"We are a nation of laws, not of men [or women]."
Sometimes I read that as suggesting (above all of its otherwise perfectly clear meanings and import) that we should chose for our leaders those that would faithfully execute the laws, protect the Constitution and adhere to the oath with which he/she assumes his/her office. That we should chose based on ability rather than personality. Meritocracy over all else (I would include within that measure an allocation for consistency with the voter's political viewpoint).
A cult of personality, the electorate should not be. At least when it comes to electing our leaders (I admit will follow Ben Harper almost anywhere to hear one of his sets, but I digress).
Follow me below the fold for my proposed minimum standard.
I raise this point because it occurs to me that in setting the expectations for our two VP nominees at tomorrow's debate, we should ignore the personality quirks (Biden often suffers from verbal diarrea; Palen could be mistaken for an Eliza program) and focus on a minimum standard that we require of our the vice presidental nominees as a measure of whether they are minimally qualified for the position of Vice President.
Palin's expectations -- based on her past interview performances -- are so low that if she doesn't drool, she wins. She was a beauty queen. She won't drool.
I hold of office of vice president in higher esteem than that. So, I feel like I must turn to past precident for an acceptable minimum standard by which to judge her performance (and, frankly, Biden's although I don't think there will be an issue there).
What is a good minimum standard?
I am only 36 years old and during my active political life (let's say the last 20 years), the worst vice presidential candidate we've had (judged on a perceived capability, experience and (debateably) judgement basis) was Dan Quayle. He wasn't good, in fact he was rather ineffectual and bad. Thankfully the country never had to experience his leadership from the White House and instead could comfortably remark on his inability to spell Potato and his other gaffs.
Although I was quite scared at the time, Dan Quayle did not burn down the White House or attempt to seize control of the White House (was that Casper -- not a VP, but still a guy who liked to playfully suggest the occurrence of a coup). The country survived. And while I fear that McCain, his body abused over his many years of service to our country, may not last four more years, I can find not other reasonable measure by which to judge the minimum standard for a VP.
So, I propose that rather than accept the spin room antics of our party or their party (I will leave that ambiguous just in case you are a member of no party), we hold out as Governor Palin's expectations for her performance tomorrow night the minimum performance level of Dan Quayle in his debate.
His ticket won. He served. The country was still standing when he left office. Yes, this is a minimum standard.
So, tomorrow I will be comparing Palin (and Biden -- again, no worries) not against each other but against the QS (or "Quayle Standard"). Does she meet or exceed it. If she doesn't, then in my opinion, she lost. The Republican ticket lost (they deserve better (again, debatable)). And if McCain wins, then the country lost.
Perhaps you disagree with me -- if so -- to what standard would you hold Gov. Palin to in her perforamnce tomorrow night?
Edit: Here is the most I could find on YouTube on Quayle's performance at the 1986 debate.
[I haven't written a diary in quite some time, so please excuse any oversight in protocol.]