Initial VP Debate Thoughts

They say that the first rule of the VP is "do no harm". This reflects the fact that few people will vote for a candidate because of his or her VP, but many might vote against a candidate because of one. It was for this reason that some of us said earlier that even if Palin did okay it wouldn't matter a great deal.

Well, she did "okay". And it won't matter a great deal.

No major gaffes, but it's also quite obvious that she is totally clueless, especially on foreign policy. She proved again tonight that she has charisma and she can regurgitate talking points, but that she has no depth of understanding of important issues at all.

IMO the story tonight isn't Palin -- it's Biden. He got no attention coming in, and IMO he came across as prepared, intelligent, experienced and very human.

Something is Up With Biden and the Clintons

I dunno what it is, but something is going on. I can feel it in my bones. Just look at the behavior of Biden and the Clintons of late. Something is just not right.

Biden has always had a tendency to gaffe, but he knows what's at stake here and he's just making too many gaffes too frequently. Today he made a truly boneheaded comment about coal that serves no purpose. And the comment about Hillary Clinton being a better VP than he? It just doesn't make sense.

As for Senator Clinton herself, she pledged to do everything she could to help Obama win, but so far has done almost nothing. Everyone (including me) expected her to be a big asset in fighting back against Palin, but she's said nothing about her, and in fact canceled a planned appearance a few days ago when it turned out both she and Palin would be attending, which she hadn't been told in advance. She says Obama doesn't want her to talk about Palin. Why? Are they avoiding this for some reason I can't see? Saving it for later? What?

Finally, the biggest mystery of all: Bill Clinton. He gave a good speech, almost seeming genuine -- but he's been rather lackluster in his comments about Obama since then. He met with Obama two weeks ago and said he thinks Obama will "win handily", but then has gone out of his way to make nice comments about both McCain and Palin, leading again to accusations that he wants Obama to lose because of what happened with Hillary. This is dumb behavior, and Bill Clinton is no dummy.

Obviously I don't really know what the deal is here. But the behavior of these three is getting so odd that I am at the point of hoping there is some sort of big surprise move, because the alternative is that Obama has lost message discipline with three of his most important surrogates.

What is the Deal with Biden?

I've defended the guy here more than once, and I know he means well and is trying hard, but some of the stuff he says.. hoo boy. This time, he criticized his own ticket's ads in an interview with Katie Couric.

Is he really this bad at controlling his mouth? I dunno, but if he is, he needs to be slapped upside the head a bit. His behavior of late has been so odd that it keeps reminding me of my still-not-forgotten Hillary Screen Pass Theory. :)

McCain Continues to Prove Palin is Unready to Lead and He is Unfit for Office

Since it's now been over three weeks with no opportunity for the public to freely interact with Palin, it may come down to the solitary VP debate for anyone to be able to ask her questions. But McCain has been trying to sabotage that as well:

At the insistence of the McCain campaign, the Oct. 2 debate between Gov. Sarah Palin and her Democratic rival, Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., will have shorter question-and-answer segments than those for the presidential nominees, the advisers said. There will also be much less opportunity for free-wheeling, direct exchanges between the running mates.

McCain advisers said they had been concerned that a loose format could leave Ms. Palin, a relatively inexperienced debater, at a disadvantage and largely on the defensive.

The wrangling was chiefly between the McCain-Palin camp and the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, which is sponsoring the forums.

Commission members wanted a relaxed format that included time for unpredictable questioning and challenges between the vice-presidential candidates. Last week, it rejected a proposal from advisers to Ms. Palin and Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee, for few if any unfettered exchanges. Advisers to Mr. Biden say they were comfortable with either format.

McCain knows how unready Palin is for high office, which is why he continues to shield her
from anyone who might challenge her. The media is STILL not making enough of a deal over this. McCain should have his feet held to the fire as long as he keeps treating a potential president like a 9-year-old girl being put in front of cameras for the first time.

Will Joe Biden Cost Obama Among Catholics?

Some say so:

Archbishop Chaput of Denver had already announced Biden should not receive communion because of his pro-abortion views. Defiantly, Biden took communion in his home parish in Delaware in late August. On September 2 the Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania (a crucial swing state) banned him from communion in his diocese. That is effective excommunication. Then came the crucial provocation. On NBC's Meet the Press programme on September 7 Biden grossly misrepresented the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion and audaciously cited St Thomas Aquinas in his own cause.

That did it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already done the same thing on the same programme, in her instance citing St Augustine. Even the torpid US bishops could not have false doctrine glibly broadcast by public figures, misleading their flock. So the counterattack described here last week began, culminating in a statement from the US Bishops' Conference. The bishops of Kansas City have also issued a pastoral letter on the subject. It is open season on Biden.

...

Psephologists claim practising Catholics were the decisive factor in the crucial swing states in 2004: in Ohio 65 per cent of Catholics voted for Bush, in Florida 66 per cent. They were drifting away in disillusionment from the Republicans and split 50-50, until Joe Biden worked his magic. This is electoral suicide by the Democrats.

Others disagree:

“Catholics United believes Senator Biden’s selection as vice presidential candidate is a positive development for Americans who respect leaders who have strong religious, family, and personal values. Senator Biden’s well-known commitment to his Catholic faith has inspired his advocacy on issues such as genocide, universal health care, education, workers’ rights, and violence against women. His faith has helped him to find solace during times of tragedy and crisis.”

“We are optimistic that Senator Biden’s history of seeking practical means of addressing abortion will help move our nation beyond the divisive, acrimonious, and unproductive debate that has come to surround the issue. Senator Biden accepts his church’s teachings on human life and can work to advance these teachings in ways that Americans of all political persuasions can support.”

“Catholics United is especially hopeful that operatives on the far right will refrain from using Senator Biden’s faith and the teachings of the Catholic Church as political weapons in the coming campaign. Faith and values should be used to unite Americans behind solutions to the key challenges of this age – war, poverty, lack of health care, and a looming climate crisis – and not as partisan wedges to divide voters.”

Fat chance on that last paragraph.

The Real Pitbull Continues with Excellent Attacks, Under the Radar

Joe Biden shows that he's the real pitbull of the campaign. He just goes on doing what he does best; while McCain's vapid VP selection continues to get most of the attention of the press for all the wrong reasons. Yesterday he had perhaps the best line of the day:

Senator McCain has confessed, quote, “It’s easy for me to go to Washington and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.” And he’s right, if all you do is walk the halls of power, all you hear are the wants of the powerful.

I believe that’s why Senator McCain could say with a straight face, as recently as this morning, and I quote “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.” That, “We’ve made great progress economically” during the Bush years. But friends, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.

Ezra Klein has the full text of the speech and a short video highlighting Biden in action. As I've said before, Biden is the Rodney Dangerfield of this campaign.

Looks Like "It's the Economy, Stupid" Once Again

Nothing like a little banking crisis to make people put away their lipstick and start acting like adults again, and Obama and Biden are wasting little time going on the offensive over McCain's various out-of-touch comments during the campaign:

“We just woke up to news of financial disaster, and this morning he said that the fundamentals of the economy are still strong,” Obama told an estimated crowd of 5,800 at the Cross Orchards Historic Site in Grand Junction, Colo. “Sen. McCain –- what economy are you talking about?

“What’s more fundamental than the ability to find a job that pays the bills and can raise a family?” Obama asked, his voice rising. “What’s more fundamental than knowing that your life savings is secure, and that you can retire with dignity? What’s more fundamental than knowing that you’ll have a roof over your head at the end of the day?”

At a rally at South Lake High School in St. Claire Shores, Mich., Biden chimed in, as well, saying, “just as George Herbert Walker Bush was nicknamed ‘Bush 41’ and his son is known as ‘Bush 43,’ John McCain could easily become known as ‘Bush 44.’” Hammering McCain’s remarks in Jacksonville, Biden said, “Friends, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.”

This is another thing Obama really needs to do. Because while McCain personally isn't responsible for this mess, he's in bed with people who are.

I haven't seen any mention yet of Phil Gramm -- he of the infamous "Americans are whiners" comment -- who has been criticized for his anti-regulatory stance, and who was being talked about as a possible Secretary of the Treasury appointment by McCain. He needs to be gone after as well.

Joe Biden is the Rodney Dangerfield of Campaign '08

Joe Biden has become the Rodney Dangerfield of the election – he simply “gets no respect”. Everyone in the media is going on and on about what a brilliant pick Sarah Palin was, and how Biden is boring and didn’t give Obama a “bounce” or help him at all. Heck, even I have argued that Biden didn’t attract a lot of new voters to Obama, so that if there were some mysterious plan to replace him, it wouldn’t hurt too much.

A recent battleground state poll in Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania from Quinnipiac University – regarded as one of the most reliable pollsters – seems to echo this general sentiment:

“Voters in all three states say Sen. McCain's selection of Gov. Palin is a good choice: 60 - 26 percent in Florida, 57 - 30 percent in Ohio and 55 - 33 percent in Pennsylvania.
...
Overall, even among many Democrats, Palin gets good grades. By almost a two-to-one margin, voters see McCain's choice of her as a good one, roughly the same who feel that way about Sen. Joe Biden.”

This is the sort of thing that gives Democrats nightmares. But when you look into the internals of this very same poll, you find some interesting figures, especially when examine independents.

When you examine favorability ratings, you see Biden at 40-26 (FL), 35-20 (OH) and 54-21 (PA) among independents. Palin is at 47-18 (FL), 41-23 (OH) and 32-28 (PA). So the numbers are similar, except that Biden does much better in Pennsylvania (where he’s from).

Next, how did independents feel about whether or not the VPs were good choices? For Obama choosing Biden, the figures are 50-21 (FL), 50-30 (OH) and 66-23 (PA). For McCain choosing Palin, the numbers are 61-27 (FL), 63-25 (OH) and 49-36 (PA). Overall, this seems like an edge to Palin.

Ah, but now, the last question: does the VP choice make you more or less likely to vote for the ticket? For Biden the figures among independents are 23-13 (FL), 18-13 (OH) and 28-13 (PA). But for Palin they are 26-19 (FL), 24-20 (OH) and an important 19-30 in PA.

Overall, in terms of likelihood of influencing the ticket, Biden scores a net of 10+5+15 = +30, while Palin scores a net of 7+4-11 = 0. And that’s for a poll done during McCain’s post-convention bounce and during Palin’s “honeymoon phase” with the media and the public.

As for Biden himself, he keeps doing what he does best: plugging away in the swing states day after day. With the recent tightening of the race, his impact on the critical state of Pennsylvania could be very important in allowing Obama to concentrate more on other areas.

Time will tell which VP will end up being the better choice, but those who write off Biden as a joke and Obama as a fool for picking him should keep in mind the tortoise and the hare.

Who Will Keep Us Safe?

As the calendar strikes the 11th of September, our thoughts turn to the thousands of brave American women, men and children who died seven years ago this morning. As the memorial services begin, those of us whose loved ones did not perish watch them, and feel sympathy and kinship with those whose loved ones did, sharing again the anguish of their loss. And as we look backwards to the horror of the past, our thoughts naturally also turn forward, to the future of this nation in general, but on this special day, to its safety and security in particular.

John McCain’s past history as a Navy aviator and prisoner of war, along with his hawkish stance on military matters and his representation of the party that is traditionally supported by the military, has led to his standing as a “virtual incumbent” on this issue. Poll after poll shows that Americans prefer McCain over Barack Obama when it comes to national security and combating terrorism.

But as we all know, Americans have a tendency to make judgments about candidates based more on perceptions than on reality. I speak with citizens who tell me that, for example, John McCain would be better in the security area because he was in the military. But does that really follow? They say that John McCain cares more about our soldiers and sailors and marines than Obama because he was a sailor himself and he talks about the military a great deal. But does he really walk the walk? And they tell me that McCain’s experience means he is better able to keep America safe. But is that really true?

I think everyone would agree that the safety and security of this nation is too important to leave to impressions, reputation and narratives put out by the political parties. So I sat down and tried to really examine McCain and Obama in several areas. I challenged their reputations and examined the past records, policy proposals and personal characteristics of these two potential commanders in chief.

What I discovered was no surprise to me, but should be a real eye-opener to anyone who has been tricked into buying the myth of John McCain as a clearly superior commander in chief.

Experience

Who has more experience in international affairs? John McCain, undoubtedly.

But it is lack of experience that led, in part, to Barack Obama making a vice-presidential running mate selection intended to help him govern. Joe Biden has been on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for years and is its current chairman; he is widely considered an expert on foreign policy. John McCain, in contrast, chose Sarah Palin, a chiefly political move that brought in someone who did not own a passport until 2007, and whose resume is so thin that supporters tried to argue that Alaska’s physical proximity to Russia should count in her favor.

McCain wins over Obama in experience, but when you combine the two tickets the answer is less clear. Biden arguably has more experience in this area than McCain and Obama combined; Palin has less than even just Obama taken alone. This is not only relevant in terms of assessing how each pair would govern together; in the case of Palin, her lack of experience poses a serious risk to the nation because of the high chance that McCain will not serve out his term and she may be elevated to the role of the presidency.

Judgment

John McCain has made a big deal about his support for the Iraq War “surge”, but this only became necessary because we went into this disaster of a war in the first place. McCain, by his own admission, was one of the top cheerleaders for starting this war; in fact, former counter-terrorism advisor Richard Clarke has said that McCain decided he wanted the U.S. to go to war in Iraq even before Bush did. Not only did he support the war and push for it, he also claimed that we would be greeted as liberators and that the fight would be brief.

In contrast, Barack Obama was one of the few of either party to take a firm stance against going into Iraq from the start. This illustrates a clear difference in the judgment of these two candidates.

Throughout this summer, we have seen another difference between the campaigns, with Obama calling for a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, and McCain not only disagreeing, but mocking Obama for his stance. Yet Iraq’s own leaders have shown that they prefer Obama’s judgment in this area, and now, even the Bush administration has come around. Put in an untenable position, McCain flip-flopped, saying he thought Obama’s 16-month figure for withdrawal was a “pretty good timetable”.

While John McCain has been trying to keep the focus on Iraq, Barack Obama has been trying to emphasize the need for more focus on Afghanistan. He’s been calling for more effort to fight the Taliban since last year. Now we hear about growing concerns with regard to the war in Afghanistan on almost a daily basis. Who showed better judgment here?

Demeanor and Temperament

Barack Obama has a cool, calm, poised demeanor; he is widely regarded as being nearly unflappable. In contrast, John McCain has always been known as a hot-head: someone who is easily provoked, quick to lash out, impulsive and angry. Which of these men do you think is better suited to have the power to possibly start a nuclear war?

I have not heard anyone say that they would be afraid of Obama’s temper if he were commander in chief, but these comments are legion when it comes to McCain, even from former military leaders and Republicans:

“I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor. I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse.” -- Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton.

“One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability. [Obama] is not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature. McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile." -- Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions.

“The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.” -- Thad Cochran, senator from Mississippi, who has known McCain for over 30 years.

The McCain campaign, naturally, plays down these concerns. They say that McCain has learned from the past and has shown that he can keep his temper under control now. But has he really changed, or is he just being on his “best behavior” for the election?

Are we safer with a calm, collected leader, or a hotheaded one?

Decision-Making

Our leader must make thousands of important decisions, and in the event of a national security crisis, critical ones must often be made in a short span of time. This means decision-making ability is arguably the most important characteristic of a president. Unfortunately, not only does John McCain’s volatile temper lead him to make impulsive decisions, but he often takes a rather cavalier attitude about them even when he remains calm.

I need no go further than McCain himself for the defining description of his own decision-making process. In his own book, Worth the Fighting For (co-written with Mark Salter), McCain describes how he makes decisions as follows:

“I make them as quickly as I can, quicker than the other fellow, if I can. Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint.”

It’s very noble of him to offer to live with the consequences of poorly-considered hasty decisions “without complaint”. But when he wants to make those decisions for 300,000,000 people, the stakes are a bit higher in terms of who suffers those consequences. John McCain is 72; my youngest son is 7. If John McCain starts a war that leads to an American city being nuked, I’m sorry, but doesn’t my son have a lot more to complain about than he does?

If we needed any more evidence of the start contrast between McCain and Obama when it comes to decisions, we need only look, again, at their vice-presidential picks. This is, after all, the only truly presidential decision a candidate makes during the election. Obama took his usual approach: careful, cautious, intelligent and disciplined. He weighed all the candidates and chose a solid, if unspectacular running mate, someone who would help him run the country. In contrast, McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin was politically-motivated, he ignored her lack of qualifications, and the evidence shows that McCain chose her impulsively, at the last minute, without knowing her well, and without looking into her background to the level expected of a candidate choosing a running mate.

Are your children safer with a president who makes decisions rationally, or one who makes them rashly?

Attitude: Diplomacy Versus War

In his acceptance speech, John McCain said: “I hate war.” And it is logical to believe that someone who served in the military and spent years as a POW would understand the harshness of war and seek to avoid putting other Americans through what he endured. Even leaving aside obvious questions about how someone who hates war so much could so casually joke about “bomb, bomb, bombing Iran”, it is hard to reconcile the statement of McCain’s with his own past history. McCain may hate war, but he seems to hate diplomacy nearly as much.

Over the course of the campaign, McCain has been relentless in attacking his opponent over Obama’s stated desire to negotiate with difficult nations. In May, he accused Obama of "inexperience and reckless judgment” over the latter’s stated intention to engage in diplomacy with Iran. When George W. Bush compared Obama to Nazi appeasers while in Israel the same month, McCain said he agreed with the remarks. When asked directly if he thought Obama was an appeaser, he replied:

“I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust.”

Yet only a few weeks later, we suddenly learned that George W. Bush himself was sending America’s third-highest-ranking diplomat to talks between Iran and other nations in Switzerland.

The difference between Obama and McCain was also obvious in the response to the conflict between Georgia and Russia over South Osettia. Obama predictably took a cautious approach, condemning the Russian invasion and called for high-level discussions and negotiations. McCain, also predictably, shot from the hip with a very bellicose statement that may have actually further provoked Russia at a time when the Bush administration and European leaders were trying to urge calm.

Is the United States ready to go to war with Russia over Georgia? John McCain seems to be. Are we safer with a man who prefers diplomacy, or one with an itchy trigger finger?

Support for the Military

Perhaps the most disappointing of all of the issues related to national security is the widespread myth that John McCain is a better supporter of the military than Barack Obama. Yes, McCain was a former serviceman and Obama wasn’t, something the former makes sure to mention at every opportunity. But what McCain and Obama did in the 1960s doesn’t have any impact on the lives of today’s military. McCain may have been a war hero in Viet Nam, but hearing his life story over and over again doesn’t help homeless vets, or servicemen and women who are exhausted from repeated tours of duty, or those who are injured and need medical care. Saying that you honor and respect and love our soldiers, sailors and marines is great, but it doesn’t matter much if you don’t walk the walk.

Let’s start by looking at McCain’s and Obama’s ratings from veterans’ groups:

• Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gives McCain an overall rating of “D”; Obama scores a “B+”.
• Disabled Veterans of America gives McCain an abysmal 20% score, while Obama receives 80%.
• Vietnam Veterans of America says McCain voted against the group’s position 15 times and for it only 8 times; Obama voted against the VVA only 1 time, and with it 12 times.

None of that requires much explanation; it shows clearly which senator is really working for our military men and women, and which senator just talks about them a lot.

Then there was McCain’s truly bizarre and self-serving behavior surrounding the new G.I. Bill that came up in Congress. Obama strongly supported the bill, but McCain was one of its leading opponents, battling with its sponsor, Senator Jim Webb, back in April. McCain’s main complaint? That the bill was too generous and would harm re-enlistment (a position that George W. Bush agreed with, naturally). When McCain rightly came under fire for his position, McCain then tried to introduce a watered-down version instead. This didn’t work, and the original bill passed 75-22 in the Senate, with McCain not even bothering to show up for the vote.

What could be worse? Amazingly enough, McCain then tried to take credit for the bill he opposed and didn’t even vote for. George W. Bush was also happy to give McCain credit for the bill they both tried to shoot down.

But wait, there’s more:

• Last September, he voted against another Webb bill that would have mandated adequate rest for troops between combat deployments.
• On a badly needed $1.5-billion increase for veterans medical services for fiscal year 2007 -- to be funded through closing corporate tax loopholes -- he voted no. He also voted against establishing a trust fund to bolster under-budgeted veterans hospitals.
• In May 2006, he voted against a $20-billion allotment for expanding swamped veterans medical facilities.
• In April 2006, he was one of 13 Senate Republicans who voted against an amendment to provide $430 million for veterans outpatient care.
• In March 2004, he voted against and helped defeat on a party-line vote a $1.8-billion reserve for veterans medical care, also funded by closing tax loopholes.

John McCain put on a big display at the Republican National Convention, with many veterans in uniform, lots of flag-waving, signs reading “service”, and repeated renditions of his own war stories. But when you look at the facts, you don’t find much to support the contention that McCain is an advocate for veterans or active duty personnel. The GOP has long exploited the patriotism of our men and women in uniform to suggest that it was the only worthy choice; now it seems to completely take their vote for granted.

In Closing – Are You Ready for More Wars?

I’m sure that some of those on the right will say that my assessment of McCain’s appropriateness to be commander-in-chief is influenced by my own political bias. And I won’t disagree with that. So let’s conclude with some comments from Pat Buchanan, who is not exactly a left-winger:

“You get John McCain in the White House, and I do believe we will be at war with Iran. That’s one of the things that makes me very nervous about him. I think we need an Eisenhower, who got us out of Korea, or a Nixon, who tried to get us out of Vietnam with honor. I think that's the kind of president this country needs.

There’s no doubt John McCain is going to be a war president. Can anybody see John McCain as sort of a peace-time Calvin Coolidge president? It’s preposterous. His whole career is wrapped up in the military, national security. He's in Putin's face, he’s threatening the Iranians. We’re going to be in Iraq 100 years. If we’re in Iraq 100 years, Joe, we will be fighting 100 years of war, just as the British, if they stayed in our country 100 years, would be fighting the Americans for a century.

I’m telling you, what John McCain is telling you, is what he’s promising you.”

And, last but definitely not least:

“McCain will make Cheney look like Ghandi.”

Is this the man who’s going to keep America safe? Really?

John McCain is ready for more wars. Are you?

Joe Biden: "Hillary Might Have Been a Better Pick Than Me"

Well, well, isn't this interesting! Joe Biden, out on the stump today, singing Hillary Clinton's praises, pausing, and then going so far as to say she might have been a better pick than he was?

Joe Biden does have a well-known habit of running at the mouth, but this strikes me as a really weird thing to profer forth while talking. I mean, saying Clinton was qualified to be VP in response to a question (I presume) makes sense. But why add that extra bit in?

Only he really knows, but this definitely makes my crazy Hillary Screen Pass idea seem a bit less crazy. Hmm....