VP Debate Thread

[BenBurch]

And this is exactly why Alexander Hamilton said that there shouldn't be a Bill of Rights at all: because if there is a bill saying that some things are rights, then there will always be ****s and ******s who hate freedom and who will pretend that everything not listed in the Bill of Rights are not rights.

But this is insane. The Constitution doesn't say that an individual can't do anything that's not protected in the Constitution, it says that the state can't do anything that's prohibited by the Constitution.

Since this is in the Election 2008 forum, I shall add something I heard someone say the other day: "If we elect Obama, at least we'll have a President who's read the Federalist Papers".

A-men!

 

[Cicero]

Surely you jest. Quayle would hardly make this comparison if he was suggesting that Kennedy, with his lack of experience, was a bad president. You simply don't point out the similarities between yourself and someone you are about to insult. Your ripost not only would not have been in character for Quayle, it would have caused an audible gasp from the audience and a thorough excoriation in the press. It might have even lost GHW Bush the election.

I'm not going to defend Kennedy. He was not a good president. He nearly got us into a nuclear war, he did get us into Viet Nam and he had a limited grasp of policy. Had he survived, his administration might have been regarded as failed. That being said, it would have simply been suicide for Quayle to have attacked a dead president whose legacy was (undeservedly) magnified by his death. He might as well praise Hitler.



Right. The implication being that Kennedy was a good president, even with less experience. Besides, denouncing an assassinated president, however justified, would not have done much for his political ambitions. He is quite fortunate that you were not his advisor. But then, I seriously doubt he would have taken you on as an advisor. He wasn't really a dumb person. He just didn't have much of a talent for public speaking.

You keep superimposing Quayle's reason for invoking JFK's name. The point was that JFK became president with limited experience, not that he was a "good" president.

You make it sound as if Quayle had called JFK a serial reprobate it would come out of thin air. Since Benson was on the attack with his double edged put down, why not throw it back at him?

During that debate, there was no restriction on the audience responding with applause and shouts. Had the same restriction been on that audience as was on last night's, then Benson would not have even made the remark calculated to get the expected response.

Of course there would be gasps if Quayle made such a comment. But so what? He should look foolish for the sake of Benson's bilge?

You say you are not defending JFK, yet you seem to think he is inoculated aginst an observation about his character.

Pat Buchanan praise Hitler all the time and is still employed as a pundit by MNBC and PBS.

 

[Cicero]

Or maybe the only thing Palin has going for her is her helplessness. Being cruel to her is like kicking a puppy. Hillary has been accused of many things, but the moniker "puppy" is never going to be applied to her.

Now me, I can look at Palin sinking, and say "Well, she jumped in the water with concrete overshoes, and her swimming skill was pitiful at best" but most people feel sympathy when a mean nasty Biden shark starts taking chunks out of her - which is, frankly, what he's good at.

Biden just had to ignore her and let her sink on her own - which she's startlingly good at.
You do know that the Camelot moniker wasn't because of JFK (one notes King Arthur was hardly the best role model ever). It was because of the people he gathered around him.
I stole this from Wikipedia: Enjoy.

The Kennedy Cabinet

OFFICE |NAME |TERM
President |John F. Kennedy |1961–1963
Vice President |Lyndon B. Johnson |1961–1963
State |Dean Rusk |1961–1963
Treasury |C. Douglas Dillon |1961–1963
Defense |Robert S. McNamara |1961–1963
Justice |Robert F. Kennedy |1961–1963
Postmaster General |J. Edward Day |1961–1963
|John A. Gronouski |1963
Interior |Stewart L. Udall |1961–1963
Agriculture |Orville L. Freeman |1961–1963
Commerce |Luther H. Hodges |1961–1963
Labor |Arthur J. Goldberg |1961–1962
|W. Willard Wirtz |1962–1963
HEW |Abraham A. Ribicoff |1961–1962
| Anthony J. Celebrezze |1962–1963

That Wiki will leave an omelet on your face more times than not. There was no reference to JFK's administration as Camelot until after his death. And it was Jackie who attached the name to her husband's time in The White House. She never had in mind his cabinet when she invoked the name.

BTW: Dillon was a Republican

 

[Snide]

Or maybe the only thing Palin has going for her is her helplessness. Being cruel to her is like kicking a puppy. Hillary has been accused of many things, but the moniker "puppy" is never going to be applied to her.

You know, I agree with you for the most part, and yet Palin herself says she is a pitbull. Oh, and a Maverick. Joe was soft on her last night, smartly. As was Ifell. It's pretty easy to just "hold your own" under such conditions. Imagine presenting your dissertation without any challenges from the profs.

 

[Cicero]

You know, I agree with you for the most part, and yet Palin herself says she is a pitbull. Oh, and a Maverick. Joe was soft on her last night, smartly. As was Ifell. It's pretty easy to just "hold your own" under such conditions. Imagine presenting your dissertation without any challenges from the profs.

A. A debate is not a dissertation.
B. Neither G.I. or Biden are professors.
C. As long as we are theorizing, maybe Palin was soft on Joe because she felt sorry for the loss of his wife and child....

 

[Snide]

A. A debate is not a dissertation.

You're right, it was far more important than a dissertation.

B. Neither G.I. or Biden are professors.
C. As long as we are theorizing, maybe Palin was soft on Joe because she felt sorry for the loss of his wife and child....

Maybe, except I wasn't theorizing. It was an analogy. Sorry you didn't catch on...I'll type more slowly next time.

 

[Cicero]

You're right, it was far more important than a dissertation.Maybe, except I wasn't theorizing. It was an analogy. Sorry you didn't catch on...I'll type more slowly next time.

You just admitted your analogy was invalid. Nothing new there. I don't think its the speed of your posts that are problematic, rather their characteristic benightedness.

 

[Tricky]

You keep superimposing Quayle's reason for invoking JFK's name. The point was that JFK became president with limited experience, not that he was a "good" president.

If he was suggesting that a president with little experience (like Quayle had, though not as little as JFK) was a bad president, then he would have been tarring himself with that same brush. That would have been stupid, and as I've said, Quayle wasn't stupid.

You make it sound as if Quayle had called JFK a serial reprobate it would come out of thin air. Since Benson was on the attack with his double edged put down, why not throw it back at him?

Because it would be politically stupid, even if true. Now frankly, I don't consider philandering a mark of a bad president, and I think I can point out a few examples of good presidents who had mistresses. But even we agreed that it is a bad thing to philander, it still would have been a mistake to bring up the weaknesses of a dead president. A horrible mistake. An idiotic mistake. If you don't realize that, then you must not pay much attention to politics.

Of course there would be gasps if Quayle made such a comment. But so what? He should look foolish for the sake of Benson's bilge?

He looked foolish because he set himself up. As it turns out, he had been making the Kennedy comments in speeches for some time before the debate. Bentson had heard them. He was ready. Quayle may not have been stupid, but he was no genius either. The person who made him look foolish was Dan Quayle. If he had added your suggested riposte, he would have looked like a foolish ***hole who insults dead people. I find it odd that you would consider that an improvement.

You say you are not defending JFK, yet you seem to think he is inoculated aginst an observation about his character.

Yeah, Americans seem to have some reverence for commanders, especially former war heros, who died in the line of duty. It's a similar reason Obama and Biden dare not mock McCain (a philanderer) for being captured. Being a POW makes him a hero, no questions allowed. I realize it isn't necessarily logical, but it is a political reality. You want to ignore that reality, fine. Don't expect to be taken seriously.

Pat Buchanan praise Hitler all the time and is still employed as a pundit by MNBC and PBS.

Really? I greatly dislike Pat Buchanan, but I was unaware he praised Hitler "all the time". I recall a single incident over thirty years ago. I am aware that various news programs use commentators with diverse points of view. Buchanan is a voice that many conservatives like, so it is not unusual that he is sought as a commentator.

What this has to do with how Quayle should have gone off on JFK, I'm not sure.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Sigh...

OK, I had an abuse-filled day at work to re-think things, (having a tooth pulled yesterday afternoon didn't improve my humor last night, either) and cool down. so I take back all of the nigh-totalitarian things that I said.

I'm just sick and tired of the whole damn system and the hypocrites who infest it--politician and voter alike.

 

[HereticHulk]

Nader's VP pick who was not included in the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN24rhMI9IE

 

[GreyICE]

Nader's VP pick who was not included in the debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN24rhMI9IE

Really? I wonder why that could have been? Why don't you enlighten Cicero in a PM?

 

[Cicero]

If he was suggesting that a president with little experience (like Quayle had, though not as little as JFK) was a bad president, then he would have been tarring himself with that same brush. That would have been stupid, and as I've said, Quayle wasn't stupid.


Because it would be politically stupid, even if true. Now frankly, I don't consider philandering a mark of a bad president, and I think I can point out a few examples of good presidents who had mistresses. But even we agreed that it is a bad thing to philander, it still would have been a mistake to bring up the weaknesses of a dead president. A horrible mistake. An idiotic mistake. If you don't realize that, then you must not pay much attention to politics.


He looked foolish because he set himself up. As it turns out, he had been making the Kennedy comments in speeches for some time before the debate. Bentson had heard them. He was ready. Quayle may not have been stupid, but he was no genius either. The person who made him look foolish was Dan Quayle. If he had added your suggested riposte, he would have looked like a foolish ***hole who insults dead people. I find it odd that you would consider that an improvement.


Yeah, Americans seem to have some reverence for commanders, especially former war heros, who died in the line of duty. It's a similar reason Obama and Biden dare not mock McCain (a philanderer) for being captured. Being a POW makes him a hero, no questions allowed. I realize it isn't necessarily logical, but it is a political reality. You want to ignore that reality, fine. Don't expect to be taken seriously.


Really? I greatly dislike Pat Buchanan, but I was unaware he praised Hitler "all the time". I recall a single incident over thirty years ago. I am aware that various news programs use commentators with diverse points of view. Buchanan is a voice that many conservatives like, so it is not unusual that he is sought as a commentator.

What this has to do with how Quayle should have gone off on JFK, I'm not sure.

JFK a war hero? We could go into his time as PT Skipper, but you wouldn't like the results.

Philandering is only one of JFK's character flaws. The book he claimed to have authored "Why England Slept" was written by Blair Clark and Arthur Krock. His first priority as President was the assassination of Prime Minister Lumumba of the Congo and Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. He instigated the plot to kill South Vietnam's Premiere Diem

His drug habit included codeine, demerol, methadone, ritalin, meprobamate, librium, barbiturates, hydrocortisone, testosterone, and some alixir that his doctor injected into him three times a day.

This is just skimming the surface. But you still consider JFK a paragon of a president. The assassination was tragic, but it doesn't ameliorate his 1000 days in office.

If the media wanted to argue the facts rising from a Quayle riposte, they would soon regret it. You prefer political expediency to truth and honor. Fine.

Who cares if Bush 41 and the sub moronic Quayle were elected? Bush 41 squandered Reagan's legacy anyway.

McCain a philanderer? After he married his current wife? Let's here about it.

Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with Buchanan's latest 2008 book, "Hitler, Churchill & The Unnecessary War." Conservatives have nothing to do with the isolationist Buchanan. He is employed by MSNBC and PBS. Not exactly conservative strongholds.

 

[Tricky]

JFK a war hero? We could go into his time a PT Skipper, but you wouldn't like the results.

Yes, he was a war hero.

On August 2, 1943, Kennedy's boat, the PT-109, was taking part in a nighttime patrol near New Georgia in the Solomon Islands. It was rammed by the Japanese destroyer Amagiri.Kennedy was thrown across the deck, injuring his already-troubled back. Nonetheless, he swam, towing a wounded man, to an island and later to a second island where his crew was subsequently rescued. For these actions, Kennedy received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal under the following citation:

For extremely heroic conduct as Commanding Officer of Motor Torpedo Boat 109 following the collision and sinking of that vessel in the Pacific War Theater on August 1–2, 1943. Unmindful of personal danger, Lieutenant (then Lieutenant, Junior Grade) Kennedy unhesitatingly braved the difficulties and hazards of darkness to direct rescue operations, swimming many hours to secure aid and food after he had succeeded in getting his crew ashore. His outstanding courage, endurance and leadership contributed to the saving of several lives and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

Now I realize that it is all the rage these days to slander the name of war heroes who happen to be Democrats, but whatever kind of officer he was, good or bad, he was in fact a certified hero.

Philandering is only one of JFK's character flaws. The book he claimed to have authored "Why England Slept" was written by Blair Clark and Arthur Krock. His first priority as President was the assassination of Prime Minister Lumumba of the Congo and Trujillo of the Dominican Republic. He instigated the plot to kill South Vietnam's Premiere Diem

Yes, he tried to kill Castro too, or at least, the CIA did while Kennedy was president. As I have pointed out, I am not a fan of JFK. I have said he was a bad president. That is not a view that is widely held, and it would have been be more than foolish for Quayle to have tried to piss on his grave.

If the media wanted to argue the facts rising from a Quayle riposte, they would soon regret it. You prefer political expediency to truth and honor. Fine.

No, I think Quayle would regret it. He got into enough trouble for just trying to paint himself as JFK's equal. How much worse do you think it would be if he tried to trash JFK? He would be an idiot to think he could make political mileage this way. He would only gain a few extremist kooks who think their "truth" is somehow superior to that agreed on by most historians.

McCain a philanderer? After he married his current wife? Let's here about it.

No. Before. According to Snopes (marked as "true"):

"My marriage ended because John McCain didn't want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens ... it just does."
---Carol McCain (John's first wife)

In 1979 — while still married to Carol — he met Cindy at a cocktail party in Hawaii. Over the next six months he pursued her, flying around the country to see her. Then he began to push to end his marriage. Some of McCain's acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centered womanizer who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to 'play the field'. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

Is there a statute of limitations on philandering? Do you get a free pass if it was 30 years ago?

As I have said, I don't count this against him. As his first wife says, "You know that happens." I just don't want a double-standard. If you think philandering makes a politician bad, then you must apply that standard to McCain as well.

 

[SezMe]

McCain a philanderer? After he married his current wife?

Question: "Hey, Senator Vitter, been gettin' any since you got caught?"
Vitter: "Nope, been pure as the driven snow."
Cicero: "Great. Go back to the Senate and get a standing ovation."

Question: "Hey, Senator Craig, been visiting any public bathrooms lately?"
Craig: "Nope, been clean as a whistle. Poop only in private."
Cicero: "You're a great American."

Question: "Hey, Newt, dumped any wives lately after having an affair."
Newt: "Nope, been a devoted husband."
Cicero: "You're our man behind the scenes."

Question: "Hey, Bill, you and Monica, ya know ...."
Slick: "I am not having sex with that woman."
Cicero: "It's all your fault."

 

[gdnp]

Is there a statute of limitations on philandering? Do you get a free pass if it was 30 years ago?

As I have said, I don't count this against him. As his first wife says, "You know that happens." I just don't want a double-standard. If you think philandering makes a politician bad, then you must apply that standard to McCain as well.

This is at least the 3rd time this thread that I was about to post when Tricky beat me to it.

Still, I don"t think McCain should be criticized for his youthful indiscretion. After all, he was only 44 at the time.

 

[SezMe]

Still, I don"t think McCain should be criticized for a youthful indiscretion. After all, he was only 44 at the time.

Ah-ha. The Henry Hyde move. You would be a great Mornington Crescent player.

 

[Tricky]

This is at least the 3rd time this thread that I was about to post when Tricky beat me to it.

How can you be expected to compete with someone who is a forum addict?

Still, I don"t think McCain should be criticized for his youthful indiscretion. After all, he was only 44 at the time.

And Kennedy was 46 when he died. Hmmm... How old do you have to be before cheating on your wife is bad?

 

[MattusMaximus]

Back on Topic:

It looks as if there is now some polling info out about last night's VP debate...

Polls: Biden won debate, though Palin did well

... A CBS News/Knowledge Networks survey of 500 uncommitted voters taken after the debate Thursday night found that 46 percent thought Biden won, while 21 percent gave Republican Sarah Palin the victory. While two-thirds found Palin knowledgeable about important issues, 98 percent said the same about Biden.

A separate CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey found similar views, with 51 percent saying Biden did better, to 36 percent favoring Palin.

Perhaps most significant, the CNN survey found that 87 percent thought the Delaware senator was qualified to be president, while 42 percent saw Palin that way. ...

... But at this stage of the campaign, with Americans weary of war and anxious about the declining economy, the Republican ticket faces a hostile environment since it represents the incumbent party at a time when voters are seeking change. Palin had to do more than merely hold her own to shift the campaign's overall dynamic. But there's no evidence she did that, even if she exceeded expectations for her performance. ...

I know the CBS poll was done on non-committed voters, but what about the breakdown of the CNN poll? I seem to recall that some of the polling done after the first presidential debate was skewed with more Democrats being polled than Republicans. On that note, does anyone have numbers as to viewership - that is, how many Dems, Repubs, Indies watched the VP debate?

Bottom Line: Sarah Palin exceeded expectations (the bar was practically on the ground, btw), but she wasn't able to deliver how she needed to in order to get McCain out of his rut. This VP debate may work to whip up the GOP base a bit, but it won't do anything to reach beyond the base to independents and undecideds. And unless McCain/Palin can do that, they're finished.

McCain has two more debates to go with Obama. All Obama has to do is repeat his first performance - look calm, cool, collected, and stay on message. If McCain cannot bring his A-game and cause Obama to stumble very badly, it's over.

 

[BeAChooser]

Let's have a little more discussion about Biden misrepresenting Article I of the Constitution and the powers of the Vice President. Isn't that a rather serious mistake given this was a Vice Presidential debate? At least that's what you folks were telling us a few week ago. Right?

In the debate, after Palin responded (accurately) to a question about the role of the VP, Biden patronizingly declared

Vice President Cheney has probably been the most dangerous Vice President we've had in American history. He has 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. 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 the Vice President to preside over the senate only in a time when in fact there is a tie vote. The constitution is explicit, the only authority the Vice President has from a legislative standpoint is to vote only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea that he's a part of the legislative branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of the unitary executive..and look where it's gotten us.

Biden is completely wrong. Article I defines the Legislative Branch. Article II concerns the Executive Branch. Article I defines the Legislative Branch's composition and the scope of its powers and that of its members. Article I, sec. 3, clause 4 is the first time the Vice President is mentioned in the Constitution. It says

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

That doesn't say the Vice President is the President of the Senate only when there is a tie vote. He is President ANY time he chooses to be. Biden is completely wrong again. Perhaps Cheney should just walk over to the Senate in the next week and preside. And if I were Cheney, I'd gavel the democrats quiet for a day, just to prove the point ... especially the Senators named Obama and Biden.

 

[Gurdur]

JFK a war hero? ......
Philandering is only one of JFK's character flaws. .... His drug habit included codeine, demerol, methadone, ritalin, meprobamate, librium, barbiturates, hydrocortisone, testosterone, and some alixir that his doctor injected into him three times a day. .....
Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with ....

Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with decency. JFK had Addison's Disease, and was dependent on hydrocortisone, among other medications, daily just to stay alive. To try pretending as you do that it was a "drug habit" as you do is only to reveal your abysmal ignorance of medicine, and the dishonesty you stoop to in abusing those whose politics you don't agree with. You obviously either know nothing about it, or your're only too willing to lie about it.

I guess we're all lucky that JFK wasn't a diabetic and needing daily insulin, or else you would have tried pretending that was also a "drug habit".

Why don't you simply grow up?