Looks like I'm not the only one who noticed Palin's creepy answer about the power of the office of the VP during her recent debate with Joe Biden:
Ms. Couric asked Joseph Biden, Ms. Palin's rival, the same question in a separate interview. He had it exactly right when he told her that Mr. Cheney's theory of the "unitary executive" held that "Congress and the people have no power in a time of war." And he had it right in the debate when he called Mr. Cheney "the most dangerous vice president we've had in American history."
The Constitution does not state or imply any flexibility in the office of vice president. It gives the vice president no legislative responsibilities other than casting a tie-breaking vote in the Senate when needed and no executive powers at all. The vice president's constitutional role is to be ready to serve if the president dies or becomes incapacitated.
Any president deserves a vice president who will be a sound adviser and trustworthy supporter. But the American people also deserve and need a vice president who understands and respects the balance of power - and the limits of his or her own power. That is fundamental to our democracy.
So far, Ms. Palin has it exactly, frighteningly wrong.
Like I said then, she answered the question, which likely means it was scripted. And means that her anwer was no mistake.
One of the more striking exchanges in the vice presidential debate was this one about the power and the breadth of the office:
IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?
PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. And it is my executive experience that is partly to be attributed to my pick as V.P. with McCain, not only as a governor, but earlier on as a mayor, as an oil and gas regulator, as a business owner. It is those years of experience on an executive level that will be put to good use in the White House also.
IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. 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 Branch. 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 vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. The Constitution is explicit.
The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.
And this later from Palin:
PALIN: ...Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.
Joe Biden was in Kalispell yesterday. Here are the links.
First, the video:
Best line: "Look, if I walk from here to Bozeman -- it'd take me a long time -- but if I walk from here to Bozeman, I don't think I'd run into a single person who thought the economy was doing well. Unless I ran into John McCain."
Dan Testa of the Flathead Beacon summed up a speech that was heavy on policy and issues and critical of McCain and Palin's avoidance of the same in their Convention speeches. Also, on Montana's political environment: "Biden noted that he was campaigning in an area of the country traditionally considered a Republican stronghold. In Flathead County in 2004, George Bush beat John Kerry 68 to 30 percent. But Biden noted Obama has paid five visits to Montana so far, and held up the recent success of Democrats like Gov. Brian Schweitzer and U.S. Sen. Jon Tester as proof of changing political winds in Montana, while saving his deepest praise for legendary Senate leader Mike Mansfield, who he called, 'the best guy I ever served with.'"
David Crisp got a 10-minute phone interview with Biden, and was impressed: "It was just a taste -- perhaps 10 minutes -- but the man can do a phenomenal amount of talking in 10 minutes. If you care about issues, then you would have heard more by listening in on my phone than you heard in eight days at the party conventions." Unfortunately he's making us wait until the Outpost comes out before he reveals the meat of the conversation. Stay tuned.
After watching Biden, Kossak Oli isn't worried about today's poll results. I have to agree. Once folks get over the sight of a big ticket Republican with a pulse, they'll start thinking about health care and the economy and the Convention bounce will fade.
The reception for Biden was enthusiastic. (There's video with the link, too.)
A Discussion with Senator Joe Biden
Flathead High School
644 4th Avenue West
Kalispell, MT 59901
Sunday, September 7th
Doors Open: 12:30 PM
Program Begins: 2:30 PM
TICKETS: This event is free and open to the public. However, tickets are REQUIRED. A limited number of tickets are available. There is a limit of two tickets per adult and one ticket for people under 16. Members of the public are invited to pick up free tickets at the following locations beginning Saturday, September 6th until tickets are no longer available.
***Please Note Updated Offices and Times Below***
Kalispell Campaign for Change office
224 First Avenue East
Kalispell, MT 59901
Contact: David Roberts, 773-459-7231,
* Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 9 AM - 9 PM
* Sunday, September 7, 2008 - 9 AM - 1 PM, if tickets still available
Whitefish Campaign for Change Office
643 Denver Street
Whitefish, MT 59913
Contact: Adam Umhoefer, 773-301-2442
* Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 9 AM - 9 PM
Bigfork Campaign for Change Office
191 Jewel Basin Court, Suite 3B
Bigfork, MT 59911
Contact: Al Johnson, 406-270-4044
* Saturday, September 6, 2008 - 10 AM - 6 PM
Pablo Campaign for Change Office
51356 Highway 93 (next to Joe's Jiffy Stop)
Pablo, MT 59864
Contact: Jill Lombardi, 773-412-8996
Two interesting posts on Palin in the Montana sphere. David Crisp wonders whether he would be as critical of a Schweitzer for VP announcement on the experience front. He admits that he probably wouldn't, but cites Schweitzer's international business experience. He also notes that proximity may be a factor in the level of trust (while noting that explanation is undermined by the criticism of Palin coming out of Alaska political and journalistic quarters).
Meanwhile, Mark T thinks me naive since Palin herself does not matter, only the coalition she represents.
That's actually a bit hilarious. The "guy" doesn't matter, but the "guy" behind the "guy" behind the "guy" is crucial. Look, coalitions matter in politics, but the buck does stop somewhere and politicians are rarely tools of their backers, especially in those areas they value most.
We don't even know enough about Palin's background to know which coalitions she is a part of. What we do know is that her resume is awfully thin to be leader of the free world and so far, her demonstrated judgment is damn questionable.
Brian Schweitzer is probably an imperfect analogy here. A better one might be Jon Tester. Folks who have read this blog or who know me personally know that I think very highly of Jon. He's a sharp, personable, hard-working leader. I also think that he will go on to do great things in politics. Would I be gung-ho for him as the VP nominee right now? Not really. I think he's still got some teeth cutting to do.
Now, Sarah Palin has a few months to prove herself. So far the signs aren't good.
Far more troubling than her thin resume is her connection to the Alaskan Independence Party, a secessionist outfit that appears (at first glance) to be part of the far right. From what I've been reading, Alaska sure looks a lot like Montana. Even moreso. And no one in Montana politics is blind to the presence of some fairly radical conservative factions -- with ties to the militia movements. These factions aren't exactly helpful. The notion of putting someone with such ties in the White House is unsettling. It's a bit like putting an unreconstructed Maoist in there.
Update -- The Alaskan Independence Party is apparently the Alaska affiliate of the Constitution Party. Montanans know the Constitution Party because of Rep. Rick Jore, its sole state elected official anywhere in the country (although the Montana Constitution Party disaffiliated with the national party recently). Rick Jore is widely known for being a nice guy personally and a radical politically. Sounds a lot like Sarah Palin. Palin strikes me as the type of politician I'd like to have over for dinner, but who I wouldn't exactly trust with the Health and Human Services budget.
I remember back in 2005 when Jon Tester was just thinking about entering the race for U.S. Senate and in the early days of the campaign, I had conversations with other early supporters about the political case for backing Tester.
Compared to John Morrison, Tester looked risky for a few reasons. He had never run statewide. He wasn't raising enough money. He clearly did not share Morrison's ambitious streak (Tester is a fighter, but not in the same ego-centric way).
In fact, many of us backing Tester would acknowledge (at least privately) that there was a decent chance that Morrison would run stronger in the general election than Tester would.
But from a political perspective, Tester was still the better nominee.
Huh?
The reason is that looking at Morrison's profile, we just didn't think he'd get to 51% ever. A city lawyer running against a farm radio announcer? The third generation politician running against the conservative populist?
Money, ambition, and work ethic only go so far in politics. The candidate's profile and tone make a huge difference -- as they should.
So while Jon Tester had maybe a 30-40% chance of getting a majority of the vote, we also thought there was a pretty healthy chance he'd get 40%.
Why am I talking about the '06 race? Because John McCain just made a similar gamble.
Adding Sarah Palin to the ticket has given McCain a chance to win in a race where he had little chance, but it has also opened up a new possibility for an amazingly embarrassing Obama landslide. And, frankly, it would be a landslide that McCain would deserve to lose.
The big difference between the Tester gamble and the Palin gamble is that the Tester gamble wasn't reaching for a less capable leader for political reasons (it was, I think, the precise opposite -- making a smart political gamble on the more capable leader). The Palin gamble isn't just rolling the dice for the Republican ticket. It's rolling the dice for the entire country.
Imagine that McCain plays his odds and comes up sevens (McCain is a craps fan), but something terrible befalls him between Election Day and the Inauguration. Is Sarah Palin at all prepared to lead?
Her choice -- from the vantage of whether she is prepared to lead the country -- is such a terrible joke that it should remove John McCain from consideration. His judgment is simply abysmal.
It's acceptable to play games and take risks in politics. But there are risks that just aren't acceptable in the governance of the most powerful country in the world. John McCain just took one of those risks.
It's Joe Biden. What I wrote earlier still stands. Not an offensive choice.
We're packing up for our trip to the Convention, so not a lot of time to post, but enough time to nag you all into raising Paul Clark money. Forty bucks?
Boy, it sure would be nice if I saw another hundred bucks in Clark's coffers when I fire up the laptop in Denver...
Today the Senate passed the Kyle-Lieberman Iran amendment, which designates the military of a sovereign nation as a terrorist organization - Iran's Revolutionary Guards. It's a bad idea, and clearly lays the groundwork for military action against Iran.
In one amendment, the Senate has rendered the word "terrorist" meaningless, and has thrown a monkey wrench into international diplomatic relations. It could also give the Bush administration legal justification to do anything it wants with, or in, Iran, without Congressional oversight or approval.
Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach. Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.
At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a backdoor method of gaining Congressional validation for military action, without one hearing and without serious debate.
"I cannot support the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran. To do so could give this President a green light to act recklessly and endanger US national security. We learned in the run up to the Iraq war that seemingly nonbinding language passed by this Senate can have profound consequences. We need the president to use robust diplomacy to address concerns with Iran, not the language in this amendment that the president can point to if he decides to draw this country into another disastrous war of choice."
Here's the roll call. Jon Tester voted against the amendment; Max Baucus voted for it.
Odd, isn't it? Just this week, Senator Baucus' op-ed decrying the diplomatic and political situation in Iraq and calling for the withdrawal of US troops from the country appeared in newspapers around the state, and today he voted for an admendment that could embroil us in another - perhaps worse -- clusterf*ck than Iraq. You tell me how any rational person could hold onto those two thoughts at the same time. It's a mystery to me.
Other notable votes include those of Republicans Lugar and Hagel, who crossed party lines to do the right thing; Democratic presidential candidates Dodd and Biden who voted against the amendment, and Clinton who voted for it.
