Biden V Ryan Attack Dogs let loose

Ben Plummer 9/10/12 In 2 days, two men vying for the most redundant national office available will share centre stage for the first and last time until, in all likelihood, 2016. It is much more relevant for Ryan than Biden, as someone who is seen as a future leader of the Republican Party and a pioneer of its ever-expanding right-wing influence, as opposed to Biden, a twice failed presidential candidate coming to the end of his political career. However, whatever their individual aspirations, nothing can disguise their irrelevance in 2012. The Office of the Vice President has always been somewhat of a poisoned chalice. As Vice President, your job (unless you are Dick Cheney) is chief-loyalist to the Big Guy, and to appear like you could handle things if, for whatever usually macabre - reason, you are catapulted into his role. Though it should go without saying that this is a not insignificant aspect of the job, history shows that this doesnt happen very often - 9 out of 44 presidents have left office prematurely, 4 deaths due to natural causes, 4 by way of assassination, with Nixon bucking the trend with the only Presidential resignation in history. As such, the Vice President is often associated with relegation to the role of an electoral aide; the terms ticket balancer and attack dog both being used more commonly than any which suggests prominence in governing. The incumbent was chosen due to his considerable experience in Washington, his long-time service on the Foreign Relations Committee, and as a way of reaching out to the working class demographic, while Ryan, as a tea-party favourite who is notoriously allergic to taxes, was chosen to placate the conservative element of the GOP which has so often shown reluctance to accept Romney as their candidate. On Thursday, both will go head to head in trying to see who can better disparage the main candidate on the ticket. After Obamas collapse last week in Denver, Biden will be under strict instruction to focus particularly on the line that the President has been pushing all week: Romney is a liar and cant back up anything he says with numbers or facts. This is something that Biden, a Delawarean from a modest background, relishes. As well as being an accomplished debater and speaker from his time in the Senate, he is at his best when he is given licence to be aggressive and in-your-face. This should serve him well on Thursday, but in Ryan, he comes up against an opponent with presidential aspirations of his own, with a reputation as an unapologetic policy wonk. Ryan is the current head of the House Budget Committee, and is passionate about details and statistics. With a very calm, slick demeanour, it will have been left to Ryan to fill in the blanks where Romneys fuzzy economic policy is concerned, while pulling from a plethora of facts that the Republicans proved they had in their locker (as proved by Romneys barrage of numbers that he threw at Obama at the last debate) to convince the public that the country would be led better by his ticket. It is easy to imagine an uneventful, predictable 90 minutes wherein campaign slogans are reiterated and repeated until our ears start to bleed, and Biden clamouring for Ryans jugular while being

dismissed as part of a failed administration. However, there are variables which could conceivably give the debate consequence beyond the traditional popularity contest. In spite of his attributes, Biden has a reputation for misstatements that do more harm than good. Just last week he bemoaned how the middle class had been buried over the last 4 years. Though his competence as a politician is never in doubt, in the modern political arena where sound-bites reign supreme, he can often gaffe his way into liability territory. It is entirely possible that, should he get cornered by Ryan or flustered by a flurry of stat heavy attacks, he could say something out of turn that could have a more lasting effect than anything positive he offers. Though that being said, it remains to be seen whether the Obama campaign is capable of providing positive rhetoric and defence of its record after the first presidential debate. Ryan will have to be careful to avoid coming across as his own man too much. Touting his own credentials would be seen as a slight against his boss-elect, and any hint of a personal agenda which is media prominent after the publicity he received for his Budget Proposal, both negative and positive, back in March could distract from the real race at hand. There has been no shortage of Republican criticism of Romney, with Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin (a notable friend and ally of Ryans) being very public in his disapproval of the way his campaign is being run, while just yesterday Sen. Larry Pressler defected from the party line and unequivocally endorsed Obama for four more years. There would no doubt be more voices from the depths of the party who would suggest that Ryan should grab the bull that is the national stage by its horns and make a pre-emptive attempt at the top job bypassing Romneys already fragile standing as party figurehead. This would, however, be misguided. A Pew poll today suggest that the first debate has changed the dynamic of the race in a more substantial way than in past elections, with Romney now holding a 4 point lead among likely voters. Despite his eminent electability, pushing himself as a President rather than a team player would represent a move that is unnecessarily risky given that the race is now back in the statistical margin of error. Will it be a game changer? Almost certainly not. But as with all nationally viewed events in a Presidential election, it would be foolish to rule anything out.