Reaping the Whirlwind

-
McCain Booed For Calling Obama A "Decent Man"



I almost feel sorry for John McCain at this point. His anguished and halting attempt to walk back the increasingly hateful personal attacks directed at Barack seem to simply be causing more dissension in his own ranks As I observed on my Obama support web page:

"You reap what you sow" is the operative admonition here, one has to think. I have to believe John McCain now honestly regrets having permitted the unleashing of this counterproductive and dangerous tactical vitriol. His running mate has by now openly and repeatedly insinuated that Barack Obama is all of the foregoing "un-American" things, egging on her fawning crowds and ramping up their irrational ire. Which is it? Is he the non-scary "decent person" whom John McCain now belatedly "admires" notwithstanding their policy differences, or is he Sarah Palin's treasonous "terrorist pal"? What does this say about wise, presidential calibre "judgment"? (Which, in my view, was rendered distressingly suspect by the very choice of Mrs. Palin in the first place. She is, by any rational measures, simply not qualified to be a heartbeat away from our Presidency.)

Been a tough week for John McCain.

OCTOBER 20TH UPDATE

We just got back from early voting. Very quick and convenient. Electronic voting machines, but they have paper trail printouts, which I wish were mandated by law everywhere.

BTW: Interesting interactive/predictive Electoral Vote map I just ran across:



OCTOBER 21st UPDATE

Sarah Palin tells an interviewer that the Vice President is "in charge of" the Senate, that the VP can "can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better..."



Someone needs to slip Mrs. Palin a copy of the Constitution. Specifically Article I, Section 3:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

That is all the Constitution says about the VP role. And, being "president" of the Senate in no way implies being "in charge of" it. If anyone can be said to be "in charge" in both constitutional and daily operational senses, it is the Majority Leader, normally in give-and-take cooperation with the Minority Leader and other senior senators. As noted on the Senate website:

Our Constitution's framers created the vice-presidency almost as an afterthought. In setting up a system for electing presidents, they devised an electoral college and provided that each of its members was to vote for two persons, "of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves." In those days when loyalty to one's state was stronger than to the new nation, the framers recognized that individual electors might be inclined to choose a leader from their own immediate political circle, creating the danger of a crippling deadlock, as no one candidate would win a plurality of all votes cast. By being required to select one candidate from outside their own states, electors would be compelled to look for individuals of national stature. Under the system the framers created, the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would be president. The one coming in second would be vice president...

...The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3)...

...the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed.

A woman arguing that she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the Presidency really ought have at least a middle school civics class understanding of the actual functions of the top federal executive offices.

Amazing.