Interesting how some of our candidates are getting themselves boxed in with VP talk..

[beastie boy]

17. This is so obviously a bait question!

The question is so narrowly framed that it immediately becomes suspect. Why just VP's children? Why not VP's cousins, second uncles or in-laws? And why limit this litmus test to just the VP? What about the rest of the Cabinet? And why limit their children's role to the board of a foreign company? Why exclude the management of foreign companies? Or financial officers? or tech officers? Or liaisons to government bodies? If there were any logic to the press asking a question like this, the list of prohibitions on a President's members of cabinet can be extended to no end.

There appears to be no distinction between the press asking the candidates whether they would let their VP's children sit on the board of a foreign company and asking whether they would have chosen Biden as their VP if they were President. If the answer to this question is "no, I wouldn't", it immediately delegitimizes Biden's eight years of being Obama's VP. Guess whose hands this plays into?

And, of course, there is the logistics of actually implementing whether a President can or cannot let their VP's children serve on the board of a foreign company. A President telling his VP to make his grown child leave his job is ridiculous. The only recourse a President has is fire the VP, or vet the candidates to make sure they don't have children on the boards of foreign companies, ever. Asking anyone whether they would "let" their children serve on the boards of foreign companies is ridiculous on its face. Dignifying such ridiculous question with a response, whatever the response may be, would reflect poorly on the respondent.

And that, my friends, is the bait.