As I sort of expected, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden both did kinda OK tonight. Biden had some good moments but was a bit too stodgy and senatorial. Palin was overly scripted, managed to avoid making too much of a word salad, and seemed to be trying too hard to be folksy. I don't feel like too many people really say "doggone it" in a setting like this, even in Alaska. I looked over some of a gubernatorial debate from the CSPAN archives, and don't recall her trying so hard to be folksy there.
She seemed to have trouble engaging with the actual questions being raised, and it was obvious that she had been given her talking points, and wasn't going to go beyond them. That's all well and good, but a far cry from the more discursive style we saw from Biden tonight, and from both Obama and McCain the other day. It's sad to say, but Palin is simply not ready for prime time, and doesn't measure up to the other three candidates.
Joe Biden deftly got around the big concern a lot of people expressed before the debate: would he be seen as attacking poor young innocent Palin. The approach was simple; he went after McCain. When Palin said something foolish or dishonest, he didn't attack Palin, he called out McCain. Since joining the ticket, all Palin's done is repeat the lines McCain and his lobbyist staff wrote for her, and Biden was too smart to waste time arguing with the puppet. Americans are voting for the one behind the curtain, and that's who Biden went after. And if McCain can't take that, he just needs to come out from behind Mama Palin's skirts.
The most revealing exchange was the discussion of the nature of the Vice Presidency. Palin seems to think that there's a lot of Constitutional flex in what the VP does. Which is true, in the sense that nothing is really forbidden from the VP, but almost no actual power is given. And I'm sorry, but Palin is simply deranged if she thinks the VP is not constitutionally part of the executive branch. But Biden was a bit off in claiming that Article I defines the executive branch. That'd be Article II; Article I discusses the legislative branch, and briefly mentions that the VP breaks ties in the Senate ("The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided," exactly as Biden said).
Biden's retort Palin's maundering on this topic was important. The Constitution matters, and this administration's contortions of the laws and the Constitution are among the most important reasons to get them and their ilk out of government. Good for Biden for laying down a marker on that key point.
Also, Palin totally lied about what the generals in Afghanistan say. She insisted that they hadn't explicitly ruled out the surge strategy. TPM Election Central quotes her saying:
Well, first, McClellan did not say definitively the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certainly, accounting for different conditions in that different country and conditions are certainly different. We have NATO allies helping us for one and even the geographic differences are huge but the counterinsurgency principles could work in Afghanistan. McClellan didn't say anything opposite of that. The counterinsurgency strategy going into Afghanistan, clearing, holding, rebuilding, the civil society and the infrastructure can work in Afghanistan. And those leaders who are over there, who have also been advising George Bush on this have not said anything different but that.
In fact, the general, whose name is actually McKiernan, said "The word I don't use for Afghanistan is 'surge,' " and clarified that "Afghanistan is not Iraq." McCain and Palin don't seem to grasp that.
- Log in to post comments
I find your blog title rather misleading! I thought "The Debate" was the one between Wilberforce and Huxley...!
Maybe John McCain was telling Palin stories about how he was a campaign aid to McClellan (back when McCain was really a Maverick).
From an outsider's (Canadian) perspective the debate was close to a draw. The bar for Palin had (mistakenly) been set so low and that for Biden so high that all Palin had to do was survive. And she did. Bad tactics on the part of Democrats.
My question is about something else you said; namely the constitutionally correct role of the Vice President.
When I look at the Constitution it seems to say that the President is responsible for running the country and Congress makes the laws. These responsibilities are supposed to be separate ... at least that's how it seems to me.
An yet I hear the Presidential candidates talking as though they will be responsible for new laws on health care, education, economics, taxes etc. Has there been a recent amendment to the Constitution that gives the President the authority to make new laws? Was it the original intent of the Constitution that the President would propose and write laws for Congress to pass?
I think the answer to the last question is "no." Modern Presidents have usurped the role of Congress when it comes to proposing and pushing legislation. And other things as well. If Presidents are no longer sticking to their constitutional role then why do you say the the constitution "matters" for the Vice President?
Larry, it's likely that Josh will have a better answer, but I think I can help a bit.
As you say, Presidents are not formally given the power to legislate, that is, create law.
However, since the beginnning of the republic, Presidents have addressed congress with specific suggestions of legislation they feel is necessary. Some congresses have passed presidential suggestions quite rapidly, within hours at times. Look over the legislation passed during F.D.R.'s first 100 days in office and you will see what I mean.
Beyond suggesting laws, Presidents are given the responsibility to implement and enforce laws. This power gives a certain amount of de facto legislative power to the president. Presidential directives concerning how a law is to be interpeted and enforced are pretty powerful. For example, if you read the sales pitch for promoting the 18th amendment (prohibition of liquor) it is implied that beer and wine would not be affected by the amendment. When it was adopted and the directive came out that the language 'intoxicating liquors' was to be interpeted by law enforcement as including beer and wine, there was an immediate strong swing of dislike toward the amendment. If you read the text of the constitutional amendment it could have been interpeted as only affect distilled liquors. So presidental directives and interpetations can have a huge influence on legislation.
Finally, presidents can effetively legislate through presidential orders. These were originally supposed to be restricted to changing the operation of the federal bureaucracy. Like moving the forestry department from the Department of Agriculture to the Parks Department and that sort of things. As an example, one of our current president's orders before 9/11 makes it easy to keep classified documents secret even after the standard release date (what was it, 25 years?). This means that many documents from the Iran/Contra affair are still unreleased. You can see how a change in a small procedural change can dramatically impact how a society may view an event.
While our current president has, in my not so humble opinion, abused the powers of the president. The increase of the power of the ofice has been happening for some time. Many people say it started with F.D.R., some put it on Teddy Roosevelt, others say Lincoln, even Andrew Jackson gets some blame.
I'd like to see Obama suggest to congress that some legislation needs to be put through to curtail the power of the presidental office (particularly the War Powers Act of 1973), but I'm not holding my breath for it.
Correction, it was not the War powers Act of 1973 I was referring to. I'm going to have to look up the act I was referring to. My apologies if I made someone think I'm crazy for a moment.
Bush and "signing statements"--how are many of these not a breach of the oath of office?
Article II, Section 3: "He [the President] shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."
The President is Constitutionally entitled to suggest legislative language to Congress.
And signing statements have no force of law. Nor am I aware of any court regarding them as legally binding.