So that’s how they’ll do it

Were you wondering whether the Thursday VP debate would go on, or if they’d find a way to stall or cancel it? I was, but now I see how the far right plans to dismantle the credibility of the debate.

Says says Nancy Pfotenhauer, referring to Gwen Ifill:

“I think the moderator will have some serious questions to answer if they do go so heavily on foreign policy,”

Why? Oh because:

“normally, in Vice Presidential debates, you see a more even-handed approach”

She apparently is suggesting that by asking Sarah Palin too many questions about foreign policy, Gwen Ifill will be moderating unfairly. During a time when foreign policy is an extremely important topic to most Americans, I’m glad they have their priority straight: protecting Sarah from the meanies.

But as Megan at Jezebel points out:

Gwen Ifill moderated the 2004 debate between Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards, asking a total of 20 questions. Ten of those questions were specifically about foreign policy — including the first 9 — while Cheney brought up foreign policy in two addition domestic policy questions and Edwards snuck it into one of his domestic policy answers. In the latter three cases, Edwards and Cheney responded to the other’s foreign policy forays in kind. That means that foreign policy discussions comprised two-thirds of the last Vice Presidential debate.

There are many (internet commenter) theories floating around suggesting that we’re being hustled right now, and when Palin shows up for the debate, she’ll mop the floor with Biden. Or that at the last minute they’ll ditch her and replace her with someone who’ll get the votes back. But it’s clear that this pre-emptive strike rules those out. They’re already laying the groundwork to pull the spotlight off her VP performance and on to the moderator. Why would they do that if they didn’t think she’s going to totally tank?

I think we need some games for the VP debate. We should have a pool for how many times she says certain phrases like “job creation” or “bridge to nowhere”.

We also need a drinking game. 1 drink every time she smirks and says something about how great democracy is; 2 drinks for mention of her children; chug if she says anything about lipstick, pitbulls or pigs.