This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Oct. 11, 2012 - If viewers of Thursday’s vice presidential debate were hoping for a rock ‘em-sock ‘em discourse, a clash of contrasting ideologies and a bit of "malarkey," they weren’t disappointed.
Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., engaged in an animated discussion -- and sometimes prickly crosstalk. The at-time contentious Kentucky showdown provided a glimpse into the key role of vice presidential contenders, acting as both surrogates for the top of the ticket and attack dogs against the opposition.
Biden was tasked with providing a more robust rebuttal to the Republican ticket, which saw its fortunes rise after last week’s debate and President Barack Obama's lackluster performance. He also had to defend an administration that has seen its popularity wax and wane through a turbulent economy and an uncertain world.
For Ryan, his debut on the national debate stage was a delicate dance: He had to act as a vocal cheerleader for GOP nominee Mitt Romney and defend controversial proposals – including the aptly named “Ryan Plan.” Moreover, the youthful Ryan had to prove he was up to snuff, so to speak, on the issues, especially compared to the more seasoned Biden.
Joel Goldstein, a law professor at St. Louis University and an expert on the vice presidency, said this debate was "probably one of most animated presidential or vice presidential debates that we’ve had."
He said that this showdown could change the narrative that's bedeviled the Democratic ticket for the past seven days.
“Given that the first debate had gone well for Romney and bad for Obama, I thought that Biden needed to get at least a draw," Goldstein said. "A draw would effectively be a victory for the Democrats because it would change the narrative. And I think that he certainly succeeded in doing that.
"I think the discussion will move away from the focus on the changing horse race to refocusing on some of the issues between the two parties," he added.
Under pressure
Right off the bat, the difference between Thursday’s debate and last week’s was clear: The two candidates sat next to each other at a table, instead of standing at a podium at a distance from each other.
Biden, for the most part, was forceful – especially in contrast with the president's performance. He directly challenged some of Ryan’s assertions – even if it meant a more-than-occasional interruption. Early in the debate, he did what Obama passed on: Mention Romney’s controversial “47 percent” comments that put the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign into crisis.
"He was certainly more aggressive than the president," Goldstein said. "And he was trying to convey a sense that Romney-Ryan are trying to sell the American people a bill of goods. And the 'malarkey' and 'this is just a lot of stuff,' that really conveyed it I guess."
Mitchell McKinney, a communications professor at the University of Missouri-Columbia, said in an e-mail to the Beacon that Biden "was clearly the more aggressive debater and scored more points against" Ryan.
"Biden was vigorous in his defense of Barack Obama and administration policies, yet sometimes he would trip over his stats and figures in his zeal to press the point that ‘facts matter’ and his desire to ‘take a look at the facts,’” McKinney said.
Biden's goal, Goldstein said, was to excite a Democratic base that may have been dismayed from last week. He added that Biden was also trying to convey a message that a Romney administration would dismantle programs that people like, like Social Security or Medicare.
"He was trying to make the point that they haven't been forthcoming," Goldstein said. "He didn't use the word 'Etch-a-Sketch,' but [he conveyed] that their positions had been changing. You know, Ryan complains about the stimulus, but he writes (Biden) letters requesting money and complimenting it. Ryan's attacking him for the management of the recovery act, and yet [Rep. Darrell Issa's] committee investigated and found four-tenths of 1 percent of waste or fraud.
"The third point was that Obama was going to fight for the middle class, and that's where their fundamental commitment was," he added. "I think those were major points that they got across."
Ryan, too, was aggressive at times, forcefully criticizing the administration’s foreign policy track record and economic policy. While Biden, who grew up in Scranton, Pa., may have provided an “everyman” tenor to his responses, Ryan tended to be cool and calm when delivering his answers. Larry Sabato, a political science professor from the University of Virginia, said in a tweet that Ryan was "workmanlike."
In addition, Ryan was in a relatively unique position for a vice presidential contender: Not only did he have to defend and promote Romney’s ideas and statements but also his own. That was especially the case during discussion over the Ryan Plan, which included major changes to Medicare.
Ryan also had to avoid the pitfalls of other youthful contenders, such as former Vice President Dan Quayle, of coming off as unserious or unprepared for the presidency.
“Ryan looks really young. And so, I think there's a question as to whether that comes through as looking presidential," Goldstein said. "He presents himself as being knowledgeable about the issues and so forth, but he does have the youthful appearance. I mean, he’s 42 years old."
McKinney said Ryan didn't make any "gaffes or fumbles" during the debate, but he was often short on specifics. And he added that the debate's emphasis on foreign policy appeared to favor Biden, the former chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Still, Goldstein said Ryan was a step above the Republicans' last vice presidential pick -- former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
"I don’t look at him at the way you’d look at Gov. Palin and say ‘oh my God, she’s not a serious figure,'" Goldstein said. "I think that Ryan is clearly a serious figure. Whether he has the traits that you’d want in a president I think are a different question – putting aside these sort of ideological judgments.”
In context
It’s an open question whether Thursday's debate will shift the trajectory of the presidential campaign. The track record, especially for vice presidential debates, is not promising.
Peter Kastor, a history professor at Washington University, noted that vice presidential nominees were more about appeasing a faction of a political party than exciting the voters. That was especially the case when presidential nominees were determined at conventions.
That changed in modern politics, when the vice president tends to become a surrogate for the person at the top of the ticket.
“The function of the vice president is to further trumpet the virtues of the candidates that they are supporting and to be critical of the opponent,” Kastor said. “There’s an implicit point they’re making in that: Not only are they trumpeting the virtues of the leader of the ticket, what they’re also trying to do is model how the vice president and president together are an effective team.”
Kastor added that vice presidential debates “in general have had limited dramatic impact on the outcome of a presidential election. But the ones are that memorable have these broader ripples in the nation’s political culture.”
The two examples Kastor pointed to are the 1984 and 2008 debates, which respectively featured Democratic vice presidential hopeful Geraldine Ferraro and Palin. The debates with those two candidates, he said, “were all about what female leadership in the executive branch was going to mean.”
“This has nothing to do with the development of the vice presidency,” Kastor said. “But it simply means that vice presidential debates have been the showcases for where Americans would learn about and where candidates would argue about what it means for a woman to be president. It’s about whether they’re running for vice president, but all the chatter around that is about a woman who could be in the White House – either without either of them ever talking about it.”
“The other ones are memorable for lines – Lloyd Bensten’s ‘you’re not Jack Kennedy,’” he added, alluding to the then-Texas senator’s famous barb at GOP nominee Quayle. “But beyond that, they’re not terribly memorable.”
While Goldstein said that vice presidential debates typically haven't moved the proverbial needle, he did note that the 1976 match-up between Walter Mondale and Bob Dole may have elevated the Minnesota Democrat's stature enough to help Jimmy Carter prevail.
“I think that normally they’re not game changers,” Goldstein said. “Because this election is perceived as being close, this debate could have impact in the sense that Biden’s energy and the points that he makes allow the Democrats to turn the page and to move on and to pivot the campaign and the discussion back to some of the points they want to make and away from sort of the horse race kind of narrative that’s been going on the last week or so.”
