in Uncategorized

Biden Unleashed and Unhinged

This morning, I was recounting what I thought of last night’s debate to a woman who became frustrated that I wasn’t saying anything about Paul Ryan’s performance. Enough about Biden, she kept asking; how did Ryan do?

But you couldn’t say enough about Biden. The debate was all about Biden.

So here’s the deal. If you went into that debate furious with the GOP, and crestfallen because the president let Mitt Romney slide to victory on a blizzard of lies, then Biden was your guy. He was pointed; he was nasty; he wouldn’t let Ryan get a word in edgewise. He giggled and laughed his way through the whole thing, even as they talked about things like Iran getting a nuclear weapon (*Ha ha! Ho ho!*) or diminishing job growth (*Hee hee! Stop it, you’re killing me!*).

It wasn’t a debate; it was a Biden-bile yuk-fest.

If that’s what you were hankering for, then the veep won, no contest. I can’t imagine anyone else seeing it as anything but reprehensibly and inexcusably rude. But what does that matter? Ryan, Romney, and the Republicans deserve to be shouted down. All they do is lie anyway. They want to destroy the planet, confiscate your womb, starve old people, murder Mexicans, nuke Arabs, and “put y’all back in chains!” Respect in the face of villainy is no virtue; rudeness in the face of evil is no vice.

We’ve come a long way from 2000, when audible debate sighs from Al Gore were enough to derail his candidacy. Biden didn’t just sigh. He cackled. He snorted and sniggered. I half-expected him to break out with a string of armpit farts. Is there a single Republican who could have gotten away with an adolescent display like that? I find it disturbing that Democrats not only excused that performance but actually embraced it.

So how did Ryan do, in the face of all that? Fine.

CNN’s flash poll afterward gave him the victory, 48 to 44 percent. CNBC said he won, 56 to 36 percent. CBS’ poll of undecided voters gave Biden the edge. In the end, all that means absolutely nothing. Frank Luntz held a focus group of undecideds and asked how many of them had changed their mind about the race as a result of this debacle. Not a single one of them raised their hands. This contest threw some read meat to a desolate lefty base, but it was unwatchable for everyone else. Indeed, the early ratings indicate that it was seen by half as many people as 2008’s Biden/Palin lovefest, which featured a far more measured performance by the Joker without his makeup on. It didn’t move the needle at all, even though Mr. Biden’s Wild Ride undoubtedly unnerved people who think sanity is a prerequisite for the Vice Presidency.

Curiously, however, Biden literally didn’t used the word “literally” once. Perhaps he was too busy literally beating his chest to literally hold the future in his hands.

By the way, I can’t remember a single thing either one of them actually said.

Remembering The Message
Nervously Optimistic

Leave a Reply

  1. Dems thought Joey kicked-a…
    Repubs saw Pauly as a statesman.

    Hopefully, the undecided/independents saw the Creepy Joey that I saw.

    Your friend Nate has some new data:

    Electoral College:
    Barack Obama
    261.8
    +51.5 since Oct. 5

    Willard Romney
    276.2
    -51.5 since Oct. 5

    Chance of Winning:
    Obama 56.%, Romney 43.9%

    Popular Vote:
    Obama 49.5%, Romney 49.2%

    Cold sweats on dailykos tonight…

  2. “I find it disturbing that Democrats not only excused that performance but actually embraced it.”

    Disturbing perhaps, yet expectantly congruent with their known behavior.

    Democrat Brad Sherman just put his arm around rival Howard Berman and challenged him to a fight, Twitchy has reported on liberal tweets hoping that Paul Ryan’s wife gets raped, and that Ryan’s daughter had been aborted. That’s just in the last day.

    It’s who these people are.

  3. Not only do they tweet vile threats, they threaten to commit suicide if their candidate doesn’t win.

    On a lighter note: it’ll be hilarious to watch the coverage of the “Million Muppet March”.

  4. Wow… you know what I thought was funny was how Paul Ryan couldn’t actually articulate a difference between agreeing with the 2014 Afghanistan time table and why he felt it was wrong. I mean that was pretty basic to his anti-Obama/Biden position and all he could say is that saying 2014 out loud was weak. But he agreed with the time table.

    And then when talked about Iran it was laughable. He must not understand a couple interesting factors in the development of nuclear weapons: one you have to enrich U-238 to specific level before it is fissile then you have get Plutonium too so. Really if Iran wants to be a modern power in Nuclear tech they will need to develop an atomic detonator then some sort of fission weapon. Most experts put them 10-20 years away from this event. But, hey Paul wants to nuke now I say go for it. So that was to scare people.

    But, I think Paul Ryan doesn’t understand that if an international sanction is going to work– it must be multi-national endeavor. It cannot be a strong armed operation by one nation and few weaker ones. To make a crippling sanction work correctly you have to totally isolate the sanctioned from the economic system present today. If this is not accomplished you cannot make a viable attempt at sanctions… So really what was Paul going on about with weak sanctions? As if Paul would go into the UN and just demand everyone listen to him and that they will fall in line. We say that with W. it didn’t work out.

    Finally, I love his voucher program for the medicare system. It is a bait and switch because if you look at his 2012-13 budget proposal and Romney’s 2012 campaign literature online you’ll see that his plan is a joke.

    Why couldn’t Ryan actually describe his tax program???

      • That is the best the great Stallion Cornell can come up with is PFFFFFFT… I am frankly disappointed in this response. I thought that Stallion Cornell might actually be able to debate a few finer points of his argument.

        Frankly, the funniest part of your rant is this one: “They want to destroy the planet, confiscate your womb, starve old people, murder Mexicans, nuke Arabs, and “put y’all back in chains!” Respect in the face of villainy is no virtue; rudeness in the face of evil is no vice.”

        Because right here you are almost honest. The Republican party is pushing towards removing the EPA or at least taking away so much of its authority that it would be to quote Mao “A Paper Tiger” and clearly that is because clean air, water and soil are expensive… But really it isn’t because large corporations ever plan on building in the US at all for the most part. It has to do with exploration for and exploitation of natural resources– in the name of energy independence. Which is by the way a joke. If the ultra-right wing were to turn the clocks back 180 years or more on our interior policy making apparatus, we would see the end of regulations on energy development and exploration. We would see the end of natural parks that might have natural resources for energy or other commodities. And finally we would see a drastic increase in the use of COAL! Yes, the pernicious myth of CLEAN COAL burns strong burns strong in the Republican Party. But one forgets that the easiest and most financially viable method of achieving this goal is to destroy entire mountain tops and thus destroy in the process many natural habitats.

        So when you say The Republicans want to destroy environment you are correct. Mit Romney agrees with it too: http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan

        There is his plan for economic growth in one page.

        Now, let’s talk about the womb… For a conservative bunch of people who want libertarian freedom to ring out loudly in the United States– it seems that freedom for ends for some members of the society when it comes to the womb. It is the position of the Republican national party to over-turn Roe V. Wade and thus reset the clock on abortion back to the early 1970’s. But even more telling is that eliminating abortion seems to be only only prong of this attack on reproductive rights in the United States. Have not most of Right to Life Amendments been sponsored by Republican party? And when this failed the tactic has shifted to individual states such as the 2011 debate in Mississippi over the Personhood Amendment to the State Constitution. In both cases the idea is define personhood so rigidly that it would be a) illegal to use contraception in some cases as this would fundamentally stop the conception process (i.e hormone therapies), b) define the right of the unborn fetus as superior to the mother in many instances, and finally c) my favorite redefine the notion of rape itself if some one were to follow either Paul Ryan or Tod Akin’s view of reproduction… after all both Paul Ryan and Tod Akin sponsored a bill that used the term “forcible rape”… So you tell me who’s declaring war on a on women’s reproductive rights? The left that support women making a choice or the right who are telling women that hey rape isn’t rape until you can prove that you were truly forced into sex. That is great news for frat boys around the nation after all using a date rape-drug would not constitute as force and thus no rape so the frats must love this one. Togo party any one just don’t drink the punch if you don’t want to be gang raped by a bunch of horny misogynists.

        Murder Mexicans… no, the RNC is way to evolved for murdering Mexicans. No, they want an electric fence and self-deportation. Because after all people from Mexico aren’t as good as you and I. I know that at the RNC Convention they tried really hard to paint a picture of how they were okay with legal Mexicans. But, you know I have to say I never got the feeling that they really wanted to have Mexicans (or other Latinos) on the stage. It was more like we are down in the polls and Latinos are one of the largest growing segments in the population so we better look like we care. But none of the policies help people who are trying to make it in the US as immigrants especially not those from Latin America.

        As for nuclear war with Iran. I think the Republican party doesn’t want that. They want a nice neat conventional war. After all if they could topple Iran turn it into an ally again that would mean a field day for US Oil Companies in the region.

        As for putting black people back in chains: http://www.thetvbuddy.com/video/2403/Republican-John-Hubbard-endorses-Slavery
        I wonder how many African Americans feel that slavery was a blessing in disguise… I mean I’m sure that pickin’ cotton was just great fun– I know I would love to work for the white man all day long for no pay, poor food and crappy lodging. Then when I do get the yoke of the white man off my shoulders I can find out what is like to eat at the black only lunch counter or sit at the back of the bus, or be harassed by new over lords in white sheets– sounds like a treat! I cannot think of another set of social norms I would like to bring back or extol as being the paragon of American Virtues.

        But let’s not talk about those sticky social problems for now. I think the question I asked at the end was why couldn’t Ryan actually define his budgetary framework for tax reform. And the answer is simple.

        So article one of the budgetary plan is to cut spending from 40% percent of the GPD to about 20% the GDP when it comes to the government. That means about 5 trillion dollars if you do the math.. I’m sorry Romney you are still claiming a 5 trillion dollar cut in government spending. Which sounds great but first you have look at what is off limits:
        Military Spending… which is %4.8 of the GPD as of 2010 they won’t cut that they want to increase it by 554 Billion as of the 2012 House Budget plan. So that means it would be closer to %5.0 of the GPD when they are done.

        Next, are the Bush Tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 again these are stimulus programs. So those add about 1 billion dollars of debt to the plan so we have to subtract that amount from our total amount revenue. So some of the 5 trillion is already wasted because you don’t an increase in revenue to balance the cut out.

        So medicare and medicaid. Well clearly Romney cannot touch the medicare fund much. To do so would make him a one term President. So we know he cannot touch this program. However, medicaid is open game it is seen as an unearned safety net for the extremely poor and that is well fine. So he cuts 716 billion out of it and restructures it entirely as a block grant program. The program may or may not accurately adjust for inflation and population since is formula is population + 1% for inflation see his own website. That means it is very likely that if both inflation and population increase in a state at a steady rate that the block grant cannot keep up with the needs of the people. So this saving money yes, 716 billion clearly not 5 trillion.

        Then you Social Security- privatizing it. If we take the report that the Brookings Institute wrote on the subject about decade ago you see that models like the Peruvian model run on average 13% higher in costs and return 5% to the investors over the same period of time. You can look up the numbers. Not to mention the fact that if social security program for people in the 45-50 year bracket were tired to the 2008 crash– they would have been greatly hurt by stock market crash. But if he can take this system and recreate a social security system into this privatized system he could save about 800-900 billion in the budget. While giving the people who invest in it diminished returns.

        So where does Romney make his cuts? Well it is really smoke and mirrors.

        So he says he won’t cut the rich more than the poor. Well he won’t technically. He will just make the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent. So that will take care of capital gains, earned interest rate taxes, and passive income taxes without him having to do a thing.

        So, he saves some money by reducing or eliminating the EPA– 8.9 billion is roughly their budget in 2012.

        Then he would sell off the national parks probably ranging something in the 10-12 billion range for oil exploration.

        Next he would put us on Territorial Tax System… which is great if you make most of your money over seas. For example let’s say you pay 8% in taxes in China on your 100 billion income from your business their. In our present World System if you attempt to declare that in the US you pay 27% taxes on it to make the 35% Business income tax in the US. Okay, now with Romney’s Territorial System you only pay the 8% in taxes. Obviously, the numbers for China are not correct but in India the flat tax on Corporations is 30%. So that is 5 % lower than in the US. So on 100 Billion it is a big savings. This system would not encourage growth in the US since developing countries have lower taxes or corrupt officials that will give tax exemptions– it will only hasten the run to nations like India, China, Thailand and Singapore.

        Finally, he wants to reduce to the income tax across the board by 20%… So that means even less revenue would be generated by his plan.

        The next thing he wants to do is clean up labor markets! That is great basically he wants to end labor unions. Fantastic. I mean that will help.

        So basically… it appears that Romney is pushing the limits of his plan to try to tell people I’m going to grow the economy with the same bag of tricks that didn’t really work for W or Reagan.

          • So, I guess when countered with the facts about the policies– the best you can come up with PFFFT… Well that is fitting that is the best Ryan could do when pressed on his framework for tax reform.

          • I find your points to be tedious leftist boilerplate and see no reason to jump down the rabbit hole with you.

            Besides, there are plenty more “pffffts” where that came from.