist is right, which is why i thought Palin ultimately failed. She was too busy considering how to edge in her next talking point to realize the opportunities Biden was giving her. The story of the night could easily have been Palin embarrassing Biden. Just calling him out on the constitutional thing in a joking sort of way would have instantly neutralized the argument that Palin doesnt have the chops... IE, if Biden after all these years can make that kind of gaff, Palin by calling him out would be inoculated to it the rest of the way.

#12 "You mean as Biden understood the role of the Vice President, the Constitution, and how Hizb'allah was kicked out of Lebanon? It's easy to appear understanding if you can just make things up and not get called on it."

Well, along those lines, would you mind pointing out the problems with Biden's answers to all three of these issues? I'd like to know exactly what the issues are.

“When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.” [Emphasis added.]

What on Earth is he talking about? The United States and France may have kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon in an alternate universe, but nothing even remotely like that ever happened in this one.

Nobody – nobody – has ever kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon. Not the United States. Not France. Not Israel. And not the Lebanese. Nobody.

Joe Biden has literally no idea what he’s talking about.

It’s too bad debate moderator Gwen Ifill didn’t catch him and ask a follow up question: When did the United States and France kick Hezbollah out of Lebanon?

The answer? Never. And did Biden and Senator Barack Obama really say NATO troops should be sent into Lebanon? When did they say that? Why would they say that? They certainly didn’t say it because NATO needed to prevent Hezbollah from returning–since Hezbollah never went anywhere.

gabriel,

I think Biden meant to say Syria not Hezbollah. At least it was clear to me that he was referring to Syria.

He was clearly mixing up Syria and Hezbollah, but again the gaff covered the much more important question of just how inserting NATO troops would have been possible much less wise. Exactly who was going to pony up these troops (we know the answer to that) and why would it have gone any differently than our last foray into Lebanon? Like i said, the only reason Biden holds that position is because Bush did the opposite. If Bush rushed troops in there, Biden would be calling out the lunacy of repeating the act that killed all those marines.

#19

Since we're asking questions like that, how about telling me which war McCain has won where he has gained the experience that Palin claims ("John McCain knows how to win a war")?

Also, who the heck is General McClennan? She claims that this person never said the surge would work in Afghanistan. I'll have to give it to her on this one...a dead Civil War general did not, as far as I know, make that claim.

Now, of course, the recently appointed General McKiernan did say that a "surge" like the one employed in Iraw would not likely work in Afghanistan, just as Biden said.

As far as the Hezbollah comment, it is possible Biden misspoke, meaning to say "Syria". This would certainly not be out of character for him. But the difference between him and Palin is that he very likely knows that this was a misstatement, while Palin certainly does not (otherwise she'd have called him on it, taking an opportunity to try to embarrass him).

Gwen Ifill didn't know enough to ask a question like this:

America is in the process of contacting its foreign creditors, asking them to fund the Paulson Plan with the first installment of some trillions of dollars in additional loans. Most of these powers are unfriendly to us, to varying degrees. What makes this exchange attractive from their point of view? What concessions must we be prepared to offer?

But that's alright, neither candidate knows enough to say much that's relevant in response. Groping around what Ifill did ask, Biden promised more regulation of Wall Street, and lower taxes for the middle class. Palin declared for more regulation of Wall Street fat cats, and lower taxes for all.

Most of the debate's audience is living in a dream. And the House is preparing to vote today on a bailout that reduces excise taxes on wooden arrows, among other things.

Meanwhile, there does not appear to be enough liquidity in the system to meet the short- and medium- term borrowing needs of American manufacturers and service providers.

Sometimes it starts to feel like Vienna or St. Petersburg in 1913, or Santiago in 1972. We aren't there yet, but it draws closer. We, too, have somehow saddled ourselves with a political and intellectual elite that is not up to the tasks of diagnosis, prioritization, compromise, and concerted action.

People are going to get angrier as the bear starts to bite. But angry against what?

The other problem with the Hezollah comment is that even if he meant Syria, that still account for Hezbollah. Unless he was equating the two, which would be troubling. In other words, if he meant Syria, just how would he have dealt with Hezbollah when inserting NATO troops into Lebanon? That's a deadly serious question. Either he glossed over it or it didn't occur to him. i dont like either possibility. But realistically this was just another opportunity to be the Anti-Bush, and of course nobody (Palin) called him out on the details.

#22 from G_Tarhune :

Biden is the so called "expert" on Foreign Policy, shouldn't he know his Syria/Lebanon by now? I think you can give Palin a little bit of a Pass for blowing someones name she most likely learned a week or two ago. What's Biden's excuse?

“I’m groping here.” Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we’re not bent on its destruction. “Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran,”

I don't expect Palin to have the answers given her limited time focusing on foreign policy issues, and I wouldn't vote for her for President if she was running given her limited understanding of things outside of Alaska. But the point remains, Biden is supposed to be the master of this domain, yet time and time again his suggestions are either foolish, naive, or downright dangerous.

yet time and time again his suggestions are either foolish, naive, or downright dangerous.

Nonsense. There's nothing "dangerous" about an occasional verbal gaffe from someone who is known to be prone to them.

For someone who professes to be concerned about the dangers of electing a person to higher office whose knowledge on most or all key subjects is sorely lacking, you're gaze is strangely restricted. Take a closer look at McCain, the other so-called foreign policy "expert" who confuses Zapatero with Zapatistas and has in the process alienated a close US ally in Europe in the process.

I am also concerned about this form of "gaffe" and am left to wonder whether it reflects simple stupidity or willful mendacity:

Sarah Palin has committed yet another political blunder after claiming she had held talks with a British ambassador - talks that never actually took place.

In an answer to questions about her foreign policy experience ahead of tonight's make-or-break vice presidential TV debate, her aides listed numerous contacts with foreign officials - including Britain's ambassador to Washington, Sir Nigel Sheinwald.

bq.However the meeting never occurred. Officials at the embassy swiftly contacted the McCain-Palin campaign to inform them of the discrepancy.

bq.A British Embassy spokesman said the error arose after Sir Nigel's name was listed among those who had attended a US Governor's meeting in July.

bq.Blunder: Sarah Palin has been forced to apologise after she mistakenly claimed she had met with British ambassador Nigel Sheinwald at an event which he did not actually attend

bq.Mrs Palin was at the meeting in her role as Governor of Alaska. However Sir Nigel pulled out at the last minute, leaving his name on the guest list.

bq.The embarrassing mishap comes as Mrs Palin faces the biggest challenge of her political life tonight in a head-to-head vice-presidential debate with Democratic candidate Joe Biden.

The link.

The one question im shocked Palin didnt ask Biden is about his vote against Gulf War I. But for Gulf War II. And top it off with his crazy scheme to force Iraq to break into 3 ethnic states (which nobody, least of all the Iraqis, wants). The minute Biden claimed that Maliki supported the Obama plan to withdraw from Iraq (itself a distortion), Palin should have blasted him with both barrels about his dismemberment plan.

Her entire debate was a chance to showcase the haphazard positions Biden has taken over the years, and tie that to Obama taking positions based on the days political expediency.

Its those lost opportunities that ultimately are all that matter in this debate. Who 'wins' or 'loses' on points rarely matters, especially in a VP debate. Directing the tone of the discussion, and getting the memes you want out there is what they are good for.

Mark, Biden too had many opportunities to question Palin further on her statements but didn't, for one reason or another.

On example that comes to mind was when she was speaking against "government-run healthcare" and mocking the ability of the government to carry out programs successfully. The simple response to this is that McCain has been happy to take "government run healthcare" all of his adult life without objection, so it is clearly good enough for him.

And a strong point could have been made that it is "Republican" governments in particular that have proven particularly good at illustrating dysfunction and mismanagement.

The "McClellan" gaffe could have also been turned into a great zinger, as I illustrated above.

There are also positions and comments from prior interviews that could and should have been addressed. One could be her support for a Constitutional Right to Privacy but opposition to Roe v. Wade, or in general her opposition to abortion even in the case of in-cest or rape. Or the charges she enacted to rape victims for their own test kits. Or her position that we should launch attacks across Pakistans borders to target terrorists if need be, in agreement with Obama but in opposition to her running mate. She was also allowed to waffle on the idea that human activity is the primary cause of global warming and on the silly idea that we don't need to know what caused it in order to address it (she thinks it is largely natural climate cycles. So perhaps she is advocating that we alter those somehow to our benefit??).

Or that she is blaming average Americans for the Wallstreet mess when she says that "It's a Toxic mess on Main Street that's affecting Wallstreet".

Point being that Biden didn't need to risk a sympathy backlash by slugging it out with Palin. He's ahead, so long as he keeps her at arms length he's done his job.

Palin did need a knockout, and the only way she could get one was to get in close and let Biden have it. She failed to do that. Worse, she was coached against it, which makes you wonder what the McCain strategy folk are thinking. Not much, apparently.

#18 G_Tarhune -

On the role of the VP under article I of the constitution, Biden makes this strange argument, here's the whole rant:

Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.

The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

This is so much stir-fried excrement, boys and girls. There's nothing in the constitution that makes the VP a second executive, and Biden needs to get that straight because previous VPs have also misunderstood this.

What the constitution is explicit about is that the VP presides over the Senate, and plays a limited and specific role there by voting in the case of a tie. If Biden finds that dangerous, he has a personal problem.

Its just the natural lefty paranoia of Dick Cheney. It springs from the inability to reconcile Bush the Idiot with Bush the Devil. Somebody has to be the Machiavelli pulling his puppet strings that allows Bush to run circles around his smarter, more righteous opponents. If Cheney didn't exist the Dems would have to invent him.

#29 from G_Tarhune

DO NOT continue with the totally debunked "rape kit" crap. Its false and the press continues to slander Palin with it. I suggest dropping that DailyKos talking point.

I think Biden meant to say Syria not Hezbollah. At least it was clear to me that he was referring to Syria.

I thought he was referring to when Hezbollah bombed the US and France back in '83, and how it was a mistake for Reagan to have withdrawn troops leaving a power vacuum. But then he talked about Obama saying send in Nato troops, but since he would have been in school at the time...well, I had no idea what he was talking about.

But your explanation makes more sense.

Also, who the heck is General McClennan? She claims that this person never said the surge would work in Afghanistan. I'll have to give it to her on this one...a dead Civil War general did not, as far as I know, make that claim.

As far as the Hezbollah comment, it is possible Biden misspoke, meaning to say "Syria". This would certainly not be out of character for him. But the difference between him and Palin is that he very likely knows that this was a misstatement, while Palin certainly does not (otherwise she'd have called him on it, taking an opportunity to try to embarrass him).

Has anyone ever seen a more concise demonstration of intellectual dishonesty than this? My candiate made exactly the same blunder as your candidate and neither were corrected on it. This proves that your candidate is an idiot.

Given that there was no followup on either, the most this argument proves is that you are an idiot.
[ keep ad hominems to a minimum, please. -- M.F. ]

Glen and Mark,

Either you are uninformed about the issue at hand that Biden's comments were intended to address, or you do and are simply trying out some talking points.

Cheney has made the claim, essentially, that his office is not only part of the executive branch but also the legislative branch: and therefore is not bound by the rules of either:

Cheney's office, according to a story first reported by the Chicago Tribune, has resisted attempts by a tiny federal agency to compile information — in accordance with an executive order signed by George Bush himself — on the classified documents being held by the Vice President's operation. Cheney's office argued that the Vice President's office, because it has both executive and legislative branch duties, is exempt from the order

This is a legitimate and thoughtful debate about VP executive power and privilege. There are reams of written commentary from legal and professional sources that have been questioning Cheney's interpretation of this for the past 8 years. Perhaps you have missed those, but I would suggest doing a little research before jumping to conclusions about Biden's position or mis-classifying it in such reflexively negative terms (ironic, given #32 post). The general consensus seems to be that he has overstretched the influence and expanded significantly the presumed powers of this office.

Biden does not agree with this, and I'm guessing that most Americans also hold a similar view.

You are free to disagree with Biden's statements on this issue for political and/or philosophical reasons. It is clear that you do. But please don't try to make this out to be something that is not, a demonstration of Biden's alleged "ignorance" on the issue; quite the opposite seems to be true. It is, however, almost certain that he doesn't see things the way you and Cheney and his supporters do.

You will forgive those of us with a different view of the powers of the Executive branch I hope. I will not however accept the suggestion that those who disagree with your views (radical as they appear to be) need to "get that straight".

I'll agree to that, gabriel, if you can provide evidence of the debunking.

And for the record, I think the fact that she inserted McClellan (not McClennan as you misstate) for McKiernan undercuts the argument that she's an ignorant idiot. A mistake, sure, but you've got to be reasonably informed on US history just to even be able to make that mistake.

I agree that she didn't left to many openings slide by, and while she certainly exceeded expectations she didn't meaningfully win. But I don't think anhonest observer could continue to assert that she's incompetent. Inexperienced, absolutely. Wrong, sure. But not incompetent.

he most this argument proves is that you are an idiot.

I certainly hope you are not referring to me, personally, by this comment SG, because I would hate to think that such ad hominem attacks are condoned in this forum where people are trying to have an honest conversation. I am not nor ever will suggest that everything I say is correct, and if it isn't I have no problem correcting myself.

I am sensing a growing aggression and anger in the replies to my comments here for reasons that are unclear to me, and will therefore bow out of further discourse on this subject and return at another time for what I hope will be a more thoughtful representation of opposing views.

Biden's VP gaffe:

The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

Biden is expressing a modern view (post-WWII at least) of the VP that is not based upon the Constitution. The Constitution gives the VP legislative duties, which is how John Adams saw his job and those that followed for over a hundred years.

I don't think this could change a single person's vote, but it bothers me since I think the VP office was ill-conceived by the founders and probably needs to be rethought. For one thing, I think we should return to one of the original arguments that arose with the death of William Henry Harrison. If a President dies within the first year or two of his/her Presidency, we should begin a new election process. The unelected President does not have a mandate to lead, qualified or not.

I am sensing a growing aggression and anger in the replies to my comments here for reasons that are unclear to me,

While I will apologize for name-calling, I will admit to a growing sense of frustration. Reading you defend Biden's misstatements in the same post that excoriate Palin's, repeating the debunked rape kit claims, etc. don't reflect someone wanting to have an honest conversation. Rather they indicate someone solely interested in scoring points.

Which of course you're free to do, but it reeks of bad faith.

#40:

Biden made a more basic gaffe than that. Article I is the legislative, not executive, branch. Article II is executive. And the vice-president is mentioned in both.

The VP role is unique (and underspecified). It is part of the executive branch but has a legislative function. I couldn't understand the point Biden was (forcefully) attempting to make, but his assertion of basic facts was garbled and misleading at best.

G Tarhune: Your observation that there are and have been legitimate arguments about the role of the vice president is sound, but it's no defense to Biden who said that everyone should understand that the VP is in the exectuive branch. Biden was the one saying that there is only one legitimate Constitutional interpretation.

John Adams, who helped model the three-branch system, had this to say about the VP:

"The Constitution has instituted two great offices . . . and the nation at large has created two officers: one who is the first of the two . . . is placed at the Head of the Executive, the other at the Head of the Legislative." The following year, he informed another correspondent that the office of vice president "is totally detached from the executive authority and confined to the legislative."

U.S. Senate Bio of Adams

If Cheney were really in the Legislative Branch, it's hard for me to see how he won the court case hiding his 2001 energy meeting minutes from Dems in Congress. Cheney's term has included all sorts of executive responsibilities (e.g., mangling the CIA information in Iraq). I think we may safely conclude that John Adams' vice-presidency, and all others before passage of the 12th Amendment, was very different in structure. Now that the P and VP run as a pair, I'd say the VP is in the Executive Branch for all practical purposes.

I still don't understand why "Main Street" is so good in a political official. If I needed a neurosurgeon, I don't think I'd care much about finding Dr. Six-Pack.

Regarding rape kits, this CNN story quotes several witnesses who claim victims were billed. But I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive.

Regarding rape kits, this CNN story quotes several witnesses who claim victims were billed. But I wouldn’t say it’s conclusive.

I don't see that in the story you linked to. The closest I can see is this:

One woman who wrote in support of the legislation [banning the practice of charging women for rape exam kits] says she was charged for her rape exam by a police department in the city of Juneau, which is hundreds of miles from Wasilla.

I don't see any allegations from a rape victim in Wasilla.

"Regarding rape kits, this CNN story quotes several witnesses who claim victims were billed."

And yet nobody can find a single slip of paper indicating that Wasilla was in any way unique in this matter. Only the post-facto recollections that the towns police chief was some sort of cowboy fighting this thing when everyone else wanted it.

Again, nothing in the record. Not even a mention of Wasilla when specific jurisdictions were brought up:

"Yet in six committee meetings, Wasilla was never mentioned, even when the discussion turned to the specific topic of where victims were being charged. (The Matanuska-Susitna Valley, the surrounding region — the most densely populated region of the state, and roughly the size of West Virginia — is mentioned in passing.)"

NRO

And not a single instance of a woman being billed for a rape kit in Wasilla has been alleged, much less proved. That with hundreds of reporters (not to mention Obama private eyes) searching every dumpster and filing cabinet in Alaska for dirt on Palin.

This charge is absolutely unfair, unproven, and its wrong to keep repeating it.

I don't recall Biden mentioning anything about a rape kit.

There are reams of written commentary from legal and professional sources that have been questioning Cheney's interpretation of this for the past 8 years. Perhaps you have missed those, but I would suggest doing a little research before jumping to conclusions about Biden's position or mis-classifying it in such reflexively negative terms ...

Yes, I remember the Valerie Plame hysteria very well, but all of that seems moot now because you were never able to find the documents that proved Dick Cheney was a traitor, so you could put him up against a wall and shoot him - in the professional and legal parlance of the time.

Perhaps Ms. Ifill was trying to throw some red meat at Senator Biden on this issue. Well, woof, woof, woof, but he's still wrong.

If Cheney were really in the Legislative Branch, it's hard for me to see how he won the court case hiding his 2001 energy meeting minutes from Dems in Congress.

Because Cheney was a red herring. The President has the right to consult confidentially with people in and out of government for their unfettered advise, or set up committees for that purpose. Whether Cheney was in the committe or not was irrelevant.

Lets try some exact quotes:

Cheney, he said, "doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States. That's the executive. He works in the executive branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.”

Article I

"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided"

Now somebody please explain to me how to reconcile those two things.

I start to wonder if Biden is crazy like a fox. His gaffs always seem to cover up for underlying statements that are either bizarre or outrageous.

The NATO in Lebanon/Hezbollah stategement, the VP has no constitution role in the legislature, even his talk about gay marriage... everything he said he would do defined gay marriage, but he claims to oppose it. He wrapped it up so clumsily that few people probably discerned that what he was calling for was a constitutional right to gay marriage without the name (no court can hold that same sex couples have constitutional equal protection to all the rights of marriage, but still not be called married, its an absurd line of legal thought. Simply apply that same standard to interracial marriage and imagine how that would fare in court). Essentially Biden was calling for the term marriage to be an exclusively religious term, while civil unions would be a contract as far as the government is concerned (i happen to agree with this idea). But this is a startling and vastly controversial idea, Biden spun it like a top to make it seem anything but.

Disclosure against interest: I have convinced my poor family to road trip next weekend, along the way we will be stopping at the nation's vice presidential museum. I bet nobody knew that existed or where it was.

Rape kit debunking ahoy: Try here, here, and here

Can we move on now.

The only reason to have a VP debate is so you get it over with.

No one remembers them after they are finished.
No one votes on their outcome.
They essentially end the VP's effect on the campaign.

This one was probably the dullest of all of them. Both of the participants did the best they could, which wasn't much, but probaably was the best we could expect. Biden was a hack and Palin was a cutie.

Thank God it is over. In another 10 minutes, no one will care who "won".

Can you claim executive privileged if you are a member of the Legislative branch?

Is the visce President some sort of Constitutional duality? Or, is he and exotic quantum particle exhibiting properties of both Legislatures and Executives.

Is he a member of the Executive branch at all since he has no executive power, at all outside the Legislature.

I think we need a ruling From the Supreme Court, or better yet an amendment to the Constitution that makes him either a fish or fowl.

#20 from mark at 5:24 pm on Oct 03, 2008
gabriel,

I think Biden meant to say Syria not Hezbollah. At least it was clear to me that he was referring to Syria.
***********************************
Could that be the Syria which has seats in the Lebanese government?

For your claim to have validity you should be able to replace Hezbollah with Syrian and the statement

"“When we kicked — along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, “Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don’t know — if you don’t, Hezbollah will control it.” Now what’s happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel"

Should make sense and it does not.

He did not say Hezbollah when he meant Syria, he just mangled the whole thing.

From an excellent Arthur Schlesinger article on the history of the Vice-Presidency:

But cannot Presidents give the Vice President serious work to do? Until rather recently they thought themselves constitutionally forbidden to do so. Most Presidents and most Vice Presidents have believed with Truman (in 1955) that the Vice President "is not an officer of the executive branch" and with Eisenhower (in 1963) that the Vice President "is not legally a part of the Executive branch and is not subject to direction by the President."

Is the Vice Presidency Necessary?

I bet nobody knew that existed or where it was.

One question that you'll be able to answer for me after you've seen it: is one of the exhibits a bucket of warm spit?

No idea, Dave. The website places the Museum's origins with "a small group of visionaries." Tri-lateral commission?

Ah-ha, state with the most vice presidents.

They've both made mistakes, but the mainstream media illuminati only report one side. Yes, that side is the right side. Focus on the mistakes of the liberals Mr. Media!