The Vice Presidential Debate: Man in the Street Answers

Meet Joe Biden.
Suppose you were stopped in the street and asked the same questions that Senator Biden and Governor Palin had to answer last night. How would you answer? Would you be smooth and coherent or so rickety you would be told to be on your way? I wondered how I would answer the questions so I found a transcript of the debate and copied the questions into a file, leaving a space between each question. I printed the file and then quickly wrote my response to each question, kind of simulating being asked the questions in real-time. Here are my answers. Remember, I answered them quickly without benefit of thought or research, so go easy on me. If you wish, answer some of them yourself in the comments. I’ve edited the questions for brevity and relevancy.

1. The Senate passed a big bailout bill and the House is wrestling with it still tonight. Is this the worst of Washington or the best of Washington that we saw play out?

This is the worst of Washington. They even added $150-billion in side-issue tax measures. Those who voted this measure in should be voted out.

2. If you were vice president, would you work to shrink this gap of polarization which has sprung up in Washington?

Just treat those who you meet with respect and value their point of view. Give credit to the opposing party where it is due.

3. Who do you think was at fault in the sub-prime lending meltdown? Was it the greedy lenders? Was it the risky home-buyers who shouldn’t have been buying a home in the first place? And what should you be doing about it?

If you want to be greedy in your lending that is your affair. If you want to take a risk and buy more home than you can afford that is your prerogative. Once you get a taxpayer funded bailout then that’s everyone’s business. Lenders, borrowers, and government are all to blame. But especially government for adding billions of dollars in debt with a foolhardy bailout.
Sarah Palin
4. Is proposing to raise taxes on people who earn over $250,000 a year not class warfare? A proposal to tax employer health benefits which some studies say would actually throw five million more people onto the roles of the uninsured. I want to know why that isn’t taking things out on the poor.

One of the best ways to tax is by everyone paying the same percentage of their income, if you must tax income. That way the poorest to the richest pay towards running their country. This is also not the time to tax health benefits.

5. What promises have you made that you’re not going to be able to keep?

I suspect there will always be promises that politicians won’t be able to keep. As for myself, I rarely make promises so there are precious few to break.

6. Last year, Congress passed a bill that would make it more difficult for debt-strapped mortgage-holders to declare bankruptcy, to get out from under that debt. Would you have supported this?

Yes. It should be difficult to declare bankruptcy. Debt should be paid off, even if it takes a long time.

7. What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?

As in the past the earth’s climate is changing today. This is probably due to natural climatic changes. More research is needed to establish if there is a man-made component.

8. Do you support caps on carbon emissions? Do you support clean coal technology?

I don’t support either. Coal should be used until there is a better domestic substitute.

9. Do you support, as they do in Alaska, granting same-sex benefits to couples?


10. Would you support expanding that beyond Alaska to the rest of the nation?


11. What is a clear plan for an exit strategy in Iraq?

An exit can begin immediately. Financial resources need to be conserved. We can no longer afford to be an army of occupation.

12. What’s the greater threat, a nuclear Iran or an unstable Afghanistan? Explain why.

Afghanistan should be left to itself. It hasn’t the resources to be a threat and any army of occupation will eventually grow weary and have to withdraw. Iran is more of a threat because of future nuclear capability. However, with the United States out of Iraq and Afghanistan the U.S. becomes a viable check against Iran.

13. Secretaries of state Baker, Kissinger, Powell, they have all advocated some level of engagement with enemies. Do you think these former secretaries of state are wrong on that?

You don’t need to talk to enemies, just defend against any malfeasance they try to inflict.

14. What has this administration done right or wrong — this is the great, lingering, unresolved issue, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — what have they done? And is a two-state solution the solution?

This administration has done no worse than prior administrations. Two separate states is the solution.

15. Interventionism, nuclear weapons, what should be the trigger, or should there be a trigger, when nuclear weapons use is ever put into play?

Each situation is different. In wartime, the use of nuclear weapons should be an option.

16. How would a Biden administration be different from an Obama administration?

It would be different, just as a Palin administration would be different from a McCain administration. Reviewing their passions and voting and governing records would give some clues as to their direction.

17. What do you think the vice presidency is worth now?

The vice president is the first in the presidential line of succession. The vice president is also the President of the Senate. Support of personal charities and good causes could be promoted.

18. 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?


19. Gov. Palin’s Achilles heel is that you she lacks experience. Sen. Biden’s Achilles heel is that he lacks discipline. What do you think it really is?

After listening to both candidates I think they would both make fine vice presidents and even presidents.

20. Can you think of a single policy issue in which you were forced to change a long-held view in order to accommodate changed circumstances?

I would think that some views would have to be changed depending upon circumstances.
Rickety signature.

The Rickety Doctrine

Sarah Palin in Kuwait.

Palin Doctrine

Recently when Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was asked a question about the Bush Doctrine, she seemed unsure about what it was. If she’d have had her own Palin Doctrine in place she could have said something like, “Forget about the Bush Doctrine, you should be studying the Palin Doctrine, which says…”

To help out Governor Palin, I have compiled the Rickety Doctrine to illustrate that it is not difficult to assemble your own statement of policy. But first we’ll take a look at previous Doctrines.

Monroe Doctrine

President James Monroe presented the doctrine during his seventh State of the Union Address to Congress in 1823. It stated that European powers could no longer colonize or interfere in the Americas. The United States would stay neutral in wars between European powers unless a war occurred in the Americas, which would then be viewed as hostile to the United States.

Truman Doctrine

This Doctrine stated that the United States would offer assistance to countries resisting Communism. The proclamation was made in an address to Congress on March 12, 1947.

Eisenhower Doctrine

In a message to Congress on January 5, 1957 the Doctrine stated that the Unites States would use armed forces upon request in response to imminent aggression to the Middle East.

Kennedy Doctrine

The Kennedy Doctrine refers to foreign policy initiatives towards Latin America. Support was voiced for the containment of Communism and the reversal of Communist progress in the Western Hemisphere. It was presented in President Kennedy’s inaugural address on January 20, 1961.

Johnson Doctrine

The Johnson Doctrine declared in 1965 that domestic revolution in the Western Hemisphere would no longer be a local matter when “the object is the establishment of a Communist dictatorship.”

Nixon Doctrine

The Doctrine was presented in a press conference in Guam on July 25, 1969. It states that United States allies should take care of their own military defense. But if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of an allied nation a shield will be provided.

Carter Doctrine

The Carter Doctrine proclaimed in the January 23, 1980 State of the Union Address that the United States would use military force to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region.

Reagan Doctrine

This Doctrine advocated the backing of anti-Communist guerrillas against Communist governments. It was first explained in Reagan’s 1985 State of the Union Address.

Clinton Doctrine

In a February 26, 1999 speech this Doctrine was outlined as intervening “where our values and our interests are at stake, and where we can make a difference.”

Rickety Doctrine

First presented to the world on September 18, 2008 the Rickety Doctrine advocates a massive but orderly reduction of the nation’s military presence overseas. A drive to greatly reduce oil consumption, with tax credits as incentives, will result in more hydro, solar, wind, coal, and nuclear generated electricity; electric cars; and telecommuting. Entangling alliances will be terminated and deficit spending ended. Government will seek temporary special powers if necessary to accomplish these goals. Congress remained unaware of the new Doctrine.


The Rickety Doctrine will never come to pass but the Palin Doctrine, whatever it will be, may very well be talked about in the next few years. If Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin is asked in some future interview what the Rickety Doctrine is, don’t be too hard on her if she doesn’t know.
Rickety signature.