Wednesday, October 01, 2008

The Vice Presidential Debate

The vice-presidential debates are coming up on Thursday night. ("Tonight", as most of you read this.)

I suspect that they are going to be totally worthless. They are not going to address many of the core issues that should be addressed with respect to job of being the vice president. What we are going to get is a 'debate' in which the moderator will ask a question, and the candidate will give us his or best guess as to what the person at the head of the ticket would say about that issue.

This is not what I want to hear.

The Subject of the Debate

If I were in charge of moderating the debate, I would begin with the following:

The most important job for the vice-President is to stand in and be President in case something happens to the person we elected to that position. At any moment an assassination, a heart attack, an airplane crash, or an unfortunate encounter with a pretzel could end that person’s life or render him incapable of serving as President of the United States. In this case, you get to take over.

So, let's work with that assumption. Let us say that John McCain and Barak Obama are no longer capable of being President of the United States, and the job is going to fall to you. I am going to ask you a set of questions, and I want you to answer how you would address that issue as President.

I do not want to hear the names "John McCain" and "Barak Obama" even mentioned in your answers. I do not want you to sing the praises of the person who leads your ticket. I do not want you to criticize the person who leads the opposing party’s ticket. They are no longer with us – that is why you are here. Now, the nation waits for you to answer the important question, "Now what? Now what will Sarah Pahin or John Biden do, now that she or he is President."

Now, let's go to the first question. As President, how would you approach . . .

These are things that I, as a voter, have a right to know about the person who sits a heartbeat away from being President.

The two campaigns will not like this option. The first and most important problem will come from the vice presidential candidate questioning some of the presidential candidate’s policies. The presidential candidate, let us assume, is pro choice. They do not like the idea of the vice presidential candidate questioning the policies of the presidential candidate – that would be disastrous. This leaves us with the option in which the vice presidential candidate tries to do his or her best imitating the presidential candidate.

Rhetoric and Generalities

The news has been reporting that a lot of effort has been going into preparing for this debate. Biden needs little training – he has been in politics long enough that he would do better as a teacher than as a student.

On Palin's side, her handlers will help her to provide answers that disguise her lack of knowledge of specific facts, and allow her to speak rhetoric. She will likely speak passionately about the wonders of a free market – on how it creates jobs, lowers costs, and generates opportunity. She will speak harshly about government waste and how important it is to root out these wasteful government programs and eliminate them. She will lament on how bad it would be to have a situation where the government will be stepping in to medical discussions that ought to be left between a patient and her doctor.

But, they will be light on specifics.

Part of the idea is that, if she doesn't say anything, then she can't say anything wrong (though, in Palin’s case, her handlers have discovered that there is some need to teach her how to utter coherent English sentences).

It is important to note who are handling Palin's training for this debate. These are people who have had years of experience hiding ignorance – hiding it at least well enough to win an election or two. Yes, we know that Bush was an ignorant fool. However, getting Palin (an McCain) elected doesn’t include wasting resources convincing us. There are others who will be easier to convince.


One concern that people should have is that, while handlers can prepare a candidate for a scheduled debate against a known opponent, there is no way that they can prepare a President for an emergency like 9/11.

Remember George Bush on the day of the 9/11 attacks, sitting in a class of grade school children while America was under attack, not knowing what to do? He was incapable of action – incapable of leadership. What would Palin do if she were President, and some terrorists successfully launched another attack against us? Will she be carrying a stack of note cards in her pocket for just such an occasion?

How would Palin address the issue of a Russian invasion of Georgia? A nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan? A radical Muslim overthrow of the government of some oil-rich country? A Cuban Missile Crisis? Increased tensions between China and Taiwan? North Korea’s restarted nuclear program?

One option will be that President Palin will still be under the influence of her handlers. If this is the case, then her handlers will be in charge of foreign policy. Palin would simply be a figure head that these handlers will use to either sell their product to the public or to hide it from them with meaningless diversions.

If President Palin is not being handled, then where will she turn to interpret the events going on around her? Her personal history suggests that she is going to pray to God to tell her what to do. She will then see some random event – something that she will take to be a "sign from God," and whatever idea that pops into her head at that moment will determine her policy. She will step into it with utter conviction that it is the right thing to do because her instructions came from God, and God could not possibly be wrong. She will be throwing a dart at a dartboard (and, given her level of ignorance, she will be throwing the dart while blindfolded).

She might get lucky.

She probably won't.

I would rather give the darts to somebody who does not think that God is going to tell him where to throw it. I want a dart thrower who will remove the blindfold and use his eyes and his mind to decide where and how hard to throw the dart.

Nothing at the debates will show us how President Palin will handle an issue she was not prepared for, or what type of ideas might somehow spring into her otherwise empty brain.


Anonymous said...

Recently an insurance company nearly wind up....

A bank is nearly bankrupt......

Who fault?

The top management of the Public listed company ( belong to "public" ) salary should be tied a portion of it to the shares price ( IPO or ave 5 years ).... so when the shares price drop, it don't just penalise the investors, but those who don't take care of the company.....If this rule is pass on, without any need of further regulation, all industries ( as long as it is public listed ) will be self regulated......

Sign a petition to your favourite president candidate, congress member again and ask for their views to comment on this, and what regulations they are going to raise for implementation.....If you agree on my point, please share with many people as possible....

Anonymous said...

Heads up! Biden's first name is Joseph, not John.

As to the rest of your post:

I'm afraid that even should a moderator issue such a preface, the debate would still degenerate into the pointless recitation of talking points you expect it will be.

Many people in the US seem utterly unable to separate blather from substance. As a result, candidates feel free to feign competence with empty rhetoric and appeals to emotion and prejudice. Though not a new set of circumstances here in the States, the depth and breadth of the deficits in our present politics has reached simply staggering proportions.

Anonymous said...

Vice Presidential candidate and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin has been getting more negative attention than positive attention from the media. For example, last Saturday Palin made her late-night entertainment debut on Saturday Night Live. Instead of commending Palin for playing along or mentioning that her appearance gave SNL its highest ratings in 14 years, the press criticized her for her appearance. Palin has been under constant attack; the media has bashed Palin for her performance as Governor of Alaska, the pregnancy of her unmarried 17-year-old daughter, and even her character. The media has stooped to new lows by implying that the United States would self-destruct should Palin have to replace McCain as president. As is typical with unbalanced news-reporting, these attacks are misconstrued half-truths. In fact, Sarah Palin has a large number of admirers who commend her for her persistent effort to improve the state of Alaska. Other admirers point to her unwavering support of the disabled population and her push for the interests of special-needs individuals, like those with autism and Down syndrome. Many more followers put their trust in Sarah Palin because she advocates for personal responsibility and financial freedom. Palin opposes the elimination of cash advances, a legitimate and invaluable resource because people have the right to financial freedoms and the right to choose to get a payday loan.

Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406

Alonzo Fyfe said...

So, am I to assume that this last post is the most current form of paid political advertisement.

Ultimately, it appears to come here as a part of a project taken up by people whose attitidue is, "I don't care what harm befalls the rest of the country. All I care about is using this opportunity to promote myself and make money."

Which is fairly consistent with the low (or nearly non-existent) moral standards of cash advance enterprises.

Palin would make an extremely poor President. The idea that it is wrong to criticize a candidate for public office is absurd. The idea that all candidates deserve equal criticism and condemnation is also absurd. Some people are simply better qualified for a position than others. To say that this fact ought not to be reported is to say that we are not permitted to speak the truth.

The fact is that Palin's inability to answer basic questions on how the government functions demonstrates a basic lack of competence to be President. Furthermore, she has demonstrated a significant lack of ability to draw conclusions from the available evidence.

She may have some good qualities, but the mere fact that a person has some good qualities does not imply that she is qualified to be President. My niece has some admirable qualities. I would not vote for her to become Vice President (and potentially President) of the United States.

This is not an "attack" on her. It is simply the truth - that is not where her talents lie.