Pre-debate thoughts....
1) Why do we even have a Vice-Presidential debate? Statistically speaking, a Vice-President nominee is more likely to to face their constitutional tie-breaker in the Senate role rather than the constitutionally emergency President role. And even then, that's a rare political event indeed.
If Vice-President, Sarah Palin is more likely than not only going to have to break an occasional tie vote in the Senate and represent the President at funerals for international dignitaries. And the American people believe that she's not qualified for that.
2) No Vice-Presidential debate has ever changed the course of a presidential election. Not one. Dan Quayle was owned by Lloyd Bensen at that debate. It's when the public perception of Quayle as a joke began. But Dukakis lost.
Name me a race where the VP mattered.
3) The expectations for Palin couldn't lower. If she avoids breathing out of her mouth for 90 minutes, she wins. And the McCain campaign will trumpet it and the talking class can't avoid but talking about how Palin "reinvented" herself. It won't matter. You don't get more than once chance to introduce yourself to the American people. And the voters have concluded that Palin doesn't measure up to her billing.
4) Since being nominated, the McCain campaign has been prepping Palin for two events: her convention speech and tonight. She'll be sharp and polished. Forget the Rupert Murdoch-owned WSJ article claiming she "failed" two practice debates.
5) The McCain camp will overreach. First, they'll overplay Palin's performance tonight and political significance of it. Second, if you looked at the list of surrogates that the McCain campaign has for this debate, you'd notice that it's disportionately dominated by Republican women who were invisible just a week ago. Gov. Swift will say that something Biden said or did was "sexist," "patronizing," "insulting to women," etc. FOX NEWS's banner will burn the image on your T.V. screen permanently they'll run that charge so long for the next week.
6) Palin will continue to insult "Joe Six-Pack" voters if she continues to associate her utter lack of disinterest in public policy as a quaint quality of hers that identifies herself with them. Joe Six-Pack cares about the international trade deals that costs him a job. He cares about his tax dollars bailing out Wall Street. He cares about the surge. It's insulting for Palin to say that a criticism of her lack of interest in public policy is an attack against average Americans. She has to be the only parent with a child going to Iraq who hasn't give much thought about the surge. It's amazing.
Alot of oxygen and bandwidth is going to be burned up discussing tonight's debate. Although I'll be participating in tonight's live blog discussion, I want to begin with the premise that the attention and debate about the importance of this debate is simply undeserved.
Sorry for the delayed reply
I meant to say show me where a VP debate matter. And with the exception of Admiral Stockdale, Perot's running mate in 1992, nobody has even come close to a compelling example (this has been a staple of my political talks this week.) But even Stockdale isn't a good example. Perot had already dropped out of the race and his erratic out and then in act had already created a self-inflicted wound of public opinion. Perot had already tanked largely by then. Stockdale just finished the job.
I don't see Sarah Palin as a strong VP like Cheney or Gore. Maybe in hindsight George Bush was a stronger VP during the Reagan years than we realize, but I doubt it.
Sarah Palin is going to be more like Dan Quayle. Does anyone honestly believe in a moment of national crisis John McCain's instincts is wait until he can hear Palin's advice? She's a spokeperson and envoy to the conservative wing of the party. She's not going to be a principal in executive decisionmaking. Just watch McCain at the CBS interview with Katie Couric. He sat by her like a chaparone, not as if Palin is viewed by him as his equal. The role of VPO changes with each Administration, and it's likely going to change again regardless of who is elected.
Doug, I would argue
That in 1992 and 1996, ALL "Joe SixPack" cared about was the economy and ignored any issues related to foreign policy and defense. Finally, in 2000, "Joe SixPack" realized that character meant something and that the presidency was more than just a place to get lucky. Then in 2001, he realized that he suffered an attack as a result of 8 years of only worrying about his wallet, not the world. 2004, was just a continuation of the realization of the need for a strong government.
I made a prediction before either VP candidate was chosen that was wrong. I predicted that the presidential candidates would announce that their pick for Veep would be active "unlike previous VP's". I heard this when Bush I, ran and when Clinton ran. I even recall Gore being assigned to review recommendations of the Grace Commision (which started during Republican presidency I believe).
The changing view of the vice presidency started after Bush I (as VP) followed a "you die, we fly" policy of being the official funeral attender. How much (or how little) Cheney influenced current political situations will be an interesting story for future readers, but I'm not yet convinced we know any details of the truth. Only partisan comments.





Modernesq's VP thoughts