Best VP debate question that didn't get answered

I think the best question in last night's Vice President debate came not from the moderator, but from Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republican candidate.

Martha Raddatz asked about religion - and the answers included the issue of abortion and contraception.

From the transcript:

RADDATZ: ...We have two Catholic candidates, first time, on a stage such as this. And I would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion.

Please talk about how you came to that decision. Talk about how your religion played a part in that. And, please, this is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country…

Ryan went first in his answer:

RYAN: I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. Our faith informs us in everything we do. My faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life.

RYAN: Now, you want to ask basically why I’m pro-life? It’s not simply because of my Catholic faith. That’s a factor, of course. But it’s also because of reason and science.

Ryan had some more to say, then V.P. Joe Biden answered (my emphasis added):

BIDEN: My religion defines who I am, and I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life. And has particularly informed my social doctrine. The Catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who — who can’t take care of themselves, people who need help. With regard to — with regard to abortion, I accept my church’s position on abortion as a — what we call a (inaudible) doctrine. Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life.

But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the — the congressman. I — I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that — women they can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor. In my view and the Supreme Court, I’m not going to interfere with that. With regard to the assault on the Catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear, no religious institution, Catholic or otherwise, including Catholic Social Services, Georgetown Hospital, Mercy Hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception, none has to pay for contraception, none has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact.

Biden added some more comments and the moderator turned to Ryan to reply. Here is the exchange, which resulted in the best question of the night (my emphasis added):

RYAN: All I’m saying is, if you believe that life begins at conception, that, therefore, doesn’t change the definition of life. That’s a principle. The policy of a Romney administration is to oppose abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.

Now, I’ve got to take issue with the Catholic church and religious liberty.

BIDEN: You have on the issue…

(CROSSTALK)

RYAN: … why would they keep — why would they keep suing you? It’s a distinction without a difference.

Sadly, the moderator, whose objectivity was questioned prior to the debate, did not turn to Bide for a response, but instead moved to the subject of abortion, court cases and a litmus test for judges.

Now, some will disagree with me as to my definition of 'best' but debates are supposed to draw out the positions of the candidates, allow them further explanations as well as provide a chance for direct (but polite) confrontation when they disagree.

This was the perfect question for Ryan to ask - and for Biden to answer - since it presents an opportunity for a statement (religious organizations are not required to "be a vehicle" for contraception) to be challenged and defended, especially in light of what many people understand regarding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the regulatory mandates imposed under it by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Unfortunately, this perfect opportunity for discussion and explanation was missed - and voters were left without additional insight on the candidates and issue as a result.

Overall, Ryan was not as strong as Mitt Romney was in his first debate with Pres. Barack Obama, but he didn't hurt the ticket in any way in his performance. Biden was better than many expected, but his smirking, laughing and interrupting hurt his performance and the impression he left with the viewers.

My impression: Ryan was calm, articulate, respectful and presented a demeanor that I'd like to see in the person who is a heartbeat away from being the leader of the country. Biden was arrogant, condescending and disrespectful - an attitude that reminds me of what you see in tyrants and dictators across the world.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Biden is a tyrant, but the attitude he displayed is not what most people look for in their elected representatives - unless you're a Democrat, it seems.

Willard & Kelsey declared in default on second $5 million loan

Gongwer's is reporting that solar firm Willard & Kelsey has been declared in default on a second $5 million loan.

Yes - the same Willard & Kelsey Vice President Joe Biden toured in 2009, where he said "he believes alternative energy can be the cornerstone of the area's future economy and can be a good deal for everyone."



From Gongwer's:

The Ohio Air Quality Development Authority became the second state agency Thursday to call a multi-million dollar loan due on a Toledo area solar panel manufacturer.

OAQDA members voted unanimously to declare Willard & Kelsey Solar Group in default of a $5 million loan and gave the company until Sept. 3 to pay back the full amount.
The Department of Development took similar action a few weeks ago on a separate $5 million loan the agency had granted the troubled firm 2010.

Last spring OAQDA sought help from a consultant to assess the financial viability of three solar companies that were failing to make payments on loans from a program designed to encourage alternative energy development.

More recently, the authority gave Willard & Kelsey a deadline to make a $1 million payment by Wednesday, which it failed to do.

OAQDA Chairwoman Gayle Channing Tenenbaum said the agency tried to give the company more flexibility to pay back the 2010 loan, but eventually came to the conclusion that it was unlikely to be able to.

"These are taxpayer dollars. And we worked with the company, but the reality is that they were in default. We gave them a set of things that we thought they needed to meet and they weren't able to do it," she told reporters after the meeting.

"We do this with a heavy heart. We don't think it's a great thing to be out calling a loan on a business. We had hoped that the solar industry would be able to take off under the advanced energy in the state, but for these folks, at this particular moment, they don't have the capital to make it go," she said.

If the company is unable to pay back the money by Sept. 3, OAQDA will forward the matter to the attorney general for collection, Ms. Channing Tenenbaum said.

"You can't just let it go on and on and say, 'You're in default, you're in default, you're in default.' At some point you have to say, 'Look, we've given you every chance and we have to just say we can't continue to do this.' We've got to try and get as much of the taxpayers' money back as we can," she said.

Overlooked from the Vice President Debate

"I’m not going to change. I have 35 years in public office. People can judge who I am. I haven’t changed in that time."

Sen. Joe Biden during the debate between the two Vice Presidential candidates.

Discord in the Obama camp?

Yesterday, Sen. Joe Biden, the vice presidential running mate of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, told CBS's Katie Couric that the Obama attack ad on Sen. John McCain’s ignorance of computers and technology was “terrible.”

Asked whether he’s disappointed with the tone of the campaign, including the ad that Couric characterized as “making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer,” Biden said “I thought that was terrible by the way.

“I didn’t know we did it and if I had anything to do with it, we would have never done it.”

When Biden was in Ohio, he had another of those 'Joe being Joe' moments when he said he 'supports clean coal for China but not for the United States.'

"We’re not supporting clean coal," he said of himself and Obama.

According to the Obama website:

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.

Then this morning, Obama had to reprimand Biden about another comment.

"What has been clear during this entire past ten days is John McCain has not had clarity and a grasp on the situation," Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told NBC's Matt Lauer in an interview that ran this morning.

Lauer was talking about how Obama hit Sen. McCain for flip-flopping on the AIG bailout -- saying he opposed it one day then announce he supported it the next day.

But, as Lauer pointed out, scarcely three minutes after McCain said he opposed the AIG bailout last week, "in an interview with Meredith Vieira, Joe Biden, your running mate was asked the exact same question, 'should the federal government bailout AIG?' And he said, 'No, the federal government should not bailout AIG.'" (As we noted at the time.) "And I think that in that situation," Obama said, "I think Joe should have waited as well."

"But it's the kind of thing that drives people crazy about politics," Lauer said. "It sounds like you were trying to score some political points against John McCain using his words, when your own running mate had used very similar words."

"No, hold on a second Matt," Obama said. "I think what drives people crazy about politics is the fact that somebody like John McCain who for 26 years has been an advocate for deregulation, for 26 years has said the market is king and then starts going out there suggesting somehow that he's a populist who's been railing against Wall Street and regulation -- that's what drives people crazy about politics."

Obama doesn't answer the question about the contradiction, he just changed the subject to his own point - a good political strategy for the interview, but it leaves everyone wondering about the 'flip-flopping.'

Of course, just as everyone was excusing Biden for his gaffes, he makes another one.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened,'" Barack Obama's running mate recently told the "CBS Evening News."

Except, Republican Herbert Hoover was in office when the stock market crashed in October 1929.

And even though I wasn't alive during that time, I'm pretty sure television wasn't around then.

With these incidences, many are wondering if the rumors that Biden will resign from the ticket for 'health reasons' might have some validity. I think such a step would do more harm to Obama than keeping Biden on the ticket, especially because this penchant of Biden to insert his foot into his mouth was well known. But it does make you wonder...

Random questions and thoughts

* Why did the media think it appropriate to ask Gov. Sarah Palin who her favorite designer is?

* Do you think Palin's answer to the above question (Patagonia and North Face - two businesses I know through their catalogs and certainly NOT considered 'designers') resonated with more Americans than any 'fashion' designer would have?

* How is it that, according to most on the left and even many news pundits (but then I repeat myself), Palin is too inexperienced to be a heartbeat away from the presidency but that Sen. Barack Obama, with less experience, is qualified to be that heartbeat? And why don't they realize their contradiction?

* Campaigns are about showing contrasts. Last night's GOP convention speakers provided such contrasts between Sen. John McCain and Obama. Fred Thompson's point was 'substance over flash' while Joe Lieberman said, “eloquence is no substitute for a record.” Slam!

* While the Democrat convention focused on party unity, Lieberman made a good point that "country matters more than party." That's a message designed to appeal to and resonate with the voting middle and Independents. I think McCain's best hope for winning the election is to appeal to those middle of the road voters and Independents - which includes the Reagan Democrats. He cannot forsake his conservative base, but he's made huge inroads on that front with his selection of Palin as his running mate.

* How do three senators running for the top two spots in elective office overcome the lowest senate approval rating in history? Are we to think the American public is so dumb that it won't realize their roles in gaining such a poor approval ranking?

* Obama says he's going to raise taxes on businesses but protect the middle class from tax hikes. Does he not realize that a tax on business just gets passed along to all consumers, including that precious middle class, in the form of higher prices and/or less earnings on the stock? Does he think most Americans don't realize this point and will react accordingly?

* With polls showing more and more Americans opposed to abortion (even if they want it to remain legal), will Obama's latest ad telling voters that McCain wants to overturn Roe v. Wade actually give an advantage to the Obama campaign?

* With the selection of a running mate with no international experience, has the McCain campaign sacrificed one is its key points - that Obama is not ready to lead?

* Do political party conventions change voters minds about whom to elect? They're certainly a process that is necessary for the actual business of nominating the party's candidate, but could they be done with less pomp and circumstance (and expense) and still have the desired impact of kicking off a campaign? Is there a better way to kick off a campaign?

Intellectual honesty in campaign news coverage

While I shouldn't be surprised, the main stream media (lame stream as a fellow blogger called it) exposes their bias in the way the selection of running mates for this presidential election are covered.

After Sen. Barack Obama selected fellow Sen. Joe Biden, the media was aglow with praise for the wise selection, chronicling Biden's career and 'extensive' foreign policy experience. (Now, I've never really understood how serving on senate committee on foreign relations actually gives you foreign policy experience, but I'll save that question for another day.) While the blogosphere included a review of Biden's plagiarism issue, the MSM took a while to even mention the hint of controversy in his background.

But following Sen. John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, it wasn't even two hours before the criticism started. In those two hours, I knew more about an investigation into her staff regarding the firing of an individual than I did about anything else, including her fiscal policy, her confrontation with fellow Republicans over ethics issues and even her family.

In our local paper, The Blade, the headlines for the news stories were the same: 'Obama taps Biden to be running mate' and 'Governor of Alaska chosen as John McCain's running mate.'
The first paragraph of the Biden story:

Barack Obama named Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware as his vice presidential running mate early Saturday, balancing his ticket with a seasoned congressional veteran well-versed in foreign policy and defense issues.

The first paragraph of the Palin story:

In a surprise move to bolster his "maverick" credentials and directly appeal to disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, John McCain yesterday picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as history's first Republican woman vice presidential candidate.

Obama is 'balancing his ticket' while McCain is trying to 'bolster his credentials.' Biden is 'seasoned' and Palin is 'a woman.'

In the 21st paragraph of the Biden story, you get the first criticism of the selection:

No sooner had word spread of his selection than McCain's campaign unleashed its first attack. Spokesman Ben Porritt said in a statement that Biden had "denounced Barack Obama's poor foreign policy judgment and has strongly argued in his own words what Americans are quickly realizing — that Barack Obama is not ready to be president."

Note that the McCain spokesman used Biden's own words against him. Also note the choice of words: 'no sooner,' 'unleashed,' and 'first attack.'

In the Palin story, it only takes seven paragraphs to get to the criticism:

"The pick of Ms. Palin brought raves from anti-abortion groups. But Democratic nominee Barack Obama's campaign immediately questioned her resume.

"John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said."

Notice the attack is twisted by focusing on Palin's time as a mayor without mentioning her time as governor?

Also note the choice of words compared to the coverage of Biden's criticism. The Obama campaign's reaction was almost immediate and the term 'no sooner' could certainly be applied. And 'unleashed its first attack' would be as appropriate to the Obama campaign reaction as it was to the McCain campaign reaction. However, the stories portray the McCain camp as 'attacking' while the Obama camp is only 'questioning' a resume.

Furthermore, in the Biden story, the comment from the McCain camp is the only criticism, other than a couple of references to how people found out about the choice. In the Palin story, there are three other references critical to her, including a quote from the Ohio Democratic Party and from a female attendee at the announcement.

Finally, there is the conclusion of the stories - the clincher, if you will - that leaves you with your final impression.

""Obviously, the most important question is: Is this person ready to be president?" Obama told "The Early Show" on CBS. Second, he said, was: "Can this person help me govern? Are they going to be an effective partner in creating the kind of economic opportunity here at home and guiding us through some dangerous waters internationally?"

And, he added: "I want somebody who is going to be able to challenge my thinking and not simply be a yes person when it comes to policymaking."

This is a positive, reassuring quote - designed to support the selection.

"Tricia Bowcher of Maineville, about an hour from Dayton, attended the rally at the Ervin J. Nutter Center on the campus of Wright State University. If Mr. McCain were intent on picking a woman, she said she would have preferred Ms. Hutchinson.

"She's more experienced than what this woman is," she said. "To be honest, I would have preferred Mitt Romney over everyone really, because he's conservative and just embodies the Republican base.""

This isn't positive and is designed to prove the point that others would have been a better selection.

While editorials are clearly opinion - and every paper has one - the choice of words are in stronger contrast. This is certainly the place for opinion, but both presidential candidates selected individuals as running mates for the same reasons: they bring a different perspective, they are strong where the candidate is weak, they appeal to targeted voters and are, hopefully, going to help the candidate win. That is, after all, the goal.

But while Obama's selection is praised for doing this, McCain's selection is called 'machination.' They're both doing the same things, but one gets positive words and the other gets negative words for the exact same thing.

According to the paper, Obama's selection might seem odd but makes good political sense. The exact same could be said of Palin, but it's not. McCain's choice "represents a maverick's gamble if ever there was one."

Overflowing with praise, the editors opine:

To those who think that the Obama candidacy is a lightweight craft sailing in rough seas, Senator Biden brings a heavy keel of experience to solidify the Democratic boat.

While McCain, with his lengthy resume needs no such steadying, gets this:

He has gone with a candidate who makes Mr. Obama's resume seem substantial by comparison. Ms. Palin is only 44 and has been governor for less than two years. Before that, she was mayor and a member of City Council in Wasilla, a small Alaskan town. She reportedly served with distinction, but she has not served long.

"Reportedly served with distinction"? No attempt at denigration, there.

Obama's selection answers his critics over his "alleged shortcomings in experience." With Palin, McCain's campaign "is making a calculated gamble that she will be as much help as hindrance."

Actually, Palin's selection answers the critics as well, especially when it comes to McCain's age and his lack of appeal among the conservative base. Biden's selection is truly a calculated gamble in that his penchant for 'opening mouth and inserting foot' could seriously hamper the Obama campaign. Biden's own words, used strategically by the McCain campaign, are not complimentary to Obama and picking someone who made such comments is more of a gamble than Palin. And with Obama's claim for 'change,' picking someone who represents the status quo and business as usual in Washington, certainly qualifies as being 'as much help as hindrance.'

News stories should be objective and fair. If you're going to do a straight story on the selection of the Democrat VP, you should do the same for the Republican VP. If you're going to get opposing commentary on the Republican VP, you should do so with the Democrat VP. That's what's missing in our local coverage of the news of the selections.

In the editorials, you expect a bias. They are designed to be opinion with persuasive words. However, the intellectual honesty is missing. The criteria for opinion isn't the same. You cannot honestly call one selection a gamble while failing to acknowledge that the description applies to both campaign decisions.

You cannot honestly emphasize one person's experience level while calling the other's inexperience 'alleged.' At least with the Republican ticket, the experience is at the top of the ticket, where it belongs, rather than in the second place.

If Biden can make a pitch to blue-collar voters, shouldn't the same be true of Palin, who was a union member and is married to one? Biden's never been in a union, but that's not ever pointed out. If you're going to compare the two choices fairly so you can make a good decision, knowing these things is critical.

Even if you are trying to persuade people that one choice is better than the other, the most effective way to do so is to be honest about their backgrounds, experience and policy - and then demonstrate why one is better than the other. To leave out key information opens you up to criticism that you are only telling others what you want them to know.

And that's the difference. I've tried to follow the rule that if you give people all the information and present them with facts, they'll agree with your conclusion - if you've made good one. I've always been comfortable in arguing a point, not just because I believe it to be correct, but also because I believe most people with all the data will agree that it is correct. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen much in the MSM - and it's certainly an anomaly in Toledo.

If you're hiring a team to do a job for you, you'd first examine the job description and decide on the skills necessary to perform the tasks and duties. You'd take a look at the experience in doing those tasks and you'd make a decision. Electing a president and vice president - or any other office holder, for that matter - is no different.

The key is to be honest with yourself while doing so. It's okay to pick the less-qualified candidate because you think they're a better fit. But don't claim they're less-qualified when you do so.

Palin it is!

Hooda Thunkit and Lisa Renee both commented on my GOP VP prediction post that they liked Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the vice presidential choice for Sen. John McCain. Turns out, so does McCain.

I think she's a better choice than Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and she's got her own 'maverick' streak like McCain. She adds an important aspect to the ticket - the administrative experience of a governor and mayor, having actually run a large organization - that the Sen. Barack Obama/Sen. Joe Biden ticket lacks.

I think she'll appeal to disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters, especially women, and to the dissatisfied portion of the conservative base.

All in all, a good choice.