While Dems assert Joe Biden won the VP debates, their joy might be short-lived should they unpack their argument or follow it to its logical conclusion.
If it’s true that “Biden won,” (and it isn’t, not by a long shot), the idea would thus reflect the following: 1) Joe Biden is the Administration’s “thought leader,” 2) Joe Biden is the White House debate champ, 3) Joe Biden matches up against Paul Ryan better than Mr. Obama does versus Mr. Romney, thus, 4) Obama was still crushed by Mitt Romney in the presidential debate.
And where was the Paul Ryan with the devil horns, or Mitt Romney, the Democrat’s said-to-be Adolph Hitler minus the moustache? Missing. Still missing. Always missing.
Biden’s increased stature—asserted by the Dems—means Obama’s diminishment.
Desperate acts for desperate campaigns.
OK, the Paul Ryan workout photos aren’t that flattering.
Wouldn’t that be the entire reason Time ran them?
The good news? Count your blessings they didn’t run the Joe Biden workout photos.
The Joe Biden workout photos would lead to a nationwide decline in gerontophilia not seen since Harold and Maude.
When is a vice presidential debate a draw and when do voters split?
When you’re CNN (and when Paul Ryan beats Joe Biden 48-44).
Clearly the Administration’s strategy was to demonize Mitt Romney (Paul Ryan would just be collateral damage, should it occur) as well as Joe Biden could muster.
Joe Biden’s method was a one-two-three combination of 1) smirk, 2) debatus-interruptus, and 3) policy can-kicking. His early-on debatus-interruptus was successful in making the debate difficult to follow at parts—even the moderator seemed a bit peeved at the uneven process—as Joe’s wooden choppers gleamed whiter than his shirt.
However, sadly for the Obama re-election effort, Mr. Biden, flawed as he was, far outperformed his boss (but that ain’t sayin’ much).
Mr. Biden strikes me as a political animal who will do and say anything to advance his team’s cause. However, his Obama-approved message is simply wrong, backwards looking, and unsustainable. Plus, he’s unable to articulate the superiority of his ideas (made more difficult by the absence of such superiority) in any sort of compelling way. Joe’s fall back position depends on insider name dropping, platitudes, and still more smirking.
Those intel guys just have to be loving on Biden (not)—we’ll see how the IC comes back at Joe.
And Ryan also got GaffeMaster Flash with the zinger of the night, a beaut.
Dana Milbank is a reliably liberal media lapdog at the Washington Post (not the John Philip Sousa march, but the newspaper).
Sometimes—through random success, just as a blind squirrel might find an acorn—Milbank says something funny, interesting, or topical. Generally, he does not.
In this recent column, he does not enjoy random success. Instead, Milbank delivers a reliably partisan and predictable attempt to slime Paul Ryan. Why? Because 1) Raul Ryan’s budget position has been endorsed by Mitt Romney and 2) Mitt Romney will running against Barack Obama in November.
Milbank’s issue at hand is that Paul Ryan had the audacity to deliver a draft budget instead of taking the do-nothing approach meekly favored by the Harry Reid-controlled Senate (no budget in three years, but they did reject the President’s 2012 budget 97 to zero) or the fairy tale/mentally ill 2013 budget delivered by the President (non-endorsed 414 to zero in the House).
Here’s Milbank’s beef:
…Ryan, the author of the House Republican budget endorsed by Mitt Romney, said his program was crafted “using my Catholic faith” as inspiration. But the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops was not about to bless that claim.
A week after Ryan’s boast, the bishops sent letters to Congress saying the Ryan budget, passed by the House, “fails to meet” the moral criteria of the Church, namely its view that any budget should help “the least of these” as the Christian Bible requires: the poor, the hungry, the homeless, the jobless. “A just spending bill cannot rely on disproportionate cuts in essential services to poor and vulnerable persons,” the bishops wrote.
Milbank’s writing is disingenuous at best, ignoring the overarching context the mentioned and earlier budget-focused USCCB letters to the Congress, both of which say the following:
1. Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
2. A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
3. Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.
The above context provides much for the USCCB to find wrong with all versions of the federal budget (and more so, for every federal budget ever produced). First, and of greatest significance, think Obamacare and abortion and ponder how that protects or threatens human life and dignity. But the USCCB also groused against proposed Administration cuts to “safe and affordable housing,” the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, and “the entire foreign operations budget.”
But noticeably unmentioned by the USCCB is the whole Exodus 20:15 thing, better known as Thou shall not steal.
By continuing to grow the federal deficit in the Obama manner, the Administration is stealing from future generations (assuming the debt is someday repaid, a stretch) or else from debt holders (who will be forced to take pennies on the dollar paybacks).
Obama will be forced to address his record during the campaign and after the elections, Mr. Milbank will be able to settle into the intellectual easy chair of railing against the new president and nostalgically longing for the old one. It’s good work if it suits your disposition.
Obama accuses the Ryan budget of being all about “social darwinism.” You know, survival of the fittest.
The Ryan budget effectively accuses the Obama budget—which was crushed 414 to zero in the House—about being about “social de-evolution.” You know, learning to eat from the benevolent trough of government, or perhaps better, survival of the fattest.
The Obama 2012 philosophy is all about survival, regardless of method. This includes promising the takers to vote themselves more and more bites from the apples of the makers or campaigning on crude caricatures and false claims. It’s a philosophy that’s unsustainable.
Poverty is often described as man’s normal condition. That’s perhaps why it’s been so easy for Obama to get us to this “new normal” we’ve been living under since just before—and throughout—his term.
Is Obama truly a radical? Well, based on his record, one conclusion can clearly be drawn: he’s been radically inept at fulfilling his 2008 promises.
By Dana Milkbag, Published: March 20
Look, you know, I know, we all know: I’m a liberal Democrat. I write from a liberal Democrat’s point of view, I see the world through unflinchingly liberal (in the current sense of the word and not the traditional use) mindset, and yes, all writing is autobiographical.
As such, I’m compelled to attack Paul Ryan for performing his “Congressional duty” in providing a budget plan. Ryan said the Republican presidential nominees “are cool” with any reasonable plan that moves the nation away from so-called “financial suicide.” (I just wish you could see the sneer I’m typing with. It’s an awesome sneer; bold yet righteous, much like George Clooney would do if he were to play me in a movie about my life.)
“Do you wholeheartedly believe they will accept your budget?” NPR’s Duke Nooghat tweeted from the audience.
“Of course,” the House Budget Committee chairman tweeted back, in three parts, and without hesitation. “We’ve offered something. The President’s plan is nonsensical and delusionary; the Senate hasn’t had a budget in a thousand days, and in the real world, something beats nothing. So yes, I’m confident.”
Because I’m viscerally opposed to Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, I have no problem in using one sentence of his, taken totally out of context, when he said “I’m not concerned about the very poor.” As it turns out, Ryan has provided the very plan that supports Romney’s disgraceful and dirty position.
Ryan’s plan would—according to him—cut the deficit. A world-class scaremonger, Ryan says the government’s financial situation threatens to enslave future generations, will destroy trust in government promises, and when America is bankrupt, will completely cease to provide any safety net function for our truly needy citizens. Whatever.
How does a man like Ryan even become a Congressman? He appears to have not learned the first rule of government spending. Doesn’t he know We can’t be out of money because there are still checks in the checkbook?
On top of all this, Ryan would then give most of the savings to America’s haves: some $4.3 trillion in tax cuts, compared with current policies, according to the non-partisan National Socialist Citizens for Tax Justice.
Incredibly and further offending all progressive sensibility, Ryan chose to use the Bible as a source of moral justification, dropping the line “If a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat.” There is, he said at the reactionary American Enterprise Institute later Tuesday, an “insidious moral tipping point, and I think the president is accelerating this.” Too many Americans, he (Ryan, certainly not the President) said, are receiving more from the government than they pay in taxes.
Again, Ryan’s position is not only absurd, it’s cruel: all Americans have the right to receive more from the government than they pay in taxes. Except Republicans.
Ryan’s plan also forgets the fact the entire market-based system as we now know it is severely broken. As proof, I offer the fact our internal analysis shows no one, not one at all, not one person in America, will read my column if it’s put behind the proposed Washington Post-It paywall.
Ryan’s family, who immigrated from Ireland generations ago, apparently instilled in him a belief in the false-virtue of people who “pull themselves up by the bootstraps.” Certainly these simple people–of which Ryan appears to be one still–could not possibly understand the living-breathing form of democracy we’re evolving to where the government is the grantor of rights and the determinant of all. Instead, Ryan (who should be played by Javier Bardem in that movie about me) said a too-generous safety net “lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency, which drains them of their very will and incentive to make the most of their lives. It’s demeaning.”
How very kind: to protect poor Americans—that’s practically all of us anymore, except the Koch brothers, all thanks to George W. Bush—from being demeaned, Ryan is cutting their anti-poverty programs and using the proceeds to give the wealthiest Americans a six-figure tax cut. The idea that it might be their money to begin with is antithetical to all that I am.
I’ve already worked up a headline for Ryan’s plan, should it come to pass. It goes like this, and I think you’ll agree, is stunning in both its originality and its simplicity: Republican spending plan put in place; poor, women, and minorities hardest hit.
And Ryan thinks the eventual Republican presidential nominee will campaign on his plan? Apparently. “I’ve spoken to all these guys,” Ryan assured reporters, “and they believe that we are heading in the right direction.”
This, and strident partisanship (not Democrats, thankfully), explains a lot about the Republicans’ difficulty. It also explains why our nation’s most important writers and thinkers, men and women of noble character to include your humble scribe, remain firmly opposed to anything Republicans offer.
Copyright 2012, Washington Post-It Corporation
(If you must, read the original here.)