Web Search powered by YAHOO! SEARCH
share
email
font size
options
 
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Does Gibson know the Constitution?

Larry Eichel reports....

Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos are taking a lot of heat today for the questions they asked in last night's Democratic presidential debate. And we understand why some people are angry at them. But we've uncovered's a factual problem with their performance.

In the first question of the night, Gibson asked Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton whether they'd agree to former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo's suggestion that the winner of the delegate fight should be the presidential nominee and the loser should be the running mate. Neither went along with that.

So Gibson pressed: Just to quote from the Constitution again, "In every case" -- Article II, Section 1 -- "after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president."

Alas, that part of the Constitution no longer applies. And it hasn't for more than 200 years. If it did, John Kerry would be vice president today.

It was superseded by the Twelfth Amendment, which was passed in 1804. The amendment says there will be separate elections for president and vice president. It was adopted after the mess the country went through as the result of the election of 1800, the first time we actually had two parties vying for the presidency.

We put this to an ABC News spokesman who directed us to what Gibson said after quoting the Constitution:  "If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?"

This, the spokesman said, indicated that Gibson and ABC knew that this section applied then but doesn't apply now. We can only wonder if the viewing audience could figure all of that out. 

Posted by Larry Eichel @ 3:04 PM  Permalink | File Under: Media Watch | 69 comments
Comments   
Posted 12:42 PM, 04/17/2008
Sam Pileggi
Larry, the Inquirer should pay you more.
Posted 12:55 PM, 04/17/2008
gideon
It doesnt surprise me..... his presentation was bogus.
Posted 02:21 PM, 04/17/2008
Smart
They were not prepared to ask any question of interest to PAs. They were only intent on bringing Obama down. They had a good try but failed woefully. If they thought they were doing Clinton a favour, they missed the point because they ended up opening more arsenic on her side. PA, please let us move on we ve so much more things to bring us together than to divide us. This is our chance to prove that point in America and no ABC diddler shall deter us!
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
Posted 03:24 PM, 04/17/2008
Peter of Manassas
Gibson performance seems to reinforce the impression that the media is just another collection of pseudo-political parties or WAGS. It was hard to know who was "debating" and who was "moderating".
Posted 03:28 PM, 04/17/2008
Janette
I'm an Obama supporter and I agree he didn't do as well last night as he could have, but as a NJ resident I feel bad for PA because they got jipped out of hearing their extensive views and plans on the real issues facing our country. No wonder I don't watch ABC. Although I'll still take Obama's gaffes over Clinton's lies (i.e. Bosnia), misjudgments (i.e. war) and embellishments (i.e. gun stories).
Posted 03:33 PM, 04/17/2008
Sweatheart
Charlie Gibson knows bubkes. What a talking head.
Comment removed.
Posted 03:43 PM, 04/17/2008
S.J.
Gibson is a hack. And George Stef is one step aboce amoeba.
Comment removed.
Posted 03:50 PM, 04/17/2008
nee21
This is the biggest waste of an article...he said something like, "If it was good enough for them then...then why not now?" He knows it doesn't apply now.
Posted 03:56 PM, 04/17/2008
djgibboni
And the whole affair was at the Constitution Center, to boot! Maybe Charlie and George should've taken a stroll around the exhibits before the debate!
Comment removed.
Comment removed.
69 comments | View All Comments | View All By Latest
About Inquirer political writers

The Inauguration: Jan. 20 blog brings you coverage of President-elect Barack Obama's transition into office.

It's written by political journalists from the Philadelphia Inquirer. Send us your comments -- and news tips -- at this address.

Thomas FitzgeraldThomas Fitzgerald joined The Philadelphia Inquirer in 2000, and has covered Harrisburg as well as city, state and national politics for the newspaper. He was a “boy on the bus” in the 2004 presidential campaign and during primary contests in 2000 and 1996.

Nathan Gorenstein has covered politics and government in the city, state and nation for the Inquirer. He's worked in the city hall bureau, had a stint on the business desk, and once covered the suburbs. After serving as assistant regional editor, he was named editor of the "Politics" web site.

Advertise Here