McCain has to stay in DC through Friday. The Debate Commission won’t accept it, but offer Gov. Palin as a substitute. Then, following the resumption of normal politics, offer town hall meetings to replace the canceled debate.
The downside of this clever (and prudent) move is that it reinforces the impression that a presidential campaign is like a European parliamentary-style election campaign. McCain acts like he would accept a Grand Coalition government. But that’s not the Founders’ Constitution.
Hence the misguided attacks on Gov. Palin as unready to be President. Those largely miss the constitutional significance of the inauguration occurring over two months after the election, and almost three weeks after the new Congress. (Before the 20th amendment it was even longer, with the president being inaugurated in March.)
Ken: perhaps the downside you mention is to be expected when the both candidates are members of the Senate?
Yes, true, but at least there is one non-senator on the GOP ticket, and neither is a lawyer!
Ken, are you arguing that the founders intentionally left a 5-month interim period between the election and the inauguration, foreseeing that some two hundred years later the nation might elect an unqualified spokesmodel to the vice presidency who would need crash courses on foreign policy and the federal reserve in the event that she must assume the most important office in the land?
I don't recall any such arguments in madison's convention notes or the federalist papers...
Right, you couldn't possibly mean what Confused thinks you mean?
I assume that Ken is trying to make a point about Palin not needing legislative experience to be president - since the U.S. does not operate on a parliamentarian system. However, my reading of MSM criticism of Palin (if George Will counts as MSM....) has not focused on her not having spent time in Congress: it's been her lack of experience. period. While executive service might be an asset, she's been there less than two years leaving little opportunity to evaluate her executive skills. This is compounded by the fact that Alaska is a sparsely-populated state that is hardly a microcosm of the United States at large. (Furthermore, it's proximity to Russia is not a foreign-policy credential).
One could also point out that the U.S. has had many successful presidents without previous gubernatorial experience and a few notable failures who did (one recent example comes to mind....)
I wish the Founders had forseen that one day the people might elect a community activist to the presidency who would need crach courses in high school civics, geography, and history, never mind foreign policy and the fed.
But they seem to have assumed the existence of a non-stupid electorate.
Perhaps Confused can explain in what fashion Senator Obama is more qualifed to be President than is Governor Palin. (Ignore for now that Palin is running for VP.)
What exactly are Obama's qualifications to be President of the United States?
However, my reading of MSM criticism of Palin (if George Will counts as MSM....) has not focused on her not having spent time in Congress: it's been her lack of experience. period.
I repeat the question. If Palin is not sufficiently experienced to be VP, then by what measure is Obama sufficiently experienced to be P? If less than one term as governor is "inexperienced" then how does less than one term as Senator qualify as "experienced"?
I expect continued silence on this, but I'll keep asking.
[Alaskas] proximity to Russia is not a foreign-policy credential).
Again, please explain to poor Confused me exactly what foreign policy credentials Obama has. Anyone? Hello? Is this thing on?
The differences of requirements (age, among others) for different offices and length of terms in addition to the different dates of assumption of office are constitutionally significant. This is not a parliamentary system. We expect different things of exectives than of MCs. Campaigns are intended to allow candidates to display virtues and vices, permitting a federally distributed electorate to make choices among them. Who will be ready by January 20 to perform their respective constitutional functions?
Obama's autobiography should forbid his becoming president; "experience" is beside the point. I will commence to demonstrate this in a future post. Likewise, I will make an argument for the Alaska credential! (Obama made an analogous but weaker argument for himself, based on having lived in Indonesia and having Kenyan relatives.)
"I will commence to demonstrate this in a future post."
You do just that. And in the mean time here's just a small sample about one of your favorite lunatics:
We can hardly wait.
Maybe Confused can explain why Nancy Pelosi, with years of experience in the Congress, cannot do her job?
I'm shocked! to find that my quest for knowledge regarding Obama's qualifications has been ignored. Won't one of the liberals here help me out?