Both combatants came into the sole vice presidential debate with different and difficult assignments. Vice President Biden came into the debate needing to change the trajectory after a miserable week for the Obama campaign that began with the president’s poor performance in the first debate. Rep. Paul Ryan needed to show the nation that he is a plausible second-in-command for troubled times while going toe-to-toe on the national stage for the first time against Biden, who had been involved in 18 major debates before tonight.
The debate started with a question about Libya. Biden admitted that there were mistakes but said the administration is “getting to the bottom of it.” Biden then said that Obama has promised to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and has and will. Why Obama never speaks of “winning” either war was not addressed by the vice president. Biden filibustered on the question of what happened in Benghazi, saying that Obama would “pursue terrorists to the gates of Hell” and has “led with a steady hand.” That steady hand flew to Vegas, not Hell, for a fundraiser the day after four Americans died in what was not a protest. Ryan said that Obama took two weeks to admit that Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and said we should have had a Marine detachment guarding the now-late Ambassador Stevens. Ryan said that Benghazi is indicative of a broader problem: the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy.
Moderator Martha Raddatz challenged: Was it too early for Romney when he spoke up about the Benghazi attack the night they happened? No, said Ryan, while Biden flashed his teeth and shook his head. Then he laughed, while Ryan described Obama’s foreign policy weakness. Biden called Ryan’s statement “malarkey” before unloading the line – debunked at the House Benghazi hearings – that budget cuts were related to the lack of security. Lie #1 came from the vice president, after interrupting Ryan giving a sober assessment of the geopolitical landscape after Benghazi. Biden even accused “these guys” of “betting against America all the time.”
Raddatz challenged Biden: There were no protests. Why did your administration say there were? Biden said there is an investigation but the intelligence community said there had been a protest. The intelligence community says now that there was no protest in Benghazi and they never said there was. Biden also said that Washington did not know that the field officers wanted more security in Libya. Lt. Col. Andrew Wood and Eric Nordstrom both testified to the House of their multiple requests for security, and denial of same.
On Iran, Ryan said that the Obama administration has “no credibility” and that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons at full speed. Credibility, said Ryan, is the key to solving the issue peacefully. Biden called that “incredible” and laughed, before calling the sanctions “the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions” and accusing Ryan of wanting to go to war. The difference between the candidates came down to whether Iran would be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capability or an actual nuclear weapon. Capability is the Israeli red line and the Romney position, an actual weapon is the Obama/Biden position. But once they have a weapon, it may be deployed or handed off to terrorists. Raddatz the moderator jumped in to voice skepticism of the Romney/Ryan position on changing the ayatollahs’ minds. She has already allowed Biden a pair of longer winded, non-substantive answers. Biden called the Romney/Ryan position a “bunch of stuff,” which he eventually clarified means “malarkey.” And then he laughed while Ryan described the state of Iran’s nuclear program. Then he chided the moderator: “Facts matter, Martha!” before saying that it’s not true that Iran is closer than it seems to developing a nuclear weapon.
Biden’s strategy became clear during the Iran exchange: Try to drive a wedge between Ryan and Romney on the subject of sanctions. Ryan never said that sanctions should be lifted, he simply argued for a clearer line that harmonizes with our allies in Israel. Biden unfortunately got away with blurring that fact.
At 22 minutes past the hour, Biden launched the expected “47%” attack. He cited seniors and troops in the field as among those Romney says are “not paying taxes.” He went on at length about how Romney, Ryan and the Republicans should “take some responsibility,” after Obama has blamed Bush for four long and wasted years. Biden has laughed, huffed and interrupted throughout the debate thus far, taking the wrong cue from last week’s debate. Romney never came off as scorning Obama, but Biden has nearly every time. As Ryan related a story about Romney helping a family in need, Biden had to stifle his disdain. Ryan fired off one line of the night when he said that “As the vice president well knows, sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.” Biden retorted: “But I always say what I mean.” So the middle class really has been “buried” during the Obama years…? Biden insinuated that the story of Romney helping a family in need was a lie: “If you believe that soliloquy, I have a bridge to sell ya.”
After a Biden dissertation on the economy, Ryan said: “Let’s not forget, they came with one-party control” before noting that the Obama plan has not fulfilled any of its promises. As Ryan discussed over 100 criminal investigations ongoing in the Energy Department, Biden interrupted him. Ryan was about one minute into his two-minute answer, and the loveliness on CNN’s scaled dipped sharply. Interruptions for their own sake do not seem to warm the undecided voter’s heart.
At about 32 minutes past the hour, Ryan pushed the CNN loveline meter up near its limit by noting that he favors Social Security and Medicare as programs that have helped his family but are now going bankrupt. ObamaCare, Ryan noted, has accelerated that bankruptcy and will create an unelected bureaucracy that will have as its mission the denial of care for the sick. Ryan tied the threat of ObamaCare both to current retirees and to the coming generation and the CNN meter went back up strong again. Biden responded that the $716 cut to Medicare forced by ObamaCare really is not a cut. The CNN meter flatlined. At about 37 past, Biden accused Ryan of “taking the full four minutes” for his answers. Ryan had spoken two full minutes less than Biden had by that point.
Biden consistently interrupted, shortening Ryan’s answers. Raddatz the alleged moderator let him. But allowing Biden may have been best for the Romney/Ryan goal: The more Biden talked, the worst he did on the CNN meter. Biden’s flashes of anger helped him but not much. Between the chuckling and the teeth flashes, Biden’s demeanor tended to be that of a brawler, not a leader.
Biden did his best when describing the tax cuts that should be made permanent. But as soon as he got partisan and accused Republicans of holding a “middle class tax cut hostage,” he dove on the CNN meter, especially with men. He then tossed out the proven untruth that Romney is proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Obama campaign deputy manager Stephanie Cutter admitted on CNN this week that that number is not accurate. Yet the vice president used it anyway. When Ryan pointed out that the number is incorrect, Biden cackled in the background.
Raddatz asked Ryan about the specifics of the Romney tax plan, then interrupted him when he started to answer. Ryan eventually was allowed to say that they have a plan in principle but they want to work with Congress to craft and pass it. Raddatz snapped at Ryan, Biden begged to respond, Raddatz cut Ryan’s answer off to let Biden respond. Thus far Raddatz has been an awful and very one-sided “moderator.” At this point a tweet rolled by: “Biden is about as charming as psoriasis.” The debate became a two-on-one game according to another, with Raddatz the long-time Obama chum siding openly with Biden. Ryan, said one tweet, came off as calm and sure despite the barrage of chuckles and interruptions coming at him from two angles.
On Afghanistan, both candidates allowed that security is not ultimately America’s responsibility. Raddatz tried setting Ryan up with a question: “How do you justify staying in Afghanistan?” Ryan said that one of his closest friends is fighting in Afghanistan right now and he wants that friend and all the troops to come home but we cannot allow the gains gotten on the ground to be lost. A little past the hour mark, Biden said it was “bizarre” of Ryan to say that the US should not signal the enemy when we are leaving with a specific timeline. Biden then scolded Raddatz in response to her question of why the Obama administration removed the surge troops from Afghanistan before the security situation had improved. The withdrawal was done, said Biden, because the Obama administration said it would be. Ryan scored well when he noted that after the surge troops have left, the remaining troops still have to fulfill the same missions. Biden said that that’s because many missions have been turned over to the Afghan troops – many of whom have taken to murdering US troops at the first opportunity. Biden kept insisting that the war is the Afghans’ responsibility, never admitting that they have become completely unreliable allies.
Ryan on Syria: The Obama administration should not have “referred to Bashar Assad as a reformer when he was killing his people with his Russian-made weapons.” Biden sighed and looked away but did not interrupt. Ryan continued: “This is just one more example of how the Russian reset isn’t working.”
Biden: “Russia has a different interest in Syria than we do, and that is not in our interest.” Right. Got anything else? How does President Obama’s promised post-election “flexibility” factor into that? Biden then allowed that while the Russians are arming the Assad regime, the rebels are also being armed too. By whom? Raddatz the alleged moderator never followed up.
Raddatz steered the remaining minutes of the debate to social issues. Ryan said that he is pro-life both because of his Catholic faith and because he witnessed the heartbeat of his first child while still in the womb. Ryan then segued into the ObamaCare infringement on the right of religious groups not to be forced to fund abortion. Ryan described the Obama position of federal funding for abortion as “pretty extreme.” Biden went into his compassionate vote before stating that he agrees and disagrees with his church’s position on abortion. When he said that he did not believe in “imposing” his beliefs on others, he scored off the scale on the CNN meter. That moment was clearly his high-water mark and may have undone much of the damage he did to himself earlier with the myriad interruptions and chuckles. When he went partisan to attack Mitt Romney’s position on abortion, he died on the meter again. The undecided voters evidently liked hearing that Biden opposed imposing his views on anyone but did not like hearing him attack a man who was not in the room to defend himself.
How to score this debate? Vice President Joe Biden was frequently irritating to the point of being obnoxious when he interrupted Ryan and even scolded Raddatz, demanding equal time when he consistently stayed a minute ahead on the talk clock. But he scored well when he went into compassionate voice mode. He never stepped on any landmines or dealt up any of the expected gaffes. Ryan held his own, but a time or two allowed the interruptions to halt him when he was about to make a good point. Raddatz learned the wrong lesson from the Jim Lehrer experience. The left accused Lehrer of allowing Romney to say too much. Raddatz consistently interrupted Ryan more often than Biden and consistently changed the subject just when it seemed Ryan would score. Ryan seemed to connect more often with the undecided voter, and never came across as undisciplined the way Biden came off more than once. Returning to the opening paragraph, Ryan presented himself as a knowledgeable and plausible vice president. Biden did far better than some expectations had set for him but did not, in my judgment, change the trajectory of the campaign. He did no real harm, but did not help appreciably either. The best he can hope for is that the poll slide his campaign has seen since the first debate will be slowed.
Paul Ryan wins it, narrowly, more narrowly than expected. Vice president probably brought his best game, but his best is often off-putting and even rude.
Update: A snap CNBC poll finds that Ryan won 56% to 39% for Biden. Brit Hume, Joe Trippi (the Democrat operative), Greta Van Susteren and Chris Wallace all panned Biden’s demeanor. A woman on CNN’s focus group called Biden a “buffoon” and the CNN meter during the debate pretty consistently showed a higher line for Ryan than for Biden. If the image of Biden as rude takes hold, then over the coming days he will end up farther from his goal of helping his ticket recover from a bad week.
I will point out what I will continue to point out, again and again, until the need passes–our liberties will be secure when we make them so, not when we leave them to the kindness of strangers–in this case, the MSM and the Joe Bidens of the world.
For as tonight has shown, they aren’t exactly keen on letting us get a word in edgewise, much less actually stopping them from doing anything.
Oh, and the fact that liberals and the MSM (BIRM) will be “reenergized” tomorrow, and the fact that it was achieved by a man running roughshod over other people, is for some reason apropos….
I think Biden needs to go change his tampon. PMS. I think he may need some Zoloft to get those mood swings in check.
Biden gave jerks a bad name.
I see a new commercial. First you have a picture of Navin R. Johnson. Then a picture of Biden with a big smirk.
Picture 1: This is a jerk.
Picture 2: This is a jerk on drugs.
Any questions?
The Jerk Store called. They need mo jo.
Lots of people thought Obama’s zingers at his post-debate rallies were his Jerk Store Called moment. Tonight we find out Joe Biden answered the call.
I absolutely loathed Joe Biden during the debate. I’ve always regarded him rather fondly as a sort of good-natured if slightly befuddled old uncle. Not anymore. I can’t stand him, and I don’t want to see his stupid mug for another four years. I don’t think I’m the only woman who was tremendously turned off by his asinine performance. He was nothing but a condescending boor and a lying blowhard.
If I had any doubts about voting for Romney/Ryan before, they’re all gone. I’d be voting more against Biden than anything else.
“I absolutely loathed Joe Biden during the debate. I’ve always regarded him rather fondly as a sort of good-natured if slightly befuddled old uncle. Not anymore. I can’t stand him, and I don’t want to see his stupid mug for another four years. I don’t think I’m the only woman who was tremendously turned off by his asinine performance. He was nothing but a condescending boor and a lying blowhard.”
I completely agree and feel the same as you.
Looking at the past 3 + years and looking at Biden’s performance tells why our country is in trouble. The people are entitled to know what is happening but the moderator(ess) and Biden made sure that no constructive message could get past that wall of ridiculous obfuscation put before the American people last night. Perhaps Biden was trying to set a new record for off-putting behavior and in his more than 80 interruptions, he won his point. Biden made it clear that no real information was going to come from that venue and in the open insult to the intelligence of Americans, while some might think he did well, the total lack of expected gentility, tha manners left back in Delaware and that constant smirkgave America the loud message that the country needs to be in more capable, and honest, hands
Couldn’t have said it better, and neither will any of the “experts”. Biden is a jerk’s jerk.
A local station interviewed some SMU students who I got the impression were democrat but I don’t know for sure. One kid said something very interesting. We live in a free country and we should show respect when another opinion is being spoken. He said in debate class the loose points if you interrupt. He said it was childish of Biden and was waiting for the audience to start yelling “Jerry! Jerry!”
Joe Biden was so rude and arrogant.
Biden got to talk 3 times on every question. 1st during his turn, 2nd during Ryan’s turn, 3rd the rebuttal. The “moderator interrupted Ryan often. From the outside it appeared Ryan was debating them both. Biden came across as rude and bullying.
Norrow victory for Ryan
be interesting how many times the liberal/progressive moderator (raddatz) said “be specific” to Ryan vs how many times she asked that of Biden.
Raddatz….isn’t she linked to obama at her wedding invites? And wasn’t her husband then now appointed (by obama) to head the federal communications commission?
And isn’t her new husband with the billion dollar big bird government welfare network, aka ‘public tv/radio’?
I guess only the transcripts will judge “be specific” relative to ryan vs. smirks-a-lot……..
Conservatives or anyone else who disagrees with Obama/Biden are being told to stop whining about the moderator. Isn’t that always the case. A blatant conflict of interest that would never be tolerated the other way around and is simply wrong. But to prove that the moderators (or a journalists, for that matter) ideology is of no consequence then lets have Rush Limbaugh moderate the next debate. Or how about an someone who attended church with Mitt 20 years ago? The defense is “she is a respected reporter) and thus her credibility is established and can’t be sullied because her EX husband works for Obama. I say the fact she is a reporter is ding number one, the wedding of 20 years ago, ding (2), the fact that her ex (and ex does not mean “on opposite teams” has or is a part of Obama’s administration is DING DING DING 3. Really? a qualified person without this impropriety or at least the appearance of impropriety could not be found? Or maybe one that could be depended on the cut Ryan off to allow Biden to interject could not be found. She played too big a role, unlike Jim Lehrer – who let the candidates sink or swim. Obama sank and without the life raft Biden enjoyed, he would have had to deal with facts and the facts are not on his side.
Just a week ago the libs were ready to lynch the moderator Jim Lehrer.
As usual, they mock Republicans for some behavior or complaint, then turn around and do it themselves when the first opportunity arises. Then they’re right back to criticizing the Repubs again like they never did it. In this case, it’s complaining about the moderator.
Despite his good performance Biden came across as a smirking fool. He would have won had he not come across with that condescending smirk of someone trying to belittle everything his opponent had to say with gestures.
HUGE Victory for Biden. I know you’re going to think I’m a progressive because I said that, but no. Here’s why Biden won.
He needed to re-excite his base. He did that. Proggies BADLY wanted to see the return of the old Arrogant, Dismissive, Rude, Aggressive Swagger that the campaign has had all this time until Romney bloodied Obama’s nose.
That Mean and Nasty Swagger was back, and the base (and the MSM, which is the most important part of that base) can celebrate it to kingdom come.
The polls are going to turn back to Obama now, and that’s why Biden won, even though Ryan had better substance.
You are delusional.
Bet you’re wrong. Most people don’t care for smarmy act. Rachel Maddow may love – the soccer moms don’t. That may sell in the MSNBC circles, but I think when people step back and look what happened, there going to realize that not only is Joe Biden a loose cannon, he’s a buffoon.
Pretty much everybody I know under 35 was enamored with Biden’s condescending demeanor.
Like I said, I don’t think Biden was out to win over new voters. He was just out to re-excite the Progressive base, the kind of people who like to see arrogant, condescending, blustering swagger from their side.
I just feel like the people that Biden may have turned off were never going to vote for Obama to begin with.
Personally, I wanted to see Ryan go for the knockout and blatantly call Biden a liar, a moron, and press that Obama is selling this country and its people out.
You really need to hand with a far better class of people. Like those with an IQ above minus infinity.
And guess what? Everybody under 35 are going to too busy fiddling with their wiis to bother voting.
Biden excited their base? That was his aim? By insulting your opponent? Boy you guys in the liberal base are really something! Did you notice when Romney mopped the floor with the brown mop that he was very respectful? Never once sis he smirk or resort to childish behavior. That’s called class. That’s something that neither Biden nor Obama has any idea about.
“The brown mop?” Take that racist bullshit elsewhere. There are a hundred ways to say Romney cleaned Obama’s clock without bringing race into it.
Ditto Nathan. In fact, I always suspect liberal trolls when B.S. like that pops up on this site.
Plus, many liberal commentators thought during the first debate that Romney’s facial expression when Obama was talking was condescending. I didn’t think so. I just think he looks like Bert on Sesame Street when he’s listening to someone.
Yes, and along with a certain other demographic, those would be the voters who put America in the position it’s in.
Halfwits.
Kit, I don’t completely discount what you’re saying about biden’s buffoonery targeted toward ginning up the base but I honestly think it won’t be enough. If it does prove signifigant then this country is in a seriously distrubing state.
I would honestly like your perspective of how this group of people you refer to under the age of 35 -an age which most people would think someone to have a resonable grasp of common sense- are influenced by behaviour which Biden displayed. I’m in my 50′s. Please, can anyone tell me what I’m missing here?
First, Worried Future, I must ask you to forgive my rudeness in presuming to answer a question that was addressed to someone else. Trusting you will and with your indulgence, I’ll forge ahead with my two cents.
Ans: Because this behavior is what the members of this target audience have had modeled for them by the so-called elite smart set from the day they were born, and lacking just about any discriminatory capacity to speak of, cannot risk pulling away from the herd to think for themselves and reject intimidation, insult, and glibly rapid ripostes whose only distinguishing characteristics are vulgarity or viciousness, or frequently both, for what they really are, which in most cases is nothing less than a blatant substitute for true ability. As others are pointing out, Romney presents the antithesis of this mind (or deficit thereof)-set.
To my knowledge one of the first people to point this out in the public arena was Laura Zametkin Hobson (of Gentleman’s Agreement fame) in her eerily prescient essay on Archie Bunker.
I’m 29, and I was astonished that Biden started guffawing with disdain for Ryan within the first five minutes of the debate. A little sarcasm or irony here or there I can appreciate, but Biden was snotty and disruptive for 90 straight minutes, and it’s strange to me that anyone would want such a clown as president in an emergency.
Joe’s giggles and his “everyone calm down” line will go down in history, in not a good way. Gore said “calm down,” too, in his debate with GWB. Then they bombed the USS Cole. Sobering.
It could be a disaster for Joe personally, the Obama campaign, and depending how they cover it, the MSM. Why?
Biden is winning the “who won” polls right now, but nobody is really denying he was a jerk. That means people will view the win as being achieved via unsportsmanlike behavior–and few things cause neutrals to decide someone is never going to win again (if they can help it) as being a jerk for no good reason while winning, or winning by being a jerk. It’s an evolutionary adaptation designed to give non-numero uno guys a chance against an alpha relying on bravado vice overwhelming brawn. They’ll team up and take the obnoxious jerk down, lest they be next on his list.
The MSM has the problem that Joe won, but did not do so honorably. Not report that, they are biased. Report it, hurt the Democratic ticket. Scylla and Charybdis.
This is by no means a great win for the Left. It is, long term–weeks, months, years–a defeat.
The MSM has the problem that Joe won, but did not do so honorably.
The MSM is fine with dishonorable. It pursues it fervently, in burying Fast and Furious and in parroting the White House spin – demonstrably untrue – on Benghazi. Tomorrow the MSM will report as a partisan at a barroom fight, cheering on the jerk and printing fawning fables on the exploits of the Cheshire Cat.
Many times the snap poll is won by the participant who was the most brash but that person becomes a loser the next day after people have reflected on it and talked to others over morning coffee. I seem to recall that happened in 2000 when George W. Bush calmly endured a constantly sighting Al Gore who kept intruding into Bush’s personal space. It was rude and obnoxious behavior, which few people want to see in a leader.
I don’t know which polls you are trumpeting but CNN and Fox and the odious MSNBC all rate Ryan as the winner.
My bad, it was CNBC and not msnbc that rated Ryan the winner.
Evidently you missed the MSM snap polls that have Ryan up by 25%.
On substance the debate was a draw…if you allow Biden’s unrelenting fabrications….they roll off his tongue like a sociopath on oxycodone…oh wait.
The American people give entertainers, atheletes and politicians a lot
of lattitude. One thing that doesn’t play well is humorless condescension. To bad for the libtards that humorless condescension is Joe Biden’s greatest talent.
I saw you running the same line on Green’s post. Keep wishing for a poll swing troll.
I think you make a good point about Biden’s mission, he was sent in to overcompensate for Obama’s deer in the headlights performance against Mitt the Man. Liberals and leftist generally go to ridicule and rudeness as their default mode when discussing the issues. Now the question is if Obama is planning to come out against Mitt with snark and sarcasm, rollin dem eyes, will he have enough command of his own malarky to pull it off as well as Biden? I don’t think so. He might try it but it will fall flat, especially when Mitt uses him for another round of whack a mole.
He’ll try, but Obama can’t pull it off the way Biden can.
Biden’s a politician who can play the Washington game, Obama’s a rigid ideologue trained in Chicago Mob tactics.
Obama won’t be able to play the same card without his absolute hatred for everyone who opposes him pouring out from every pore.
Where Biden looked Assertive, Obama will look Threatening.
And hopefully, going full-bore Threatening and Authoritarian (getting his inner Chavez on) will sink Barack the Sun King’s ship for good.
He’s a ridgid idealogue and a loafer. A lazy radical. He proved in his last debate that preparedness is not his thing. In some ways sending ole Joe out to do the work Obama was supposed to do the first time proves his laziness and imcompetence, and it is part of a pattern. The lazy radical wanted Obamacare but sent the old experienced liberal politicians in to do the work. Romney’s performance was so outstanding and Obama’s so pathetic the next debate he won’t have any choice but to release his inner Mr. Hyde, and your right it will scare the goobers out of the voters.
Biden’s task wasn’t so much to energize the base, but to reach undecided voters. His rude and condescending demeanor likely didn’t go over well with the fence-sitters.
I see your point. But disagree with the conclusion. His base might like it to help fix their wounded pride, but in general Biden really seemed like a first class jerk. His “charm” was far overwhelmed by his condescending, dismissive attitude, as if Ryan, (and the many that like him) are plain silly to challenge the establishment.
This is what i heard:
“Don’t worry your pretty little heads about the numbers, we got this. Ya know, the elites. And it is just laughable that I have to be here to explain elementary to this insignificant Congressman”. He may well have said “I am the Vice President and will not dignify you with addressing the concerns you raise or the numbers (that it is widely accepted, Ryan is the best) that you say are leading us the financial collapse. I will promise the American people the moon, with no way of accounting for it, because I can’t be bothered to think about or abide by a budget. If I can’t meet my promises, I’ll just blame the republicans.”
I don’t know that I’d call it a huge win, but I agree with the substance of your comment: Biden stopped the “bleeding” and lit a new fire under the Democrat base, but that may not be worth what it cost. He was rude and cranky by turns, and not just to Ryan … he went after the moderator a few times too.
Problem is the people that wanted swagger, swarmy and nasty are already voting for them. Independents and people on the fence not so much. If this is how dems are going to negotiate beyond “get republicans out of the way” it was not impressive. It was more 8th grade behavior.
I had hoped for a serious debate instead we got a drunken stroked out Biden trying to start a food fight.
Biden’s “Joker” grin (think Jack Nicholson) was creepy in the extreme. The man is incredibly rude by interrupting Ryan while he was trying to make a point on several occasions. While Biden may have done better than “O” did, it isn’t saying much. Biden seems to think that by saying “those are the facts” multiple times with a “really stern” look on his face that maybe it will make them become facts. About the only positive outcome I believe may have resulted from this debate for the liberals is they probably didn’t drive any more voters away from their message but I can’t imagine it winning any more voters….. but who knows, Obama won in 2008.
We’re all agreed that SNL needs to do a Biden skit this weekend portraying Biden as an angry old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn …..right?
I’m still waiting for SNL to do a skit on James O’Keefe doing stings on hapless (clueless) liberals. After each undercover tape, he steps outside, changes a hat, or adds a pair of glasses, or puts in a trench coat, checks that his camera is on and heads back for parts II, III, and so forth.
SNL would do that if they were *professional* comedians of the craft, but instead they never seem to have advanced beyond college kid days, full of self-assurance if not wisdom, occasionally delivering good laughs, but mainly full of self-satisfying snark for the in-crowd.
They’re just enforcers for a high school clique, just using skits vice gossip and put-downs.
VERY GOOD!!!
I felt that Biden was covering up his lack of knowledge with a whole lot of bluster and bullying. His comment that people need to calm down over Iran was NOT a winner.
Joe’s a nukular physicist who knows all about the booms that you have to make to make uranium go boom, and stuff. So chill. It’s all under control. Iran doesn’t have the booms cuz Joe says so, and Joe’s a smart guy, cuz he knows how to buy donuts with an Indian accent, so he gets the good donuts.
Well, Joe-the-klingon was just repeating what his master said earlier about Iran… Just a tiny country… no threat at all.
Where it comes to foreign policy… both those numb-nuts scare me. (And I aint talkin’ ’bout Romney/Ryan)
Note to Joe-the-klingon:
Google ‘little man gun barrel.’ Give me a couple of pounds of fissile material at 8pm and by about 8am, after a little scrounging around town, I can produce a very large smoking, glowing hole in the ground where this city of 150k is.
Joe, the Iranians are not concerned with producing a ‘boosted’ weapon. They want one that simply produces a fission reaction. It aint that hard after you have the fissile material.
Joe’s a nukular physicist so he knows the complicated trigger is used with the plutonium bomb, and the centrifuges are to make a uranuim bomb with a simple trigger, and … oh crap.
Well…it’s a little bit harder than that…but…yeah, pretty much.
Martha should have interrupted Joe and asked how much processed uranium would Iran need to make a dirty bomb?
^Those^ plus this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solution_Unsatisfactory
and a fascinating fact which slipped out of secrecy with negligible notice:
The US hired a couple of graduate mechanical engineers, with no training in
nuclear physics to design a fission weapon using opens source information.
Two years later, they turned in the blueprints for a 50KT device which could
be built in a well-equipped machine shop. Bigga-Badda-Boom.
Biden was a winner for the base, which includes the puppet media. The media has been in a position of having to report some negative things about Obama this past week, but I think Biden coming out like an attack dog will have excited them enough that they’ll start sweeping those negative stories under the rug even harder than they usually do.
Ryan clearly won on substance. Please. Joe Biden out-and-out lied his face off just like he always does. But for the Democrat base, style always counts more than substance.
It will be interesting to see what happens this week. I can see polls being tweaked to give Obama the edge again. I hope the GOP and Romney are working overtime to use Biden’s words in ads all over the swing states.
WHAT DOES A WASHED-UP POLITICIAN LOOK LIKE?
Joe Biden.
Television is a visual medium (obviously). People remember what they see on TV much longer than what was said. People will remember the snarky laughing and arrogance of Biden long after they have forgotten what he said.
Yep. Imagine all those people out looking for work today, or trying to figure out how to pay bills, or worried about the layoffs after the first of the year. I wonder what impression those smirks made on them.
Even more than being disrespectful to Ryan, Biden was disrespectful to all the people who have suffered because of this administrations lousy policies.
I think you’re right. No one is going to remember any particular answer from either Ryan or Bidum but what people will remember is the creepy, smiling, snarky laughing VP who looked about as serious as a barrel of monkeys. That’s what people will remember.
“Creepy” is the word! More like a rictus out of Hans Holbein…….ditto Obama’s, ditto Pelosi’s…….
The VP debate. Biden laughs it off.
And, in doing so, becomes the laughingstock of the nation.
Biden did better than expected, since that was a low bar.
I thought Raddatz did better than expected, but that was a low bar, too.
But here’s one thing: Ryan looked younger than Biden, and I think that, given roughly equal content, gives Ryan a small advantage.
If there’s one piece of advice I would have given Ryan, it would have been to be presidential. However, I fear that’s the one piece of advice that the Ryan prep team told him NOT to do, so as not to upstage Romney.
Q: DID BIDEN LOOK LIKE HE WAS READY TO PRESIDENT?
A: No. He looked like a washed-up politician who’s not even ready to be VP.
Biden looked like Obama’s assassination insurance policy.
On foreign policy:
I can take a random sample of any 20 people at work (approx 1000 at my company) and ask what they know about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, whatever. Pick a topic. 15 will won’t have a clue about it, and the other 5 might know the ambassador was killed and may have heard the name Fast & Furious.
So: What the hell do they know about anything? How do they make an informed decision on who to vote for? Answer: they don’t.
But they’re decision may be based on one of these:
1)Boy, that Joe Biden sure is passionate. He really knows his stuff.
2)Biden sounds like a raving lunatic. What a jackass.
It’ll be all about emotional response. Scary, very scary.
I had this experience with the owner of our company just yesterday. He didn’t watch the Romney/Obama debate but still had opinions on it. Amazingly he said he didn’t know Romney was the “father” of Obamacare, or that Biden had run for president before. He also didn’t know that Romney had been the guv of MASS, or that he had run against Kennedy for the Senate and lost. He gave me the wishy washy split about agreeing with the Dems on social policy but liking the Repubs on economics. Amazing that a business person doesn’t understand the dynamics of these ideaologies are mutually exclusive. But this is a guy who likes to have “co-managers” and asks “can’t we just work together” and “do whats right for the company”. NO leadership at all. But then, he didn’t build it, he’s a lucky spurm.
Biden reminded me of the Chesire cat in Alice in wonderland. The more he disappeared from the debate, the more his weird smile filled my screen.
Ryan was polite, clear, and v-presidential.
Biden was as impressive as a retired county clerk whose dream was to become a lieutenant-governor. And that nervous smirk…
This debate changed nothing. It is getting clearer that in November this country will get a new president.
Here’s something important in the debate that I haven’t seen a single person mention:
For something like a minute Biden went on about how Iran had plenty of enriched uranium, but “no bomb to put it in”
There are two ways to make an atomic bomb. One method is implosion which requires nearly perfect explosive lenses and often an atomic test to make sure it will work. The other method is called “gun-type” and is as the name implies as simple as shooting one piece of material into another. Plutonium can only be used in implosion type weapons, enriched uranium, however, can be used in either. The weapon dropped on Hiroshima was a gun-type weapon using enriched uranium that literally relied on gunpowder for the firing mechanism. The schematics are available online. Anybody with a bachelors degree in physics could probably build a gun type weapon if given enough uranium, including some hack from Al-Queida. Gun-type weapons typically require more fissile material than implosion weapons and are far less efficient (a smaller percent of the active material undergoes fission) nevertheless they can easily achieve yields sufficient to wipe out a city (Hiroshima was ~15kt). If the Iranians can get 60-70 kilos or so of highly enriched U235 they will be able to have a simple atomic bomb within days of deciding to build one. Someone needs to call Biden out on this.
Someone needs to call Biden out on this
I think Raddatz did, asked him if he meant they didn’t even want to build a bomb.
He just blustered, I think.
Have to check the transcript.
Let’s see if there is one yet …
Yup.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/us/politics/full-transcript-of-the-vice-presidential-debate.html?pagewanted=all
MS. RADDATZ: You’re acting a little bit like they don’t want one, though.
VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Oh, I didn’t say — no, I’m not saying
–
Here’s the thing about the Iran situation, there are no real answers, short of a major invasion by the US, Israel, and other (harumph) volunteers. Israel can’t do it alone, and the US won’t. But you can’t even say that in a debate. What Ryan should have said, what even Biden could have said, is that IF it comes to a US military option, it will make absolutely certain there is no nuclear bomb made there for the next twenty years, they won’t want to, and they won’t need to. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean? It’s very vague and it doesn’t actually mean anything, but it’s the best you can do.
btw, Ryan got major points with me for mentioning that status of troops business with Iraq, that Biden was supposed to be responsible for, that we never got. Ryan raised it at least twice. It probably flew over the heads of 90% of listeners, but it is an excellent point, if anyone is scoring content, which of course almost nobody is doing.
They did call him out on making it sound like they didn’t want a bomb, but I think what Biden was implying was that just because they had enriched uranium they weren’t close to making a bomb, which is a lie. Most people just assume that an atomic bomb is some horribly complex secret thing that takes years of research in addition to materials and Biden was kind of exploiting that. I know it would be far too technical for Ryan to explain what I did above in the debate, but I hope some commentator makes it known that enough enriched uranium virtually guarantees a bomb (and very quickly) if they want one. They could also point out that even just giving the enriched uranium to a terrorist group would enable them to make an improvised nuclear bomb that would be very likely to work.
Afghanistan borders Iran. Why not march our troops home from Afghanistan by going right through Iran to the Persian Gulf where they can be picked up by troop ships? On the way they can personally, feet on the ground, destroy all of Iran’s atomic facilities. At the end Iran has no atom bomb, and the troops have left the middle east having accomplished something positive.
Sounds like a fun plan, but I think the Iranians might have a problem with it. Best not to get them involved.
Driving through DC and sprinkling ‘Stuff’ around or scattering around on Metro subs and let people carry it hoome with them on their cloths will take a long recovery and clean-up. It does not have to be a massive one time explosion. The easiest low tech is the often overlooked.
This admin continues to avoid the issue, even in the worst case scenarios which all assume a one time immediate incident. Then they act surprised and unaware when things go south.
But what can anyone expect from the people who claim the border is safe, the Middle East are small countries, gun dealers are the problem, a jihad is a workplace violence, and that vets are the threat.
How’d Obama’s last hope so lose his cool?
Grinning, grinning and grinning, grinning, like such a fool
A grin with a body behind it.
Cheshire Cat:
Alice: My Daddy told me to beware of those who smile a lot.
Cheshire Cat: Why?
Alice: Because they are either very jolly all the time, which is unlikely, or have something to hide.
Cheshire Cat: But I’m not smiling.
Alice: What’s that on your face then?
Cheshire Cat: It’s a grin.
Alice: I don’t know if it’s better or worse, because a grin is a sort of giant smile.
Cheshire Cat: Smile or grin, maybe there’s another possible reason for it.
Alice: What’s that?
Cheshire Cat: Maybe it’s because I’m mad?
I said it from the beginning. I was worried about this debate.
Biden is a buffoon. But he has been in a lot of debates
over the decades and he has never blown it. He is no slouch.
Ryan was well-mannered. But it’s hard to argue with a drunk.
Drunken louts & loonies are dangerous in debates.
I hope the the gabbarati are panning his performance.
I’m glad the focus group didn’t like him too.
But I worried about this one.
I think Romney – if he avoids gaffes, can beat Obama
in all three debates. Obama is simply not a good debater.
Never has been.
If he comes off angry like Biden, he’ll look bad.
But I’m worried about the ‘town hall’ audience being stacked
with SEIU goons & leftist loonies and liars.
sure thing the audience will be stacked and the CNN larda** moderator will be more biased than Raditz . They’re probable about equal on the ugly as hell scale. Romney will need to be sharp.
My viewpoint of the debate was pretty much the same as yours, Bryan. I found Biden’s constant interruptions and Cheshire-like grinning to be rather unnerving, then irritating. He did seem to be over-powering Ryan on a couple of occasions but I gave Ryan points for not standing up and punching Biden right in the middle of his grin.
Raddatz did about the same as I expected. She didn’t exactly feed Biden his lines the way “Lehra” did Obama but did interrupt Ryan enough times to throw ME off my feed and she paid no attention when I shouted at her.
Biden came across as a smirking bully but, to the unknowing mind, seeming to know his business and Ryan came across as knowledgeable but a little too laid back and I thought he missed a couple of places where he could have inserted a telling point.
I found this debate irritating and frustrating to watch. Not sure if it was because of Biden’s histrionics or Ryan’s super-calm, all I know is I wanted to bite someone.
Did Ron Wyden really back away from the premium support plan? If so, I’m shocked I missed that.
Ryan missed several opportunities to effectively counter Biden, usually because Raddatz cut him short.
One example.. With regard to the Iranian “bomb” the proper answer is that Putin, just today, refused to renew the nuclear arms deactivation treaty for former satellite countries. He’s throwing our nuclear scientists out of the country. So as to the question of a bomb, the rogue state of Iran doesn’t have to invent one; just get one already sitting in one of these near former Russian states. That shouldn’t be too difficult given that the leader of Iranian program is a former Russian nuclear scientist who likely knows where they’re located.
As to the tax rate for Romney, the correct answer is that he already paid the full tax rate when he earned the income. Like most successful folks, he then invested it in companies, where their earnings we’re already taxed at 35%; the capital gains rate is intentionally under 20% to encourage investment and not triple taxation.
Ryan was right on troop withdrawals. The generals in the field insisted the withdrawals left the remaining troops exposed and the proof is the numbers. 1954 U.S. soldiers have been lost so far in the Afghanistan war. 1324 of those deaths occurred in less than 3 1/2 years under the Obama administration while only 630 of those deaths occurred in 8 years under George W. Bush. Further, while Biden talked up the use of “replacement Afghan troops,” this has actually made it more dangerous for American troops as the Afghan security forces are regularly infiltrated by Taliban and Al Queda operatives. The result has been a huge uptick in Afghan on Green (zone) violence against American troops.
About taxes… Biden continues to pound away at the millionaires/billionaires, but most of these will escape the largest increases if the 2001/2 cuts expire. These increases will mainly fall on the upper middle class, dual income married couples at their peak earning years and small businesses that file individually and have the audacity to make one cent over $250K in a single year. For the latter, this is not only their income, but their working capital by which they hire and pay employees and cove their benefits. This is the 3% of the small businesses that provide 70% of the jobs.
Biggest unchallenged lie… Medicare Advantage. Joe looked straight at the camera and said to Americans you have NOT lost you Medicare Advantage, have you? That’s because Obama earlier this year did not comply with his own ACA law requiring that the first cuts to Medicare Advantage(nearly $300M) take place THIS year. Instead, via EO, these were postponed till after the election! This lie was outright insulting to anyone in the know on this matter.
You need to apply for a job as a reporter! Does that profession even exist anymore? MSNBC (i watch from time to time to get an idea of where people get their wacky, one sided ideas, I can only do it in short spurts! These people are nothing but the 4th arm of the campaign (maybe fifth, I lost count)
1: The media
2: The DOJ-Sues any state that doesn’t want dead and illegal people to vote, but doesn’t even mention that the military in swing states absentee ballots were never sent to them-and still haven’t!!!!!. Oh, and the Black Panthers with billy clubs outside the voting places-drop those silly charges. That was NOT intimidation, ID”s are intimidation.
3. The department of labor (great numbers, unreconcilable with any other indicator. But rather than retake or recheck, they publish a number that everyone knows is false because it CONFLICTS with ALL other economic indicators. Did we see that sub-text in the MSM, or hear it on the stump? And, today, released a “jobless Claims report” but left out the fact that “a large state failed to report” but they published anyway. Think the truth will escape the MSM ad thus the average consumer of news? I guess the corrections to these reports will come out on Nov 7, when they show the truth.
4. Oh and the Department of labor again “Defense contractors – don’t obey the WARN act law, and we (the taxpayers) will pay for any law suits brought by laid off employees who didn’t receive legal notice We don’t want all those people to know what is coming in January, at least not until AFTER the Election. Is this legal? NO, but won’t be reconciled till, you guessed it AFTER the election. I am feeling a lot like I am paying someone to break the law, to re-elect a man I don’t want to re-elect and I don’t even have a choice. Did we join a union when I wasn’t looking? How can he use MY money to bribe these contractors? The answer is, he can’t, but it isn’t like the DOJ is all over this.
This all spells corruption to me. There, I said it. Lock me up. But it all walks like corruption, talks like corruption and we should not be so damn afraid to call it like it is!
Obviously, I’m so frustrated!
I’ve said it elsewhere, but as a dual income family, bang in the middle of the IRS’s middle quintile, on January 1st, if nothing else happens, we’re looking to see almost another 5% of our AGI disappear in various taxes. Since we have the misfortune to live in the North East Corridor, being in the middle of the middle puts you at the lower end of middle class and things are almost paycheck to paycheck as it is right now.
We don’t have 5% of our income to spare, and I’m going to have to forgo the employer health insurance next year and deal exclusively with Tricare, because they’ve done away with the lower level PPO, I can’t get the High deductible because I’m covered under my husband’s Tricare, and we certainly can’t afford another $20 a week in addition to all the tax increases.
I got to call my mother and remind her that I had warned them back in 2009/10 that if the PPACA passed I was going to lose my primary plan, and she told me not to over-react. While there is a certain satisfaction in being able to say “I told you so”, this is one instance where I would prefer to have been wrong.
Bufoon Biden made this debate almost unwatchable.
His extreme rudeness was unbearable.
What a pathetic human being.
That’s why I turned it off an hour into it, and I was listening on the radio. I’m afraid if I had been watching on TV and seen Biteme’s condescending looks and inappropriate grins, I would’ve wanted to throw something at the screen.
RADDATZ IS THE DEFINITION OF A MEDIA WHORE
Raddatz jumped in so quickly to interrupt Ryan after he had made a good point that it seriously undercut him. It, editorially, made it appear that what he had said wasn’t worth listening to.
It looked like the only thing Raddatz was concerned about was keeping her access to the White House.
Raddatz not only interrupted Ryan in order to prevent him from making valid points, she would then totally shift to another subject intentionally trying to rattle him.
This whole process has to change.
For the challenger, if you come across as competent, serious and ‘presidential’ you’ve pretty much won the debate. Romney and Ryan have already done that. At this point Romney just has to match his performance or close to it. All this other stuff about ‘winning the debates’ is inside the beltway hot air and is unimportant to voters. Then it comes down to one question on election day, do you want another 4 years like the last 4 or do you want to make a change. I’m guessing change will win out. It might not even be close.
I had to stop watching it. Biden was so rude & the moderator seem so in the tank for Biden she did not do her job confirming my opinion of a corrupt media not looking out for the folks.
It’s no narrow win. This was an unprecedented buffoonish performance by the sitting VP. That is going to take a while for people to fully integrate. It will certainly take more than the few hours that have passed so far. Once it does we won’t be talking narrow win.
Let me address this one ridiculous claim about the attack on our U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya that killed ambassador Chris Stevens. The notion that the Obama Administration should have immediately known that this was a terrorist attack and is somehow covering this whole entire incident up is preposterous. First, if there was no rioting across the Middle East in response to the anti-Muslim video, it would have been definitive that this administration was covering up this terrorist attack. The reality was that almost the entire Middle East was in fact rioting in response to this anti-Muslim video. It made the process completely impossible to assess right away. When you have a massive rioting all across the Middle East over an anti-Muslim video, to immediately assume that the attack on the Benghazi U.S. embassy was a terrorist attack would’ve shown how unprofessional we were had we been completely wrong, just like assuming that Iraq had WMDs or was involved in 9/11. We had to allow that process for the FBI to investigate it and make the correct analysis. Had there been no massive rioting across the Middle East over an anti-Muslim video, this would’ve been an isolated incident and the correct assessment could’ve been made immediately that it was in fact a terrorist attack.
“Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security”
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/biden_contradicts_state_department_on_benghazi_security
State had advance warning according to the Libyans. They ignored it. Ambassador Stevens was begging for more security. State ignored him. The riots were not about any stupid video that had been on YouTube for two months, they were a celebration of 9/11 and a cover for a terror operation. The White House lied and you are covering for them.
Please read my replies below to other posters before you make this ingenious observation. I’m sure you meant well, kiddo.
Here, troll, educate yourself:
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/71830/barack-obama-surrender-monkey-2/
By 9/12, many news sources knew it was a terrorist attack.
You want me to educate myself by reading up on a far right wingnut blog site? If extra security was needed at the Benghazi U.S. embassy months leading up to the terrorist attack, can anyone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this information was given to Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton?
She’s not going to jail if she messed up — she should just lose her job. We talk about reasonable doubt when dealing with potential criminals. It’s a ridiculous standard to apply to potential incompetence.
By 9/19 Amb Rice was perceived as a liar
“On Capital Hill today, Matt Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center now admits this was a terrorist attack with links to al Qaeda and Senator Collins expressed concern over the lack of security, as apparently confirmed in an intelligence briefing, that cost the lives of Ambassador Stevens and three others.”
http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/72179/susan-rice-is-a-damn-liar/
You are giving me a link to the same far right wingnut blog site again as your argument? Are you kidding me? Is this even a discussion anymore?
Has any of the agents testified that the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, was informed of the fact that the Benghazi U.S. embassy needed extra security, months leading up to the terrorist attack? Can anybody, anybody at all, show solid evidence that Hillary Clinton was informed of extra security needed, months before the attack? Does everybody know that the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, run the State Department and not the White House? Does this make sense to anybody at all? Does everyone know this at all?
Okay, Rob, I will respond.
In sworn testimony to Congress, the UnderSecretary of State said they had real time information. That means as it was happening. There was no protest. The first activity was noted was when they came over the walls.
Also Lt. Col. Wood has publicly stated that requests for more security were made when he and his unit were being withdrawn in August. These requests were specifically denied. He is to testify the same to Congress very soon. Subpoena for same drawn up today.
The government of Benghazi has confirmed that they warned us a couple days before the attack.
The consulate of GB closed up shop and withdrew in preparation for the day. Intelligence predicted this. You think they did not tell us?
I could go on, but you get the point, don’t you? These are hard facts. The Obama administration has even been forced to admit them.
This was a grotesque failure, so, yes, they have been covering it up. They have changed their story many, many times, but not too many are willing to lie under oath to Congress. If you do not trust the rightwing sites, you can tune into C-SPAN.
Now look Mark, the point that I’m trying to make is this – did this information reach the very top of the State Department to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? There has been no testimony to Congress to justify that Hillary Clinton knew far in advance that the Benghazi U.S. embassy needed more security. You know this. If Hillary Clinton knew far in advance and did nothing, this would’ve been a major breakdown but there has been no proof of her pre-knowledge of this. You know as well as I do that there are many levels of the State Department. How high up in the State Department was this information known is what my major emphasis is all about. I do not believe Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had pre-knowledge of this. If you can prove it, I will commend you for it.
Its kind-of like the DOJ, no one is responsible. I say you are responsible for all failures under your watch. Period.
I’m so tired of this puny legal spin crap. clinton is the secretary of state. She’s supposed to be on top of the these things…RESPONSIBLE. And if she’s not she bears the burden of blame, period! She’s shirking this off just like she did with her testimony about Fast & Furious. She claims to know nothing about it. But SHE is responsible for weapons passing from the US into a sovereign nation as the ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT dictates. Someone violated that law and the State Department is responsible for enforcing it -aka- the Secretary of State -aka- clinton. Well who broke it hillary?
She’s just another criminal hack in obama’s cabinet of irresponsible thugs and the sycophantic MSM twits never hold them accountable.
Rob – Considering that Larry Johnson got all his facts right and you’re ranting and raving about things that have already been settled, who’s the wingnut?
BTW: Johnson of No Quarter has sources in State and the CIA. Your sources are all in your head.
Larry Johnson got all of his facts right because he has sources in the CIA but uses blog titles like “Barack Obama, Surrender Monkey” on his website. Oh yeah, this guy is definitely very credible and being an avid reader of his website, I’m sure you are very credible too. I’m sure your psychiatrist agrees with me that you are very credible as well.
It should’ve been pretty obvious to anybody with two brain cells to rub together that the attackers knowing where the safe house was and attacking it with mortars was no ordinary “protest”. They held to the video lie for weeks until even the media finally forced them to admit the truth. While other people at the UN were calling it terrorism, the administration was standing up saying the knew it was a protest and profusely apologizing for the video. I’m sorry but an attack on a US embassy is an attack on US soil and protest or not the correct course is not to spend more time apologizing and blaming America than blaming the people responsible. I don’t care how “righteously angry” they were, they should’ve been shot as soon as they violated the embassy grounds, which they would’ve been if we had actual security who were allowed bullets. I simply don’t understand that. In that part of the world where the locals are prone to riot and storm embassies any time someone in the west exercises free speech the embassies should have entrenched and manned machine gun positions capable of stopping the largest mob.
Were you not aware that other embassies in Muslim capitals across the Middle East were also besieged? In Cairo, Egypt, the protestors even scaled the walls of the U.S. embassy, took down and burned the U.S. flag. It took Egyptian authorities’ intervention for them to not be able to breach the embassy. All of the riots that occured across the Middle East were right at U.S. embassies and each country had to keep the protesters from breaching the U.S. embassies. This was going on across the Middle East. So you are now trying to tell the American public that the Benghazi incident was an isolated incident? The Iraq War was an isolated incident.
tell you what rob…Biden and that hack Cutter have thrown the Intelligence community under the bus for the obama Admin. We’ll just have to sit back now and see how they’re going to respond.
Noone has thrown anybody under the bus. Look, this is a complete overreaction by a selected part of the public. The correct reaction would’ve been in 2003 before the Iraq War took place. I was one of the first that started piecing things together and knew even before the Iraq War started that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs or had any connection to 9/11.
Like I said in my previous posts in other threads, if you can fool the majority by just changing one minor fact or narrative and keep pushing it to the public, the handful of the few that catches it can no longer shift or change the momentum of your course or agenda. George W. Bush did that in 2003 to start the Iraq War. So to keep pushing this Benghazi incident falsely now is just vice versa of 2003.
I think Clinton and Obama simply spoke too soon and their initial statements were inaccurate. They were obviously under pressure to give forceful responses to the Libya atrocity, so that’s what they did. Cooler heads might have condemned the atrocity without assigning blame (anti-Muslim filmmaker) or trying to explain how it happened (protest out of control). There’s nothing wrong with saying “The situation is still chaotic, we don’t have all the facts yet, but when we do we will respond appropriately.” They didn’t say that, and they ended up looking stupid.
My take is, the administration’s first priority was pacifying our “allies in the Muslim world.” So the statement came out as “We condemn the atrocity but we understand your unique Muslim reasons for doing it.” Our ambassador’s dead but we feel your pain. Doesn’t that make you want to puke just a little bit?
As for Hillary’s culpability – you’re right, stuff like requests for embassy security don’t necessarily reach as high as her office. They’re probably handled at the bureau level. So unless someone can find proof that Hillary was briefed on the security situation and a) did nothing or b) refused requests for additional guards, one can’t say she was directly responsible. She could be indirectly responsible, however, if she made it a policy that embassies in danger zones like Egypt and Libya were to operate with minimal security – perhaps to keep a low profile and avoid giving the impression of American interference. We’d need proof of that, too. So far, she’s only responsible insofar as she is the head of the Department that screwed up. Should she fall on her sword? I don’t know.
The anniversary of 9/11 should constitute an automatic high alert at every American installation around the world, as well as at home.
What is it about these mad hordes who are pledged to utterly destroy us that gives people the idea that the relaxation of our vigilance will turn out well?
For the life of me, I just don’t get it.
I think I read today about one of the State Department guys at the hearings saying it was basically to maintain the appearance of normalcy. Libya was supposed to be part of Obama’s big foreign policy success story. “See how peaceful and friendly Libya is today! Leading from behind really works!” Surrounding the embassy with machine guns and sandbags (i.e., taking sensible precautions) would have revealed to the world that Libya was still a very unstable, dangerous, hostile country. Mustn’t contradict the One’s narrative. Basically, four people died because Obama wanted to look good.
Bugs, if you read my reply below to your first comment, I gave you a compliment thinking you were one of the few voices of wisdom on this one-sided website. Boy do I take that back. You are as nutty as everybody else. Does anybody think that we can cure the Middle East? Can we have peace with that region, even if we put our troops there for decades upon decades? How can you destroy an ideology that keeps carrying forward to their next generation? They are brainwashing kids as young as 4 years old all across the Middle East in madrassas to totally despise the West and our way of life. Have we removed the KKK in our own backyard? See the resemblance? Hypocrisy exists when one doesn’t look directly into a mirror.
Almost forgot – the list of things one mustn’t do lest one contradict Obama probably included evacuating Americans from the country as the British did. Like enhanced security, that might have given the impression that Libya wasn’t a stable American ally.
Bugs, it’s refreshing to finally see a response of wisdom being portrayed on this website. I literally thought that this was impossible. With that said, you also have to understand with some level of reason that this administration was not going out of their way of pacifying the entire Muslim world. They realized that we still have our men and women in the military that are still in harm’s way in Afghanistan.
For the past few months in Afghanistan, there have been incidents of green-on-blue attacks perpetrated by the Afghan troops turning their weapons on our U.S. military troops. These are the same troops that we have been training. We have had quite a few U.S. casualties already due to this new epidemic. If we do not quell this anger spreading across the Middle East like a wild fire, we would put our U.S. military troops in grave danger. I hope this makes sense for even the most unreasonable of us living here safely in the U.S., away from harm’s way.
Not saying your wrong. Just saying the way they handled it was not very professional. Much as I hate this cliche, I think that when the phone rang at 3AM everybody panicked.
I will say that I also believe part of the denial of security was due to budget constraints at State. Those are very real right now. But it looks as if they handled the problem like bureaucrats, not like people with skin in the game. When American diplomats are in real, imminent danger, State can always find the money and the means either to protect them or get them out of the country.
It looks as if the reason the Libyan situation wasn’t “escalated” and done something about was the administration’s desire that everything over there appear “normal.” Boosting security or evacuating would have made it appear that post-revolution Libya was still unstable and dangerous and definitely not our friend. Not the message Obama and Hillary wanted to send.
To sum up the majority of the “debate” (using that term quite loosely):
- Biden cackled in the background
- Raddatz, long-time Obama chum, sided openly with Biden
In the interest of “fairness” and “level playing fields” and all that, the Dems and MSM might want to issue a statement making it clear that in all of the scheduled face-offs, Romney and Ryan will be required to debate both their opponent and the moderator.
– died, Biden laughed.
– the playoffs. There was a debate?
– to prepare him to laugh like a pervert. Thought he was sentenced yesterday.
I didn’t realize VP debates came with laugh tracks. Nice of Biden to provide one; when the dust settled and the clown makeup was removed, it ended up the joke was on Biden. Tonight, Joe effectively kissed his political career goodbye.
– sentence with a nervous laugh is a clinical sign of a pathological liar — or serial plagiarist.
or a washed-up political hack
If you are looking to test the waters and want to take a glimpse at what a new future would look like, the polls are the best indicator of the glimpse of the future. Take a good look at the state-by-state polls. Look at ALL of them done by every pollster. Then take a good look at ALL of the polls done for Massachusetts by every pollster. You will notice that one candidate is ALWAYS behind between 15 to as high as 30 percentage points. Take a good look for yourselves and you will see what that new future looks like. Go to Real Clear Politics for the most extensive compilation.
Well I went, and I have to say you are a right, no need to even have the election this time, constant democratic leaning pollsters have Obama definitely winning in that burning red state of Massachusetts. But I will say if you are using Real Clear Politics as your source, the Presidents past debate performance plus this Libya tap dance, has cost him about a 58 electoral vote advantage.
For most of the debate, Radditz hammered Ryan and rolled for Biden. At no time did she focus the same level of follow-up on Biden that she kept lasering in on Ryan. There were a number of times when I wanted Ryan to stop, look at Radditz and ask her if he was debating one or two opponents.
That would’ve been right on!
As a former college level debate judge, I would give Radditz about a 60. Far too one sided; did not control interruptions; failed to keep time. Biden: possibly as much as 70. Interrupted repeatedly [according to one source, 83 times!]; did not stay on topic; reactions to opponent were unacceptable; command of facts sloppy. Ryan: about 85. Did not control time; responded to repeated interruptions; did not correct moderator.
Radditz was unprofessional as you would expect from the Demonrat Media.
I thought she interrupted Ryan at least 4 times when he was giving a great answer.
She definately should have made Biden quit interrupting.
After watching last night’s “debate” I cannot fathom why Romney/Ryan are not at least 20 points ahead and pulling away. To think that the grinning, gooning, smirking, laughing, lying parody of a human being is one heartbeat away from the presidency makes me shudder. To make matters worse, that complicit tool Radditz didn’t even challenge the two biggest lies of the evening:
1. A lapse in the intelligence community was at fault in Libya, not us.
2. We put the $716B back into Medicare (after we stole it to fund Obamacare).
“After watching last night’s “debate” I cannot fathom why Romney/Ryan are not at least 20 points ahead and pulling away.”
Do you not know how large the dependent class is?
I guess I am in denial.
I didn’t watch the thing, but the descriptions I’ve read make it sound like William F. Buckley, Jr. debating with Robin Williams as Mork from Ork. Given a vote, I’d plump for the candidate who didn’t act like a total spaz.
I think Ryan offers some solid benefits as VP – serious character along with knowledge of politics and economics. I would trust him if he ever had to take the reins as President. Biden – not so much. True, he’s an old Capitol Hill war-horse and experience does count. But as VP, I think he would continue to be what he’s been for the last four years – a wacky little sideshow. As President – well, God forbid.
i agree withstopping the wars but to just throw all the lives wasted defending us and them to let the enemy come back and take over is ludicrous! its vietnam all over again. PC fighting to not offend the enemy wtf ….
You will not find an interview like this i the lame stream media!
Published on Oct 11, 2012 by Ben Swann Reality Check sits down one on one with Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan. Rep. Ryan talks about his spending record and why he voted for TARP in 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnno2cUXMoE&feature=plcp
Taking into account this excellent article and all the responses above, this election seems to be about a choice between a European/Scandinavian style “big government as the solution to society’s ills” versus smaller government, pro-growth economic policy,and strong, responsible foreign policy.
Some individuals who are afraid that the Romney/Ryan administration will decrease the federal income they rely on will have a harder time actually thinking through the reasons that the Romney/Ryan economic approach makes sense.
But what seems to be upsetting many people today including me is the sense that, especially in this VP candidate debate, the moderator was biased and didn’t moderate effectively, and openly helped Biden and often cut Ryan off.
There was a time when journalists really did try to present both or multiple sides of an issue. But for many reasons, these journalistic standards have been replaced with the standard that what matters is stating your own personal view of the facts.
When journalists and moderators actually strove for objectivity and fairness, people felt like there was a debate, an exchange of ideas. The objectivity of journalists acted to neutralize the sharp differences. People could consider both sides of an issue and decide fairly for themselves. Now these days, it’s as if there are no referees, no guardians of fairness. Ideas are not getting to be exchanged as ideas.
There’s no brake on the polarization between the opposing political positions, as if the refs have joined one side or the other, and everybody’s now part of two opposing teams involved in one big brawl. No matter what news media you choose, you are listening to opinion media with facts chosen to support the political position. We have come a far way from when there was even an ideal of objective reporting. That ideal is barely remembered.
In addition, when a politician doesn’t have ideas to offer he/she offers character assassination. Now you don’t have a discussion of ideas you have Biden attacking Ryan personally through his contemptuous facial, body language and almost continuous laughing and smirking, as well as verbal disrespect and dismissiveness such as “that’s malarky,” etc.
Those who were for Obama saw in Biden what they wanted to see: some hope that Obama/Biden can win the election and many progressive commentators disregarded completely Biden’s disrespect and dismissiveness towards Ryan.
I do not think Independents or undecideds were favorably impressed with Biden’s performance. It was so insulting, arrogant and smug it seems it is inconsistent with the behavior of any responsible adult person towards another, let alone a person in the next to the highest political position in the land.
It is sad that a large number of people see Biden’s performance as a sign of “strength” when it showed a great deal of personal weakness. When arrogant smugness and character assassination pass for “Presidential” leadership, when moderators who take sides are considered to be doing a “good job” by journalists because they liked her support for their candidate, and when speaking about serious ideas at a debate gets drowned out by continuous laughter and interruptions at the Vice Presidential level, where are we in this country?
Biden grinned like a maniac, laughed, made faces, burbled on about the “47%” and how mean ol’ rich people need to be taxed more, cuz they’v got all the money, told Ryann he “Loved” him, laughed some more, made more faces, grinned some more, and, in general, gave the very strong impression he was under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol. He also contradicted his own administration’s story on Libya.
A voting base that could be “energized” by such an asnine performance is too dumb to vote, period; if they vote for this jackass, and his boss, they deserve whatever they get, post-election. (And they will get it—right up the wazoo.)
Of course, progressives like Rob will continue to try and spin this all as a great victory for the progressives (and convince us that Libya never happened); after all, they know Obama’s gonna them a chicken in every garage, a car in every pot, a new cell phone and lots of free MONEY!
Maybe Biden did some choom before the debate. You know – just to calm his nerves. I hear they got some primo s**t at the White House these days.