In a
previous post, I came to the defense of Sarah Palin. It wasn't intended as an endorsement of her or that I supported her in some way. I will admit that I like her and agree with her on some policies, but I also don't think I know enough about her to be really supportive and I still believe she should have turned down the nomination and waited. The point I was trying to make was that I didn't think that many of the attacks on her were substantive and did little to help me form an opinion.
There is no need to rehash that discussion. In this entry, I want to focus on Biden and what I see as double standard. Before I dive in, I want to point out that I am in no way suggesting that Palin is above criticism or that the press shouldn't question her policies and positions. I just feel that the same level of scrutiny hasn't applied to Senator Biden and his past gaffes, positions, and policies.
In the past few months we have heard all about Sarah Palin's past, her husband's past, and all sorts of other tidbits. We haven't heard as much about Joe Biden. Some have suggested that it is because he has an extensive record that is already well known. That may be part of it, but I doubt that most of the public knows very much about him. I want to highlight a few incidents that have gotten little coverage and, IMO, would have been more thoroughly covered if it were Sarah Palin.
I have vague memories of plagiarism accusation when Biden was trying to get the nomination in 1987. An ad by Dukakis showed how Biden copied parts of another speech by British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock. Apparently, he had done this several other times. There was also an incident in law school where he receieved an "F" in his legal methods course for plagiarism. Both of these events happened a while ago and it seems that he has learned his lesson. Personally, I don't see this as all that big of a deal, but some will.
Academic records and achievements are frequently brought up by campaigns. Obama has a great record that shows how well he did in all levels of higher education. McCain has wisely downplayed his graduating near the bottom. Palin hasn't really brought up hers, but the opposition has pointed out her transferring and how she went to mediocre schools. What about Biden? He is often portrayed as being very sharp, but I don't recall hearing much about how he did in school. Granted, it is a long time ago, but so was McCain. He received a BA in Political Science and History from the University of Delaware in 1965, where he graduated 506th out of 688.
This article draws some interesting parallels between Biden and Quayle. Biden attended a middling law school where he graduated 76th out of 85.
I don't know how well he did in Constitutional Law, but he appears to not understand the Constitution all that well. There was this exchange during the debate:
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.
Todd Zywicki, over at Volokh, does a good job of explaining the problems with this exchange. It certainly bothers me that he is wrong, but it is even more troublesome considering that he went to law school, teaches a class on Constitutional Law, and has been a member of the Legislature for more than 3 decades. He should know this.
Brian Kalt, over at the National Post, looks at some other Constitutional issues that relate to Biden. I tend to agree with Kalt's assessment, but I am willing to concede that reasonable minds may differ. Incidently, Kalt was my Con Law professor for two semesters.
I must also admit that I know very little of Biden's policy stances or what kinds of legislation he has sponsored in the past. This is just my opinion, but in looking around, I am not impressed with much of what he has done. In terms of foreign policy, I can't complain too much. His idea to partition Iraq into 3 provinces seems like a good one to me and one that my foster some kind of lasting stability. He also favors military action in Darfur. I am not so sure about this, but I don't know enough about specifics to really comment.
On the domestic front, I am far less impressed. He is a huge supporter of the War on Drugs. He has sponsored and supported many bills in this area. I am strong believer that the War on Drugs is mostly a failure and that it we do not benefit from locking up users for decades. I think the money and resources could be better used elsewhere. He is also a strong supporter of the federalization of other crimes. His Violence Against Women Act would have created a federal cause of action for women who were victims of crimes. The Supreme Court overturned this law on the grounds that it wasn't interstate commerce. He has also supported every gun control law that has come up for a vote and was one of the priciple supporters of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act in 1994. This law gave us the Assault Weapons Ban and also brought the death penalty for crimes related to drug dealing, civil-rights related murders, murder of a Federal officer, and acts classified as terrorism. I have a problem with almost all parts of this law.
This isn't all that big of a deal to me. Ultimately, it is the policies of McCain and Obama that should count the most, not the VP candidates. I just wonder why Biden is getting such little scrutiny, while Palin is getting so much.
Read more...
The Obama team has been darn smart so far the last two years, but this major move during the last week of the campaign still has me wondering. What do you think? Will the Obama infomercials close the deal, or cut loose some voters?
Source: 
The shot above isn’t great, but it’s proof.
Worse, - in my eyes - if history repeats itself and McCain has a comeback in Colorado, traditionally a red state, McCain wins 274 to 264, even if Obama hangs on to New Hampshire. 
