The question about illegal immigrants that people should be asking

Joe Biden, whose sole virtue seems to be the fact that, just occasionally, he opens his mouth and offers a clear insight into the Obama administration, had this to say about illegal immigrants:

You know, 11 million people live in the shadows. I believe they’re already American citizens. These people are just waiting, waiting for a chance to contribute fully. And by that standard, 11 million undocumented aliens are already Americans, in my view.

In response to which one of my friends asked the obvious follow-up question: “If 11 million undocumented migrants are already American why do they all wave Mexican flags around?

You mean like this, from a rally in Los Angeles?

mexican-flag-flying-above-upside-down-american-flag

Or this, from a rally in San Francisco?

Mexican flag at immigration rally

Or this, again from Los Angeles?

Immigration rally with Mexican flag in LA

Yup, clearly already American citizens. After all, it’s the American citizens who won’t even stand for their own flag.

Just a little round-up of a few things that caught my eye

Victorian posy of pansies

This one’s a little bouquet of stuff, hence the little bouquet “branding” photo:

Queen Victoria was famous for using the royal “we” because she understood that all of her public utterances were on the nation’s behalf.  Barack Obama and Joe Biden don’t get that.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions — and no one purports to be better intentioned than a liberal.  Cracked! looks at some laws that looked good on paper but didn’t actually work — kind of like Obamacare.  No, wait!  Even on paper Obamacare looked like a Hieronymus Bosch vision of Hell.

Speaking of both Queen Victoria and Hell, I’m reading Jane Ridley’s Bertie: A Life of Edward VII. There are truly no words to describe what an emotionally abusive mother Victoria was, especially to Albert Edward (aka) Bertie, who went on to become King Edward VII. He was never a great man, but he was a surprisingly decent man considering the truly hellish childhood he suffered at his parents’ hands.

Rep. Tom Cotton — a throwback to a (much) better time.

If you have anything to add, please consider this an Open Thread.

Same old, same old, which I enliven with predictions for the next twelve months *UPDATED*

bored-baby

Here’s an old joke:

An established comedian invited a friend to join him at a very exclusive “comedian’s club.”  The guest instantly noticed something peculiar.  In the main room, a person would periodically stand up and shout out a number.  “57,” one would say, and a few people in the room would chuckle.  After a moment’s silence, someone would holler, “18,” and be rewarded with a chorus of good-natured “boos.”

This pattern continued for a while, until someone shouted out “77.”  While a few people let out a short bark of laughter, one guy in the corner was utterly beside himself.  He roared with laughter, until tears were rolling down his face.

The guest turned to his host and asked, “What gives?  What is it with these numbers?”

“Well,” the host explained, “it’s like this.  We’re all professional comedians here and, to be honest, there are only so many jokes around.  It got tiring and boring for someone to tell a joke that everyone already knew, so we started assigning them numbers.  It’s kind of like a joke short-hand.  People still laugh — if they want — but it definitely saves time.”

“Okay,” said the guest.  “I get that.  But what about that guy in the corner who collapsed with laughter when someone shouted out ’77′.”

Oh, him,” answered the host.  “I guess he hadn’t heard that joke before.”

Yes, it’s a surreal joke, but it also explains why I’m having problems blogging lately.  When I read a story about Obamacare, I can’t add much to posts I’ve written going all the way back to 2009.  I predicted then what would happen now.  “You’ll find that in posts 384, 943, 6749, and 34052.”  Events in the Middle East?  I foresaw those too, including Obama’s love affair with Iran, and Israel’s and Saudi Arabia’s entirely predictable coming together against that common enemy.  “See posts 3489 and 9492.”  Government data manipulation?  We covered that too, as we did with gun control, amnesty, foreign policy, etc.

I’ve moved out of fresh and into “I told you so.”  As a writer, “I told you so” is boring.  It’s also especially boring for all of you, because you were right there with me, making the same predictions.  We all saw all of this coming.

The only thing that’s kind of newsy now is watching the oh-so-smart Leftists figure out that they’ve been had.  It’s not actually real news, of course, because we all saw this coming too, but it’s still fun to watch.  As to these Obamabots, it’s not just that a specific politician has “had” them.  Their entire ideology is disintegrating in front of their eyes.  Most, of course, will plunge into frenetic denial.  That’s old stuff too.  For 100 years, communists have been saying that communism is perfect; it’s the implementation that’s flawed.  When today’s Leftist’s rant against the president, the party, and the people, they’re foll0wing an old script.

A few Leftists, however, will draw back and say, “We were wrong.  We were wrong about everything.”  That’s been done too.  They’ll be joining David Horowitz, Michael Medved, Thomas Lifson, David Mamet, Sally Zelikovsky, the Power Line guys, and scores of other people who already had their Road to Damascus moment when they realized that Leftism isn’t poorly implemented; it is, instead, fundamentally flawed.  I certainly won’t think as highly of these new converts as I do of the older generation.  The older generation didn’t need to see America’s economic collapse and her fade into international irrelevance to see which way the wind was blowing.

Since everything seems to be “same old, same old,” except even more so, what would be new and exciting news for a blase blogger in the next twelve months?

1.  Obamacare’s repeal, although unscrambling that egg will be virtually impossible.  Even if they wanted to, huge institutions such as heavily-regulated insurance companies and hospitals cannot turn on a dime.  The somewhat functioning market will have been destroyed, which nothing lined up to take its place.  Worse, we know that Republicans politicians are incapable of using the headwinds of repeal to revitalize the free market.  (Remember:  Democrats have bad ideas and effective politicians; and Republicans have good ideas and brain-dead cretins in office.)

2.  A groundswell of popular support for Obama’s impeachment.  Of course, that would leave Biden in charge, which is not a pretty thought.  The likelihood is that, if he could, he’d move Elizabeth Warren into the Veep seat to stymie Hillary.  It would be amusing, but just as bad for America as Obama himself.

3.  Israel’s alliance with the Gulf States to launch a devastating attack against Iran’s missile systems and nuclear centers.  With strong American leadership, this could actually have a good outcome, freeing Iranians from decades of appalling Islamist repression and destabilizing tyrannies in a way that leads to genuine freedom throughout the Middle East.  With our current leadership, a leadership that will have made such an attack necessary in the first place, one can only imagine that the Middle East, the entire Middle East, will manage simultaneously to implode and explode.  The human costs will exceed imagination and, because of oil, those costs will encompass the entire planet.  Canada, Brazil, the US, and other places may be coming up as major oil producers, but losing Middle Eastern oil in a single day would have incalculable consequences on modern life.

4.  The 2014 elections resulting in a Republican sweep the likes of which has never been seen in America.  In a way, though, coming as it would midway through Obama’s so-far disastrous second term, this would also be ho-hum news, even if both House and Senate changed hands.  What would be more interesting would be to see places such as Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Francisco jettison their Democrat ruling class.  I’m not holding my breath on that one.  The residents in those cities routinely use elections to double down on failure.

5.  Obama comes out of the closet.  (And, come on, you know he’s in there.)  That wouldn’t affect anything politically, but it would make for great headlines, especially if Hillary refuses to be one-upped and comes out too.

6.  Schadenfreude here, but I will enjoy watching New York in the first year of the de Blasio administration.  I should start running a pool taking bets as to how long it will take de Blasio to reduce New York to its 1970s status.  We all know that it’s easier and faster to tear down and destroy something than it is to renew and revitalize.

7.  The New York Times will declare bankruptcy.  I see that as inevitable, although would actually be surprised if it happened in the next twelve months.

8.  People definitively reject anthropogenic global warming.  As with the New York Times’ bankruptcy, this is inevitable.  I just don’t see it happening in only 12 months.

9.  Oprah recants and announces that she’s no longer calling for the genocide of “racist” people who don’t support Obama.

10.  Palestinians lay down their arms.  The previous nine hoped-for headlines all have a possibility, even a small one, of coming true.  This one does not, but it sure would be great news, and it would snap me completely out of my writer’s doldrums.

And, for those joining me in ennui, some music:

UPDATE: Hmmm. A James O’Keefe tweet suggests that tomorrow may bring some news we haven’t already heard before.

Yet another ferocious attack from the Wall Street Journal against President Obama

Yesterday I directed your attention to one of the angriest editorial opinions I’ve ever seen in the normally temperate Wall Street Journal.  What I missed was that Daniel Henninger, who’s also a normally temperate writer, also leveled a huge mortar round of ugly facts against our President:

We should admit the obvious: Barack Obama is the most anti-political president the United States has had in the post-war era. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter (even), Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush. All practiced politics inside the tensions between Congress and the presidency that were designed into the system by the Founding Fathers. Not Barack Obama. He told us he was different. He is.

Mr. Obama doesn’t do Washington’s politics. Disappointed acolytes say it is because he is “passive.” That underestimates him. For Mr. Obama, the affairs of state are wholly a function of whatever is inside his mind.

Some things remain in his mind, like the economic benefits of public infrastructure spending, which appeared one more time in Monday’s post-Navy Yard speech on the lessons of the financial crisis and Congress’s obligations to agree with him. Some things enter his mind and then depart, like red lines in the Syrian sand.

From where he sits, it is the job of the political world outside to adjust and conform to the course of the president’s mental orbit. Those who won’t adjust are dealt with by the president himself. They are attacked publicly until they are too weak politically to oppose what is on his mind.

This is the unique Obama M.O. For historians of the Obama presidency, this September has been a case study in the 44th president’s modus operandi.

Please read the whole thing here.

As with climate change, I feel vindicated — but a fat lot of good vindication does me.  The damage is already done whether to our economy or our national security.

Voters duped by a Leftist media first gave us two years of unbridled Progressive politics, then at least four years of divided politics (2010-2014, or maybe 2016), and another three plus years of Barack Hussein Obama.  Eight years is a long time within which destructive forces can do their dirty work.  The turnaround won’t be instant and won’t even be eight years.  If conservative principles do take hold again, it may take decades to undo the damage.  And given the current infighting amongst those who call themselves Republicans, it looks as if the somewhat more conservative party in America is once again setting up its circular firing squad.

Sometimes I think that the only thing that will save the Right in 2016 is the fact that Democrats are also going to have a presidential primary.  No matter how the actual election goes, I’ve got the popcorn and chocolate ice cream ready for the delightful spectacle of Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren, three of the worst liars in politics today, squaring off against each other.

Some articles about Ted Cruz that speak to what I like about him and what I worry about him

Rich Lowry wrote a great article today about the Democrats’ enormous frustration with Ted Cruz:  Cruz ought to be one of them, since he’s manifestly brilliant and hyper-educated . . . except that he refuses to be one of them.  I especially liked this bit:

Democrats and liberal pundits would surely dislike Cruz no matter where he went to school, but his pedigree adds an extra element of shocked disbelief to the disdain. “Princeton and Harvard should be disgraced,” former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell exclaimed on MSNBC, as if graduating a constitutionalist conservative who rises to national prominence is a violation of the schools’ mission statements.

It almost is. Princeton and Harvard aren’t quite the École Nationale d’Administration, the French school that trains that country’s political class, but they are close.

Andrew Stiles assembled a list of quotations from Democrats anxious to destroy Cruz before he gets a solid footing as a national candidate.  They realize that he’s Obama’s mirror image — Ivy League-educated, intelligent, a minority, and appealing to the masses — except that in Cruz’s case, he actually is intelligent and has the Ivy League grades and the work resume to prove it.  More than that, Cruz has a great deal of experience with the federal government, something Obama lacked.

Cruz is, in other words, the un-Sarah Palin.  He cannot be demeaned in order to be destroyed.  Because Cruz’s credentials hold up to scrutiny, and because he’s been very careful about making his life an open book, unlike the secretive Obama, Democrats are left with two lines of attack:  Cruz isn’t really a minority (because he doesn’t support Democrat policies, which is the litmus test for all minorities) and he must be insane or evil:

The liberal media are obsessed with Texas’s freshman senator Ted Cruz. The most recent outbreak includes a Daily Beast hit piece about his “creepy” college years at Princeton, as well as a flurry of articles about whether his Canadian-American dual citizenship could complicate a potential run for the White House in 2016.

[snip]

“I don’t think he should be defined as a Hispanic,” former governor Bill Richardson (D., N.M.) said in response to a question about Cruz’s view on immigration. Richardson later said his remarks were “misinterpreted.”

I’m not just relying on pundits, of course.  From everything I’ve seen of Cruz, he is admirable:  He’s personable; able to articulate conservative principles in clear, accessible language; consistent; funny; and just all around an appealing candidate, at least for true-believers.

Having said all that, here’s the one thing that worries me about Cruz — he seems to be a bit of a hot-head, who likes to make waves but doesn’t always think through those wave’s consequences.  Here’s Lowry again:

None of this is to endorse all of Cruz’s tactical judgments or to deny he can irk his own side of the aisle at times.

His push to defund Obamacare this fall is a grass roots-pleasing slogan in search of a realistic path to legislative fruition. Cruz never explains how a government shutdown fight would bring about the desired end. The strategy seems tantamount to believing that if Republican politicians clicked their wing tips together and wished it so, President Barack Obama would collapse in a heap and surrender on his party’s most cherished accomplishment.

In a field dominated with exciting, fairly young conservatives — Cruz, Mike Lee, Allen West (and even Rand Paul) — I think Cruz is someone to watch, admire, and appreciate.  Can’t you just imagine heads exploding all over if there were a Cruz/West ticket?  Having said that, though, I’m not inclined to manufacture a ticket this early in the game, nor do I like the idea of putting a ticket together just to watch Progressive heads explode.  I want to wait a year or two, and then hope (devoutly) that the media hasn’t destroyed every viable conservative candidate by nitpicking over bullying incidents in pre-school or silly spoonerisms on the campaign trail.  And then, since I’m assuming a Biden versus Hillary fight on the Left, I want to throw my wholehearted support behind any candidate who can defeat either of those two.

Obama whines and Biden cries when their gun grab bill fails

Obama frowning

Here’s another one that appeared first at Mr. Conservative, but I wrote it and I agree with every word I wrote:

With the failure of the Democrats’ gun grab legislation in the Senate, the President and the Vice President took the political blow like the sensitive, New Age, Progressive men that they are – Obama whined and Biden cried.

Standing on the White House lawn, along with the same sad, bedraggled group of people Obama has been dragging around for weeks as he made his emotional argument against guns, Obama hurled insults in every direction. Ignoring the fact that the gun control bill contained cute little provisions, such as the one giving liberal physicians the right to report for a national criminal background check patients seeking treatment for depression, Obama blamed his newest scapegoat – the NRA:

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.

And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.

In fact, Senators – the Democrat Senators — backed away from the bill because their constituents recognized an unconstitutional gun grab when they saw it — and they let their displeasure be known. In addition, these same constituents understood what Obama refuses to acknowledge: that nothing in the bills before the Senate, including the background check, would stop a future Newtown, while everything in the proposed bills was intended to undermine the Second Amendment.

We know that more guns in law-abiding hands, not fewer, will protect students; we know that, despite the dog-and-pony show not all Newtown parents support gun control; and we know that both Biden and Obama are hostile to and neither understands the Second Amendment. No wonder the NRA prevailed.

While Obama whined, Biden looked as if he was seconds away from tears. With his mouth pinched shut in a frown, and his eyes squinted closed, Biden, the same man who cackled maniacally through the Vice Presidential debate, was the personification of tragedy.

Biden near tears

Obama and Biden represent the debasement of American politics. Government is no longer the preserve of intelligent gentlemen – it’s the home of emotional actors who try use tragedy to bully through an agenda that has as its sole purpose depriving the American people of their individual rights. It’s true that bad things happen because of guns. Bad things also happen because of pressure cookers, and cars, and baseball bats. We cannot legislate away risk. The Founders understood, though, that, even though guns do present the risk of accidental and intentional injury and death, they are the only reliable tool standing between an individual’s freedom and his government’s overreach.

American royalty on parade

Here’s another pure Bookworm post that got published first at Mr. Conservative:

Biden's London stay

Imagine that you’re the vice president of a nation that’s slowly going bankrupt. Your president has been traveling around the nation saying that, with the economy poised so delicately on the verge of disaster, any spending cuts will destroy elder care, education, and the military, to name just a few groups that the president says will suffer if any cuts are made to America’s spending patterns.

Now imagine that you, as vice president, travel for one night to London. How many people should you take with you and where should you stay? You, being a sensible person, take a bare-bones entourage and stay at a sturdy, middle-of-the-road hotel that can cope with your security needs.

But you’re not the vice president — Joe Biden is. And despite President Obama’s Chicken Little “Sky is Falling” shtick about an economy so delicate that even minor spending cuts will destroy it, nothing is too good for you. That’s why, if you’re Vice President Joe Biden spending a bit of time in London, you require 136 rooms at the Hyatt Regency for your team, resulting in a total of 893 room nights for the stay. Oh, and you charge the American people $459,338.65 – or a little more than $500 per room for these public servants.

Biden's Paris stay

Then, if you’re a member of the Obama administration, you do the same thing all over again in Paris. This time you stay at the Hotel Intercontinental Paris Le Grand. You bring the full entourage and end up costing the taxpayers $585,000.50. After all, nothing is too good for public employees in the Obama administration.

Even the fact that these hotel contracts are not open for competitive bidding for security reasons does not justify these expenses. It’s time for people in Washington to remember that we’re not their employees. The opposite is true – they work for us.

Biden and the Oscar Pistorius school of self-defense

Oscar Pistorius — the Blade Runner — was indicted for murder in South Africa, after he killed his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp, by firing four shots from his bedroom through the bathroom door.  Pistorius claimed he was acting in self-defense.  The prosecution contends that he and his girlfriend had a violent argument, that he beat her head with a cricket bat, and that he then intentionally shot her to death (although firing shots through the door seems like an inefficient way to do it).  Presumably a trial will help reveal a truth, if not the truth.

In any event, Joe Biden has clearly been following Pistorius’ killing career closely, because Biden has now stamped his imprimatur on the Pistorius school of self-defense (emphasis mine):

F&S: What about the other uses, for self-defense and target practice?

V.P. BIDEN: Well, the way in which we measure it is—I think most scholars would say—is that as long as you have a weapon sufficient to be able to provide your self-defense. I did one of these town-hall meetings on the Internet and one guy said, “Well, what happens when the end days come? What happens when there’s the earthquake? I live in California, and I have to protect myself.”

I said, “Well, you know, my shotgun will do better for you than your AR-15, because you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door.Most people can handle a shotgun a hell of a lot better than they can a semiautomatic weapon in terms of both their aim and in terms of their ability to deter people coming. We can argue whether that’s true or not, but it is no argument that, for example, a shotgun could do the same job of protecting you. Now, granted, you can come back and say, “Well, a machine gun could do a better job of protecting me.” No one’s arguing we should make machine guns legal.

Wow, Joe! How can you be wrong on so many levels? First, the shotgun has a much harder kickback than the AR-15, so people, especially lightweight people (such as women), can’t handle it better than the alternative. Second of all, firing a gun into the air as he advises is illegal. And third, shooting through the door means you’re shooting blind.

Joe Biden doesn’t just advocate illegality, he advocates stupidity

We already know that Joe was telling women to break the law with his advice to fire a double-barreled shotgun in the air to frighten about bad guys.  Would it surprise you to learn that his understanding of shotguns and AR-15s is also fatally, stupidly flawed?  No, I didn’t think it would surprise you guys, but I bet you’ll still enjoy this video:

Is Joe Biden actually Obama’s brain?

Joe Biden

You all remember from the Bush-era how we were told repeatedly that Dick Cheney was George Bush’s brain.  That notion arose when the Left couldn’t square Bush’s effectiveness as an executive (never mind his years of executive experience) with their certainty that he was, in fact, an idiot.  They were so relieved when they decided that Cheney was Bush’s puppet master.  I won’t debate the truth of that.  Suffice to say that I believe that George Bush was fully capable of handling the job.

Seth Mandel, however, floats the interesting notion — with actual facts supporting it — that Joe Biden has become Obama’s brain:

In October 2008, in a highly publicized and eagerly anticipated vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin, Biden said something that would have been notable were it not for his reputation for bluster and braggadocio. When moderator Gwen Ifill asked the candidates about the job description and value of the vice presidency of the United States, Biden said this:

With regard to the role of vice president, I had a long talk, as I’m sure the governor did with her principal, in my case with Barack. Let me tell you what Barack asked me to do. I have a history of getting things done in the United States Senate. John McCain would acknowledge that. My record shows that on controversial issues. I would be the point person for the legislative initiatives in the United States Congress for our administration. I would also, when asked if I wanted a portfolio, my response was, no. But Barack Obama indicated to me he wanted me with him to help him govern. So every major decision he’ll be making, I’ll be sitting in the room to give my best advice. He’s president, not me, I’ll give my best advice.

This was Biden promising–and on the heels of the tenure of Dick Cheney, criticized volubly by the left for his active role in the White House–that he would be an unusually powerful vice president. And it was Biden’s way of reassuring those who were concerned about Obama’s inexperience. Obama may not be ready for all the challenges of the presidency, Biden was saying, but don’t worry: I’ll be in the room. And Obama may not have the kind of relationships with Congress that can get difficult legislation passed, but don’t worry: Uncle Joe will get it done.

It’s striking just how correct Biden was. Obama has bungled one negotiation with Congress after another, and Biden has stepped in. And when it comes to national security decision making, Biden has, in fact, been in the room.

[snip]

And Biden’s success in this White House has raised another uncomfortable truth: that President Obama so often needs to be saved from himself. As Pete wrote yesterday, Obama’s press conference on the debt ceiling was filled with reprehensible, shameful slanders about Obama’s political opponents. Such was the case when Obama called that absurd rally/standup comedy routine to taunt Republicans while a deal on the fiscal cliff was still being hammered out by those who were working instead of kicking dirt at their opponents. Obama’s behavior should embarrass both the president and the Democrats, but it’s also the result of a moral hazard: Obama can refuse to engage intellectually with is opponents because someone else will do it for him. And he can work to destroy any progress on the problem solving others are conducting because Biden will clean up his mess.

If this doesn’t scare you, it should.  It’s like the movie Dumb and Dumber, with Dumber pulling the strings.  Or maybe it’s a movie called Evil and Dumber, and we should just be grateful that it’s Dumber who’s in charge.

Puppet on a string

Mandel notes that Biden’s increasing power makes him a good candidate for the 2016 presidential race.  Biden’s problem is is toxic public statements that manage to offend one and all.  However, he’s always been liked in D.C., and he now (finally) has a resume.

As with so many things shaping up this year, I don’t like where this is going.

How the Obama administration has helped debase our country

I’ve said it before:  Clinton was sleazy, but that was behind closed doors.  When he had his presidential hat on, he acted like a president.  In this way, he was precisely like LBJ, who was famously vulgar when the public wasn’t watching, but who understood the symbolism of his office.

The Obama White House, however, is a publicly sleazy White House.  Obama talks about ass kicking and bulls******s.  Biden is worse.  He calls signature legislation a “big f*****g deal,” talks about putting black people in chains, behaves like a drunk and a bully during a vice presidential debate, and deeply offends a grieving father by making crass comments about his dead son’s testicles.

Those of us in the Bookworm Room are not the only ones who have noticed how vulgar political discourse has become in the Obama years, something never before seen in American politics:

Biden seems to set the tone for the Obama White House. Presidents have used swear words before, but Barack Obama now has the distinction of using them, not in private, but in an on-the-record interview. And not in the abstract, as in, the “s*** hit the fan” but as an epithet about his opponent.

It was Barack Obama’s campaign, not a super PAC, not an independent supporter, that ran a crass ad aimed at women comparing voting for Obama with losing one’s virginity. (An idea lifted from, of all people, Vladimir Putin!)

[snip]

This time, the elegance is gone, the fangs are bared, and standards of honesty are long gone. His policies failed, so no accusation against Mitt Romney is held back: He’s an enemy of women who will outlaw all abortions (no exceptions), he will raise taxes on the middle class just to cut them for the rich, he ships jobs overseas and pockets the profits, he won the first debate through lies (sheesh), he gives cancer to the wives of unemployed workers, he delights in bankrupting companies, he wants to prevent women from getting “access” to birth control, and so on.

George Washington, who was famously obsessed with public dignity, is rolling in his grave. And those of us standing on the sidelines watching are wondering how long a nation can survey when this kind of toxic behavior fertilizes the country’s roots.

Joe Biden’s Doppelganger

As a native San Franciscan, I’m embarrassed that I didn’t spot the resemblance sooner.  Still, better late than never, and it’s a timely reminder before the upcoming debate.

Here’s Joe “the Hyena” Biden, laughing his head off during discussions about nuclear war, crippling national debt, and other light topics:

And here’s Laughing Sal, the famous puppet who greeted visitors at the Fun House that used to be part of San Francisco’s Playland at the Beach.  You can still see Sal at the Musee Mecanique in San Francisco.

Separated at birth, right? Or could it be that Laughing Sal and Joe were manufactured at the same wacky laugh factory?

Incidentally, if you’ve been having your doubts about whether the current White House occupants are organic life forms, don’t forget this video of Obama’s scarily robotic smile:

Barack Obama’s amazingly consistent smile from Eric Spiegelman on Vimeo.

I’m beginning to think we’ve been living through three and a half years of the Manchurian Candidate, only with androids, rather than brainwashed war vets cast in the starring roles.

Found it on Facebook

With the election drawing near, the pace of political posting on Facebook is rapidly picking up.  I found two interest things just the other day.

The first thing a friend put up is “The Worst Lies Paul Ryan Told.”  What quickly becomes apparent is that, well, Paul Ryan didn’t really tell lies.  His facts were correct, we just disagree with his conclusions.  I do believe that John Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things.”  The people at Care2 make a difference seem to believe that, stubborn though facts are, they can just be ignored into insignificance.  Herewith a small sampling of the post, along with my interlineations in square brackets:

“It began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.”

It’s true that America’s credit rating was downgraded by one of the three major credit rating agencies during Obama’s term. While Moody’s and Fitch both rate America’s debt at “AAA,” or “outstanding,” Standard & Poor’s dropped the US rating to “AA+,” or “excellent,” in 2011.  [In other words, Paul Ryan's statement was absolutely correct.  It's a stubborn fact.  That doesn't stop liberals from attacking it.]

However, Ryan is being dishonest when he lays the blame for the downgrade at President Barack Obama’s feet. After all, S&P said why they were downgrading U.S. debt, and they didn’t blame Obama. Instead, S&P blamed the “brinksmanship” of the 2011 debt ceiling crisis, in which House Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling without significant cuts to the budget. S&P also lamented a refusal to consider higher taxes, saying, “It appears that for now, new revenues have dropped down on the menu of policy options.”

Who was leading the House charge against Obama? Well, the House leadership team, including their budget committee chair, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis. Ryan himself was instrumental in forcing the brinksmanship that led the U.S. to have its debt downgraded; Ryan was right about a downgraded America, but the culprit isn’t Barack Obama, but rather the guy Ryan sees in the mirror each morning.  [The blame for this fact -- a downgraded credit rating -- could just easily have been laid at Obama's door.  A game of chicken always has two players.  Obama was enthusiastic about imposing ever greater debt upon America, while the Republicans, Ryan included, made the principled claim that this was suicide, and that the only way to improve the American economic situation is to do with every intelligent person facing financial trouble would do:  cut spending.  In other words, from Ryan's point of view, the credit rating collapse occurred because of Obama's dangerous profligacy, which Republicans, with great difficulty, reined in slightly.]

“Yet by his own decisions, President Obama has added more debt than any other president before him, and more than all the troubled governments of Europe combined.  One president, one term, $5 trillion in new debt.”

“He created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report.  He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing.”

This is a two-fer. The first part is technically true — the debt has gone up significantly during the term of President Obama. Ryan failed to mention, however, that the increase in debt is primarily due to two policies — the Bush Tax Cuts and the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Simply, those were all policies Obama inherited — all policies started by President George W. Bush, and supported by the vote of Paul Ryan.  [Again, the article begins by conceding the truth of Ryan's statements.  Yes, debt has increased faster on Obama's watch than ever before.  So where's the lie?  Well, we'll get to that.]

It’s the second part, though, where Ryan really outdoes himself. It’s true, Obama did appoint the Simpson-Bowles Commission, which was tasked with looking for ways to reduce the debt. Commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson did issue a report. That report was not endorsed by the full commission, however, which rejected the report.  [Oh, well, the second part is kind of true too, Care2 concedes.  Obama appointed a commission and ignored it.  There's no indication that, when the commission faltered, Obama did anything to engage it further.]

Among the members of the commission who voted against the report? The chair of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan.  [Yes, he did.  And it's important to note here that Ryan never said he agreed with the commission. He just said that Obama is so disengaged from the American economy and the federal budget that Obama ignored his own commission.  No lies here.]

Yes, Paul Ryan was a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission, the “bipartisan debt commission” he references, as if they were a group he was vaguely familiar with. “‘They’ came back with an urgent report,” except “they” didn’t — the commission didn’t issue a report. And while Obama didn’t push the recommendations of the commission, Paul Ryan actively opposed them, voting against them, and preventing the report from being officially adopted.  [Same point.  Ryan never said he agreed with the commission.  He just said that Obama, having delegated a task, completely ignored the outcome.]

So while Barack Obama may have decided to pass on the recommendations of some members of a commission, Paul Ryan, a member of that commission, opposed those recommendations. And yet Ryan tells America that we should be outraged at Obama for not adopting the proposals Ryan himself opposed. Truly, the man has a dizzying intellect.  [No, Ryan tells America they should be outraged that Obama is so lazy, he didn't even work with his own debt commission.]

And so it goes.  Not lie, after not lie.  In every case, the article concedes that Ryan stated the absolute truth.  The post’s authors simply do not like to the conclusions Ryan reasonably draws from those truths, and therefore castigates them as lies.  By the way, if you want to see real lies — statements that are completely at odds with facts — check out the Top Ten Biden lies.  These weren’t Biden’s only bald-faced lies; just the most significant of Biden’s bald-faced lies.

The other thing I found on Facebook was Matt Taibbi’s over-the-top support of Biden’s debate behavior, which he spells out in his Rolling Stone article:

I’ve never thought much of Joe Biden. But man, did he get it right in last night’s debate, and not just because he walloped sniveling little Paul Ryan on the facts. What he got absolutely right, despite what you might read this morning (many outlets are criticizing Biden’s dramatic excesses), was his tone. Biden did absolutely roll his eyes, snort, laugh derisively and throw his hands up in the air whenever Ryan trotted out his little beady-eyed BS-isms.

But he should have! He was absolutely right to be doing it. We all should be doing it. That includes all of us in the media, and not just paid obnoxious-opinion-merchants like me, but so-called “objective” news reporters as well. We should all be rolling our eyes, and scoffing and saying, “Come back when you’re serious.”

The load of balls that both Romney and Ryan have been pushing out there for this whole election season is simply not intellectually serious. Most of their platform isn’t even a real platform, it’s a fourth-rate parlor trick designed to paper over the real agenda – cutting taxes even more for super-rich dickheads like Mitt Romney, and getting everyone else to pay the bill.

That is how the Left thinks.  I believe it has something to do with Alinsky:

5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

[snip]

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

What Taibbi really forgets is that there are four parties involved in the debate process: the two candidates, the moderator, and the American people. As to these last, Biden’s behavior was a gross insult. Tabibi and Biden are so locked into their Alinsky-esque world view, that they forget that they Biden was engaging in a stately ritual of democracy. As to that, I think Michael Medved has the best counter to Tabibi’s crude savagery:

In the last 40 years of presidential politics, Democrats have often derided their Republican rivals as jokers and buffoons. But they have never before laughed in their faces on national TV. In that sense, Joe Biden made history with his weird, wired performance in the vice-presidential debate—but he did so in a way that could easily damage the Obama campaign.

[Medved gives examples of the Ford/Carter debates and the Bentsen/Quayle debates, where the pre-debate rhetoric from the Left was crude and demeaning, but the debate itself was dignified]

Finally, Sarah Palin’s moose-hunting exploits, chirpy delivery, disinterest in daily newspapers and powerful, puzzling Christian mama sexiness offered the ripest possible target to the comedy-industrial complex, yet when she faced Joe Biden in their widely-watched debate he behaved like a perfect gentleman. He smiled indulgently, even affectionately at times, but wisely avoided giving any discernible indication that he considered the first female GOP nominee anything less than a worthy opponent.

Why, then, did he decide to snicker, chuckle, grin, smirk and shake his head at the one GOP nominee for national office in the last 50 years that even partisan Democrats acknowledge as a serious, substantive, and formidable guy?

[snip]

The oddest aspect of his patronizing performance involved the complete disconnect between his derisive laughter and anything that Paul Ryan actually said. Where, exactly, did the GOP nominee make some point so ridiculous, or express himself so clumsily, that the only appropriate response would be the uncontrollable urge to titter or chortle?

Biden was the slob at the state dinner, the guy who messes up a young woman’s wedding, the person who spills the water at the baptism.  He took a solemn, meaningful occasion (perhaps not always substantive, but still in important part of America’s ritual) and despoiled it.

 

Keith Koffler asks the right question: Is Biden fit to be president?

The Vice President’s primary responsibility is to be in place should something happen to the president.  This is not a far-fetched scenario.  Over America’s long presidential history, several Vice Presidents have ascended to the presidency.  Since WWII, we’ve had three presidents come in that way:  Truman, LBJ, and Ford.  The Veep is an understudy for the big role.

The media and the internet have been abuzz today about Biden’s performance.  True believers enjoyed seeing his raging performance.  Looked at objectively, though, with the eye of someone who wandered in from Mars and turned on the TV, Joe’s behavior was nothing short of rude and demeaning, not just to his obvious target, Paul Ryan, but also to the American people.  Biden intentionally hijacked an opportunity for Americans to hear candidates talk at some length about issues that are important to voters.  By interrupting Ryan at least 82 times, by talking over him, by asserting that every fact was a lie without ever addressing the underlying ideological issues, Biden turned the affair in a pointless exercise, with a nice young man being confronted by a crazy dude.

I won’t be the first one to quote Proverbs 29:9 here, as I’ve received multiple emails about blog posts raising it: “When a wise person debates with a fool, the fool rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet.” Or as I sum it up, “Never argue with the crazy person.”

Of course, that assumes that Biden is either crazy or a fool. Perhaps he is a calculating man who covered up a giant vacuum in his party’s platform by raging in Khrushchev style (or lawyer style): When you have the law, argue the law; when you have the facts, argue the facts; and when you have neither law nor facts, pound the table.

Regardless of his motivation, though, Joe was thumbing his nose at our democracy. He was denying us the substance we deserve. He was either unstable, which is a problem; or profoundly dishonest of and disrespectful to democracy, which is also a problem. And so Keith Koffler asks Is Biden Fit To Be President?

Biden’s act last night raises very serious questions about his fitness to serve as president should it ever come to that.

And it was an act. It’s clear to me that the giggling, the sneering, and the occasional indignant outbursts were carefully rehearsed, a calculated attempt both to diminish Ryan and throw some red meat to a dispirited Democratic base. “Yeah, get him, get the little jerk,” you can hear lefties across America snorting as Biden tore into the despised Ryan.

That the vice president of the United States could put together a performance that was just one step short of Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on a desk at the United Nations should be deeply disturbing to average Americans.

Though calculated, Biden’s outlandish behavior and his uncanny ability to pull it off belongs nowhere near the West Wing of the White House. Unless Biden’s debate prep partner was Al Pacino and the practice sessions were rehearsed at the Strasberg school for method acting in New York City, the behavior you saw last night has to be part of who Biden is: A crude, angry bully who may be a borderline lunatic.

Americans need to ask themselves not who won the debate, but whether they want such a man in charge of an office whose occupant steers the the future of the human race and, quite possibly, its fate.

Read the rest here to see what Koffler has to say about Ryan’s performance.

Biden explains when it’s okay to impose his religious views on others

Nobody ever accused Joe Biden of being coherent.  Peter Heck, however, realized more quickly than I did that Biden was being exceptionally incoherent — or hypocritical or held tightly in the grip of cognitive dissonance — when he was asked to explain the relationship between his faith and his politics.  I’ll give you Heck’s summary, but you should read the whole thing to find out how he got there:

It’s an interesting worldview, isn’t it?  Government-sponsored theft is legitimate on moral grounds, but government protection of innocent, defenseless life is unreasonable.  That’s the modern Democrat Party.

Joe Biden breaks into Jennifer Granholm’s medicine cabinet and tries to overdose *UPDATES*

Do you remember Jennifer Granholm at the DNC, when she was yelling and gesticulating wildly?  She was a 33 rpm record playing at 78.

Watching the Vice Presidential debate tonight, it was obvious that Joe Biden had broken into her medicine cabinet and taken twice the dosage.  Either that, or he was auditioning for the part of the crazy, rude uncle in the high school play.  Or of course, he is a crazy, rude guy who didn’t have to medicate or pretend to put on the performance we saw at the debate.

Joe’s demeanor was nothing short of appalling.  When one thinks of what a few gusty sighs did to Al Gore’s presidential aspirations, Biden’s debate performance should earn him deportation.  He was by turns loud, obnoxious, condescending, and disrespectful.  He smirked, giggled, sighed, and huffed his disbelief at everything Paul Ryan said.  He also talked over at least half of Ryan’s answers.  Thanks to Joe’s behavior, this was not a serious debate about substantive issues for the benefit of concerned citizens.  This was a crude charade by a demagogue throwing red meat to his followers.

The good thing was that Ryan was able to make his points quickly and efficiently.  The bad thing was that he occasionally looked like a deer in the headlights.  I understand that this look reflected his amazement at Joe’s behavior, his shock at Joe’s bald-faced lies, and his frustration that both Joe and debate moderator Martha Raddatz kept cutting him off and giving the floor to the crazy uncle.  Still, I wish he hadn’t been such a polite Midwesterner.

Thinking about it, though, Ryan may have done just the right thing.  While the base probably found Joe’s performance exciting and emotionally honest, I suspect that millions of Americans did not appreciate that Joe made a mockery of a ritual performance that is meant to enhance the honor of the presidential office and to give voters an opportunity to compare the two parties.  If people were actually comparing the two debaters, Ryan was an attractive, polite, stable, normal, well-informed young man.  Joe was the bloviating, obnoxious drunk at the bar who had grabbed Ryan by his lapel and wouldn’t let go.  You could practically see Ryan’s hair melt from the noxious odors wafting out from behind Joe’s peculiarly whitened dentures.

I do not know that I have ever before seen such a loathsome spectacle at the national level.  In a sane world, the moderator would have reined him in.  In a decent world, Joe would call a press conference tomorrow to apologize for his behavior.  In the real world, the media will laud his energy, aggression, and mastery of the “facts.”

If this is what our political process has come too, we are in trouble.  The Obama administration is damaging the very fabric of our democracy, and the drunk, crazy uncle they hauled out for the debate tonight is one of the weapons in their arsenal.

RUNNING UPDATES:

Bruce Kesler has word on the first tracking results, and they say that Biden’s demeanor was a turn-off for Independents.  Thank goodness!  It means Americans still have some standards.

Hot Air calls Biden an “angry old man” and adds that the CNN insta-poll has Ryan in the lead by 4 points.

Ben Shapiro says Biden lost it — and has the pictures to prove it.

Chris Wallace calls Biden “openly contemptuous and disrespectful.”

PowerLine has a great photo essay, one that seems overwhelmed by Joe Biden’s teeth.  He was like Mr. Ed, without the comic charm or intelligence.

Bryan Preston, looking at the substance, thinks it wasn’t a game changer.  I hope he’s underestimating the damage Biden’s behavior caused.

Ace says that it was enough that Ryan won in the polls:  the Obama team has now lost two debates in a row.

Keith Koffler thinks the incessant laughter was a bad strategy and may have offended women who too often find themselves on the receiving end of the same tactics Biden turned on Ryan.

Wolf Howling calls it “a debacle.“  That sounds about right.  Biden was manic, and Ryan was too politely deferential — although see my point that this might have been his only realistic strategy in the face of insanity.  I always tell my kids “never argue with the crazy person.”

Thomas Lifson said Biden disgraced himself and appeared “unstable.”  I agree.

The Blaze has a collection of Biden’s facial expressions.Those teeth are going to pursue me in my nightmares.

That was fast.  The RNC already has a video:

From what I read, libs on Twitter were thrilled with Biden’s performance. That shouldn’t surprise me. They were also thrilled by the Occupiers when they defecated on public streets.

The Daily Mail, the most read internet newspaper in the world, calls it for Ryan.

Fred Barnes says Biden’s debate performance will go down in history — only not in a good way.

Neo-Neocon and I had a few of the same ideas about Biden’s affect.

Yes, I’m working, but I also keep finding excellent stuff that I just have to share with you

To begin with, DL Sly is right that, if I don’t make each and every one of you aware of Iowahawk’s latest post of genius, I am doing you a profound disservice.  I won’t even make an effort to summarize what Iowahawk has done.  Suffice to say that your life will forever have a slightly diminished quality if you don’t read it.

Okay, having improved your lives, let’s get back to business:

Mike Devx has noted that, having smeared the polls when they were pro-Obama, we look foolish and hypocritical if we suddenly embrace them now that they show Romney inching up.  He’s right.  The pollsters have lost control of the statistics.  They don’t know what the heck they’re doing, and they’re doing it with only 9% of the public helping them out.  Jon Podhoretz says that Monday, October 8, was the worst day of all, and can be called “the day polling died.”  What’s more interesting to me is what I see on Facebook and hear at the school bus stop.  Obama supporters are starting to get that startled look of someone emerging from a pleasant dream, only to discover that the real world didn’t go away.

Romney is assuming rightly that Obama will come to the next debate loaded for bear (so will Biden, leaving Ryan with the distasteful task of picking his way through Biden’s inevitable lies).  Those of us who know Obama, though, don’t believe that his renewed energy will lead to a better debate showing.  He’ll still have attached to him the problems that dogged him in the first debate.  He won’t become more articulate, he won’t have greater knowledge, and, worst of all, he’ll still be struggling to hide his core truth, which is that he doesn’t like America, doesn’t like Israel, and doesn’t believe in individualism.  If you’re trying to debate extemporaneously in a way that is counter to your underlying belief systems, you will fail.  Oh, Obama has one more problem:  hubris.  Toby Harnden has a great post summarizing Obama’s disdain for Romney and the democratic process, as well as his laziness.

And finally, on a completely different subject, Jay Greene says that there is no teacher shortage.  His starting point is the fact that classroom sizes are significantly smaller than they were when I was a student back in 1970, but outcomes are unchanged.  From there, he talks about the downsides of hiring ever more teachers in order to reach some magic point at which the teacher student ratio is perfect.  I couldn’t agree more with Greene’s conclusions.  What do you think?

Monday quick links

Wrapping up a project that’s already taken me too long, so I’ve promised myself no blogging until it’s done.  Meanwhile, here are some quick links:

Explaining the Obama fundraising scandal.

Cities can’t support themselves?  Never mind.  Force suburban homeowners to pay for them.  It’s all good with the Obama administration.

This is funny even if you don’t know the movie Aliens, from which all the quotes are drawn.

Since the President still seems to be unclear on the concept, yet another effort to explain to him why, yes, you did build that.

I have no idea who Buzz Bissinger is, but he’s famous, he’s a lifetime liberal, and he’s had the courage to go on record as a Romney supporter in this election.  Good for him!

The Watcher invited The Weekend Monkey to take a stab at guessing the outcome of the upcoming Senate elections.  I had no idea how smart monkeys could be.

As a lawyer, the worst thing your opponent can throw at you isn’t a good argument, it’s a dishonest argument.  Paul Ryan, who will be up against Joe Biden, has to take into account the fact that Biden operates in a completely alternate reality.  No amount of pre-debate preparation can fully prepare you for a dishonest opponent’s fervid imagination.  So I’ll leave you with this clip, which I hope Ryan is studying:

W. Kamau Bell, Barack Obama, and black voters

There used to be an old joke that the Jewish vote pivoted on each Jew asking himself this question “Is it good for the Jews?”  Not a very nice stereotype, but probably a true one — and true for any group in America, whether white, WASP, Jewish, Catholic, Asian, Baptist, Hindu, etc.  What’s sad, though, is that the Left is telling blacks that they shouldn’t bother asking that question, probably because honest answer to “Is Obama good for American blacks?” would have to be a resounding “No!”

The Obama years have not treated blacks well.  A year ago, black unemployment was not only double white unemployment, it was also the highest it had been in twenty-seven years.  The only part of “Hope and Change” that blacks got out of this administration turned out to be small change . . . very, very small change.  Things have improved in the past year, but only slightly.  As of today, black unemployment stands at more than 14% — although President Barack “Nothing is my Fault” Obama claims that this failing is all the fault of state and local governments.  It might be time for the President to rummage through the White House attic and dig out Harry Truman’s old desk placard, the one that read “the buck stops here.”

Or maybe not.  W. Kamau Bell, who is Chris Rock’s anointed new voice of black social/political comedy.  Bell began one of his shows by replaying Biden’s now infamous Romney/Ryan will put “y’all back in chains” statement.  Bell made three points, none of which struck me as amusing, but all of which sounded quite honest:  (a) Biden shouldn’t have said  that; (b) Biden needn’t have said that, because blacks will vote for Obama regardless; and (c) it will help the Obama campaign if Biden stops pandering to a demographic that’s already in Obama’s pocket.

Despite the assurance that Obama owns the black body politic, Bell was, apparently, still a little worried.  You see, the problem isn’t that Biden thinks he’s black.  It’s the blacks might be thinking that Obama isn’t black enough.  Bell’s responsibility, therefore, is to promise blacks that Obama is not an Oreo:

I actually appreciate Bell’s honesty. He’s straightforward about the actual Obama campaign theme for 2012, which is “Vote for me because I’m black(ish).” Still, I think it’s terribly said that we’ve gone from having voters ask themselves (selfishly, but truthfully) “Is this candidate going to be good for my social/racial/ethnic/religious group?” to insisting that voters ask themselves only whether the candidate has enough melanin not to be considered white.  Once that question is out there, the candidate not only isn’t good for a given social/racial/ethnic/religious group, he’s not good for America either.

 

Re that Veep spot on the Democrat ticket — I have a guess about the dark horse replacement

I’m with American Crossroads, which believes that Joe Biden is just what the Democrat ticket needs:

Gravitas! (Giggle, giggle.)

I’m suspect, though, that the Democrats themselves are becoming disenchanted with Good Old Joe. Apparently they cast around for the Hillary alternative, only to get a resounding “No!” from a woman who neither wanted to be on a winning nor a losing Democrat ticket, because she thought both would be bad for her career.  You can always trust the Clintons to keep their eyes on the main chance.

So who’s next?  I’m voting for a “Draft Elizabeth Warren” movement.

Think about it for a moment:  while the Republican party has more young guns than it can count, who does the Democrat party have?  Jesse Jackson, Jr.?  No.  Poor guy has a bipolar disorder.  I wish him well, but no one wishes him on the ticket.  Rahm Emanuel?  Nope.  You don’t go from Chief of Staff, to Mayor of a corrupt, crime-ridden city, to second on the presidential ticket.  Raddled old Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi?  Big NO there. Debbie What’s-her-name Schlemeil?  I think Baghdad Debbie has had her dishonest day.

Anyone?  Anyone?

I didn’t think so.

The only “young” gun they’ve got is Elizabeth Warren.  She’s struggling to stay above water in Massachusetts, but Democrats might see her as someone who can revive the base if she’s on the presidential ticket.  After all, when it comes to “You didn’t build that,” she and Obama are two minds with but a single thought.  Better an exciting candidate on the presidential ticket than a struggling candidate for a senate seat that’s already filled by a fairly popular, attractive RINO.

My best guess today is that, in a week or so, poor old Joe is going to get very sick and need to retire abruptly.  And stalwart Progressive Elizabeth Warren will valiantly step up to fill Joe’s shoes.

What do you think?

A matched set: one from the gutter, one explaining the gutter

Joe Biden sent me an email the other day, one that was remarkable for the complete absence of substance, and the overwhelming presence of 1930s, Daddy Warbuck-ish invective:

Starting now, we can expect even more wealthy, right-wing ideologues lining up to support the Romney-Ryan ticket.

The people on the other side who are trying to buy this election are putting nasty, deceptive TV ads on the air right this very minute. They’re not going away. They’re getting worse.

If we don’t do what we can to keep this close, right now at this crucial moment, we risk letting the other side run away with it.

If you’re thinking about making a donation to the campaign, please don’t wait — donate $5 or more today, and let’s win this together.

Every single day from now until Election Day matters. At the end of it, we’ll all ask ourselves if we did everything we could to make sure that we are able to keep fighting for change.

I know how I want to answer that question. I hope you’re with me — because we’re up against the kind of outside spending never seen before in modern politics.

And without people like you, this could get to be a pretty lopsided fight.

November 6th will be here sooner than we think. Donate $5 or more today:

Somehow I missed the part where Biden explained what he and Obama have to offer the voters, other than more of the same failed policies.

And then I read George Will’s theory about the true reason Romney picked Ryan, above and beyond Ryan’s obvious qualifications.  Incidentally, this is the most heated I’ve ever seen George Will, and I’ve been hearing and reading his editorials since the 1970s (emphasis mine):

Romney embraced Ryan after the sociopathic — indifferent to the truth — ad for Barack Obama that is meretricious about every important particular of the death from cancer of the wife of steelworker Joe Soptic. Obama’s desperate flailing about to justify four more years has sunk into such unhinged smarminess that Romney may have concluded: There is nothing Obama won’t say about me, because he has nothing to say for himself, so I will chose a running mate whose seriousness about large problems and ideas underscores what the president has become — silly and small.

He on whose behalf the Soptic ad was made used to dispense bromides deploring “the smallness of our politics” and “our preference for scoring cheap political points.” Obama’s campaign of avoidance — say anything to avoid the subject of the country’s condition — must now reckon with Ryan’s mastery of Obama’s enormous addition to decades of governmental malpractice.

Will the general American public — not the blood thirsty ideologues, but the ordinary, vaguely interested people — care that they are the subject of a sociopathic demagogue’s emotional manipulation? I hope that Romney’s and Ryan’s innate sunny-ness, and the manifest respect they have for the intelligence of the American people, will triumph over some of the most filthy lies an American political party has ever produced. It’s time for the American people to stop letting Democrats fool them some of the time or all of the time.

The Romney-Ryan ticket

My internet has been down for most of the day (defective router), but I’ve been able to check in with the internet often enough to know that there’s a general sense of delight across the conservative blogosphere now that Romney has announced that he’s chosen Paul Ryan as his running mate.  Terresa, at Noisy Room, has a wonderful, representative post.

As is Terresa, I too am optimistic.  I’ve never made any secret about my liking and respect for Ryan.  I think he’s an incredibly smart, principled man, who is well able to articulate both his principles and the details of the policies underlying his principles.  The Leftosphere is in a tizzy, with the funniest post coming from Ryan Lizza, who querulously complains that Ryan has neither private sector nor Washington D.C. experience:

For one thing, Ryan has no significant private-sector experience. Besides summer jobs working at McDonald’s or at his family’s construction company, or waiting tables as a young Washington staffer, Ryan has none of the business-world experience Romney frequently touts as essential for governing. In the run-up to his first campaign for Congress, in 1998, that gap was enough of a concern for Ryan that he briefly became a “marketing consultant” at the family business, an obvious bit of résumé puffing.

But Ryan’s Washington experience is also light, at least for a potential President—which, after all, is the main job description of a Vice-President. Ryan has worked as a think-tank staffer and Congressman, but he’s never been in charge of a large organization, and he has little experience with foreign policy. Given how Sarah Palin was criticized for her lack of such experience, I’m surprised that Romney would pick someone whose ability to immediately step into the top job is open to question.

I was actually tempted to comment, internet struggles notwithstanding, but then saw that hundreds of conservatives got there before I did.  Here are some representative comments:

Oh, please, Paul Ryan was in Congress when Obama was still doing choom in high school, and RYAN doesn’t have enough experience?

***

House Budget Chairman not quite enough experience in govt? Over 10 years in the House, not quite enough? Better by far than 2 years in the Senate, most of which were spent in campaigning for president. Construction work not as valuable as Community Agitating?? Biased, much???

***

By writing articles such as this one, how do reporters expect the average person to take them seriously or even believe them a little bit? Don’t reporters have to have some sort of education to get a job? After reading this article a question comes to mind concerning the present day POTUS. Using the writers criteria, is the current POTUS up to the job? Prior to being elected did the current POTUS have enough experience in the private sector to satisfy the writer? This is all very naussiating to me considering the current POTUS is at best an amateur and I’m being polite. What this does show is the writers affinity for unexperienced democrats running for office vs. highly experienced republican candidates who actually ran several successful businesses, only to focus on the running mates private sector resume. What a disgraceful piece of journalism once again from someone who has a horse in the race!

***

Paul Ryan is 2nd on the Romney ticket. Romney is the guy with the private sector and true leadership experience. Now let’s take a look at the other side. Where is the private sector experience? None whatsoever. Where is the true leadership experience? Again, next to none, even if we count Obama’s failed 3.5 years in office.

***

“For one thing, Ryan has no significant private-sector experience.” Interesting piece of analogy, the current president has no experience whatsoever in foreign policy save living in a foreign country for a few years of his formative years. But, the bigger picture, the economy, Obama has not shown he can read a budget never-mind the fact he has not produced an acceptable one in four years. Ryan, can run rings around Obama not only on the economy but, one can reasonably assume that the world is looking for economic leadership more than any other kind of leadership. Ryan, also has more business experience than Joe Biden and on the foreign policy side, Biden has been proved wrong on every decision he ever espoused. Better to have Ryan’s intelligence to make decisions than Biden’s failed advise. Obama’s choices for Cabinet decisions, backed by czars, is also a provable failure; while, Mitt’s track record of finding the best and brightest MBA graduates and his method of management is beyond question. I would not expect the liberal media to have a good word for any vice-president that Romney would name but, it is time to survey your own abilities for choosing potential leaders, before you too join the ranks of the unemployed.

***

Darn that Paul Ryan, with his lack of business experience, whatever will we do???? Wait!!! Mitt has business experience…..wait! wait!!! and Paul Ryan has government experience!!! One might serve and help us in one area and also the other with extensive, dedicated, expert, determination!! Who knew????

***

I literally feel dumber after having read this piece. Are you serious? Paul Ryan is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama was to be VP in 2008. Is reality really that hard to connect with?

There are more — lots more — where that came from. Equally enjoyable, because of the amusement quotient, are the posts from outraged Leftists, horrified that the dreaded Tea Partiers have invaded their sacred precincts with facts:

Yes, I think there has been a coordinated “attack” here by some sort of Romney supporters. The initial wave of illiterate and mean-spirited criticisms is just not what one would expect of regular New Yorker readers.

***

[And if you can tolerate every word having initial caps and generally illiterate writing:] President Obama Has More Experience Than Romney And Ryan And That’s Actually Being The President For Almost 4 Years. Mitt Romney Has No Foreign Policy Experience And His VP Pick Also Has No Foreign Policy Experience And Yes President Obama Had No Foreign Policy Experience But He Picked Joe Biden As His VP Pick Who Does. President Obama Has Had A Lot Of Wins In Foreign Policy That Mitt Romney Can’t Touch. The Only Thing Ryan Is Known For Is His Budget Plan That Will End Medicare As We Know It And From The Polls I Saw On The Subject The American People Were Against This Budget And This Pick Will Hurt Romney. How Can A Republican Presidential Canidate With NO Foreign Policy Experience Pick A VP With NO Foreign Policy Experience, LOL. I Read Someone Wrote That Joe Biden Was A Draft Dodger For The Vietnam War And I Want To Say That They Got That Wrong, Mitt Romney Was The Draft Dodger Not Joe Biden. Mitt Romney Supported The Draft But When It Came Time For Him To Go He Went To Paris France.

***

I never realized there were so many hard right types who believe in the lunacy of deficit-reduction-through-austerity-with-a-budget-plan-that-increases-the-deficit. Incidentally, Obama had many years of real world experience as a law firm associate, law school lecturer, and Illinois state senator representing a Chicago district. Illinois is a much more sophisticated state than Wisconsin, anyway.

There’s more, much more, with 341 comments last I saw, most lambasting Lizza’s bizarre retreat from reality. I wonder how long average Americans, including unthinking, knee-jerk liberals will be able to stand the cognitive dissonance. I know that I hit the cognitive dissonance wall after 9/11, faced reality, and switched parties. Free at last, free at last, Thank the Lord, I’m free at last.

One other point about cognitive dissonance. Anyone who was around for the 1992 elections remembers how a gasping, excited media assured us that Bill Clinton was exquisitely prepared to be president, not because he was the governor a notoriously corrupt state (sorry, Arkansas, but that was the case when he was governor), but because he was a “wonk.” Clinton, we were told, loved policy, which made him a sure leader, one who could solve the nation’s problems. In Ryan, we have a policy wonk squared, but one who also happens to be a decent, moral man, with a passion for the Constitution. Ooooh! Scary.

Proving once again his management gifts, Mitt Romney made an excellent pick for running mate.  He wasn’t afraid to pick someone who is a fighter and who might outshine him.  Unlike the narcissistic Obama, Romney is an extremely secure man, who understands that his leadership is enhanced, not diminished, when he surrounds himself by the best people.  I’m really, really excited here.  Ryan excites the base, pleases all but the most RINO-ish in the establishment, and promises to leave a drooling Biden slobbering in the dust during the VP debate — something that promises to be the most entertaining moment, ever, in American political history.

One more thing, he may not be a great orator, but Ryan never loses his cool, never loses his facts, and isn’t afraid to speak his mind.

Note:  Ace found the Lizza article as amusing, and insanely stupid, as I did.