Live Blogging the VP debate

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

Will be starting right here at 9 PM.

PAD

9:02–Explain the rules right before they go out the window.
9:03–The whole blue/red tie thing is getting repetitive.
9:04–Biden going immediately on the attack, which is good because the first question was designed to put him on the defensive. Anyone who had 9:05 in the bin Laden pool, please turn in your stubs.
9:06–Biden’s grin seems to speak volumes. Let’s see what words then come out of his mouth.
9:07–Whoa. I like that she’s getting up in his grill about Romney tone-deafness.
9:08–Biden’s doing what everyone said that Obama should have done.
9:10–She is NOT going to let them say that she was pushed around like Lehrer was.
9:16–“My friend.” He doesn’t want to say Ryan’s name; he doesn’t want to address him by his title; but he doesn’t want to sound belittling. So he says “My friend” to sound friendly but simultaneously undercut him.
9:17–Martha’s trying to pin down Ryan on how he’d change the situation and of course he can’t.
9:19–“A bunch of stuff.” That’s going to stick.
9:20–“Facts matter” is another one.
9:21–I’m not trying to sound partisan, but oh my God, Biden’s slamming it so far.
9:22–“I could be mistaken. He changes his mind so often, I could be wrong.” Biden is way ahead on quotable. But now we’re moving onto economy. This could be Ryan’s chance to take the reins.
9:24–Biden’s saying all the things that Obama should have said.
9:25–Biden is speaking entirely from emotion. If Ryan takes refuge in wonk numbers, he’s in trouble. He needs to match Biden’s passion.
9:26–Ryan wisely tries to go for the small person, Romney’s a great guy angle. Smart.
9:28–Okay, good one for Ryan, about words not coming out the right way. But his comeback of “I say what I mean” isn’t bad. Still, it’s Ryan’s first memorable line of the evening.
9:29–Smart move by Biden to say he’s not refuting Romney’s personal conscience.
9:31–Oh, Ryan’s in trouble. He’s trying to talk around something that makes him come across as a hypocrite. Rewording it doesn’t change it.
9:33–God, I hope Obama’s taking notes.
9:34–Ryan is insanely vulnerable over the lies he and Romney have been spreading. Let’s see if Biden goes after him the way Obama didn’t after Romney.
9:36–See, why didn’t Obama point out what Biden’s doing right now? Now say that they’re lying.
9:37–“I know you’re under a lot of duress?” Biden actually seems not the least bit bothered by anything.
9:40–It’s like watching Colbert’s “The Word.” Ryan says stuff and Biden undercuts it.
9:41–Biden keeps interrupting to try and throw Ryan off his game. I think he’s trying to push him into losing his temper. Which would be death. Biden’s walking a thin line.
9:43–The GOP is going to scream that Biden was being disrespectful of Ryan. Guaranteed.
9:44–Martha needs a gavel.
9:45–Tax talk. This is where they both need to watch it on stats.
9:48–Uh oh. Ryan’s wonking out.
9:49–THIS should be interesting.
9:50–“But no specifics again.” Ouch.
9:50–“I was there.” That’s where Biden can kill you.
9:52–“Now you’re Jack Kennedy.”
9:52–Fight! Fight! Lucy and Snoopy are having a fight!
9:53–I love all the talk about “reaching across the aisle” when the GOP made it clear years ago that all they were going to do was try and stop Obama from accomplishing anything.
9:54–I like how Biden slows down and says sentences with periods after every word when he wants to emphasize.
9:58–Interestingly, this is a subject where both Biden and Ryan sound like they’re making sense.
10:00–If you want the troops to come home, them bring them home. In this case, it almost sounds that Ryan and Biden are actually in agreement; Ryan is just trying to make it sound like they’re not.
10:04–Biden is consistently coming across as more presidential than Obama. People might start taking Biden seriously as a candidate in 2016.
10:06–Say “Afghans to do the job!” a third time! Like Beetlejuice: three times and they show up.
10:10–Whew. Biden woke up.
10:11–Uh oh. Ryan acknowledged Obama was right about something. Big mistake.
10:14–Oooo. Religious question. Abortion. Holy crap.
10:15–This is the third rail question of the evening.
10:16–Ryan is talking carefully, but he’s playing to his audience by essentially saying that Obama/Biden are anti-religion. But Biden, wisely, isn’t smiling.
10:17–“But I refuse to impose my beliefs on others.” Perfect.
10:21–Biden only needs to not trip over himself for another nine minutes.
10:23–Wish that Biden hadn’t gone negative in answering a question about going negative. Don’t think that helped.
10:24–Aaaaaand Ryan is making the same mistake. But worse. Biden left himself open by going negative and Ryan could have called him on it. Instead he’s getting even MORE negative.
10:26–Ryan never answered the question at ALL. At least Biden addressed it.
10:27–Okay, this is a basic job interview question. What’s unique about you? Ryan’s response that lots of people could do it. Yeah, that was brilliant. Let’s see what Biden says.
10:28–Biden did better.
10:29–I am really tempted to put on Fox right now to see how they spin this, because there is NO doubt that Biden won this. None. At all. He did what you’re supposed to do: controlled the debate.
10:30–Nice touch that Ryan thanked Biden.

107 comments on “Live Blogging the VP debate”

  1. Hey Paul,

    Let’s talk about embassy security.

    House Republicans cut the Obama Administrations request for embassy security funding by $128 million in fiscal 2011 and another $330 million in fiscal 2012.

    In 2011, Hillary Clinton told the Republicans that their proposed cuts to her department would be “detrimental to American’s national security” and the Republicans blew off the warning.

    Under your plan, Paul, you would cut non-defense discretionary spending — and that includes State Department funding — by almost another 20% in 2014. That would be about $400 million in additional cuts to embassy security. And now you think it’s important and you want to blame the Obama Administration?

    Go f**k yourself, Paul.

    1. correct me if I am wrong, but did any of those budgets even matter? Didn’t the Senate block every one of them, so the administration got to spend whatever it wanted?

      2. Jerry,
        If it doesn’t work that way, then How does it work? As I understand it, in a ‘normal’ administration, the President (or his staff…) prepares a budget, submits it to the House (where it goes through committees where it is ‘massaged’ beyond all recognition) who then votes on it, where it goes to the Senate who then approves it and makes it official.

        Under Obama, again as I understand it, for the last two years since the Republicans took control, he hasn’t even submitted a budget. Ryan and his committee have created a budget (with across the board cuts), the house has passed it, and the Senate has rejected it. Since there was no budget passed, then the administration has just used the prior years budget and continued on its merry way.

        If this is not the case, please enlighten me.

      3. That’s closer to the truth of what’s happened. That’s also not what you said the first time.

        “Didn’t the Senate block every one of them, so the administration got to spend whatever it wanted?”

        That’s what I responded to and the administration getting to “spend whatever it wanted” isn’t close to what you posted the second time.

    2. No, Jerry, you go fûçk yourself.

      You’re borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend from China or wherever and taxing people who have no say in the matter because they aren’t even born yet. And, if you want to double everybody’s taxes to pay for all this demodonkey doo, then that’s fine, just say it and run on that. But, you know as well as everyone reading this blog (and for that matter everyone in the country) that Obama & Co. would be dead in the water were they to take that position, and that’s why they won’t do it.

      1. Well, it’s official… Robert is off his meds again. Wanting adequate embassy security in dangerous parts of the world where we’ve actually just seen an ambassador killed and dragged through the streets is just “demodonkey doo” in CrimLand.

        Who had October 11, 2012 at 11:54 pm in the pool for biggest dûmbášš post of the night? Your prize is at the door.

      4. And Crim’s not a GOPer. He’s just a nut who lives in a delusional world all his own and occasionally shares it with us.

      5. The trouble, Jerry, in dealing with demodonkey jáçkáššëš is that they all think the rest of us are as stupid as they are.

        In what way is failing to provide even a dozen armed Marines to the protective service of the most exposed ambassador on the planet on the most obvious day of the year for trouble in any way related to an UNSUCCESSFUL effort to cut overall the discretionary budget and bring the budget deficit under control?

        I’m reminded of the time a group of us went to Hartford to a General Assembly hearing on budget control, and all the Democrats on the committee lined up behind the idea that ANY cut to their INCREASES in the budget would oblige the decommissioning of all the fire departments in Hartford!

        In short, more of the same kind of posturing crap — “We CAN’T cut socialist-terrorist programs or send some of the EPA employees looking for another job,” but try and be fiscally responsible, and first in the crosshairs are fire, police, and the national parks!

        Bottom line, Jerry: The Obama Administration got blindsided for not being ABLE to use either the budget it has or the budget it would have had were the United States Senate (under Harry Reid and the Democrats) willing to PASS A BUDGET! Obama & Co. don’t need more money; they need more common sense!

        Finally, my challenge, long made in these threads, remains: Are demodonkeys willing to DOUBLE EVERYONE’S TAXES to pay for all this crap they want to impose on us? IF SO, RUN ON THAT and see what happens!

        But, even to try that, we all know you either haven’t got the balls or are not nearly as stupid as you would have the rest of us believe. And, WERE you to try that, you would not carry much more than Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.

        That’s why you tax the people who cannot complain: The unborn you’d probably just as soon abort.

      6. It’s the one in the cabinet in your bathroom, Robert, or maybe on the headboard. Wherever…. It’s the little bottle, kind of a orange-tan color and see through with a white lid, that has a little white label on it with your name and your psychiatrist’s name on it.

        Unscrew the top, take some of the pills out and follow the directions on the bottle. After doing that, go have a nice rest. You should probably avoid blogging and heavy machinery for a bit as well.

      7. Twelve Marines, Jerry (it’s called a “squad”). You can get one for free from the troops which are NOT staying in Afghanistan, or better yet, when we cut the police, we can start with you, since clearly you spend so much time here that you cannot possibly be doing that much genuine work.

      8. Yes, yes… That’s the bottle. Glad you found it. Now just get a glass of water to wash it down with.

        No, no… Real water. Actual water. Not special water like the special coffee you drink all day. Don’t want to mix that and your meds. Could be bad.

        Now knock ’em back and have a good night.

      10. No, no… It’s all good. No need to thank me. I think I speak for us all when I say that we just want to see you get better and get over your obvious mental issues.
        .
        .
        .
        .
        .
        I wonder how many more posts it will take for him to figure out that I’m not even bothering to read anything he writes at this point? Five more? Ten maybe?

    3. Um, Jerry? ABC News’s fact check people beg to disagree with you on the embassy security thing. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/abcs-fact-check-team-assesses-debate-joe-biden/story?id=17459881#.UHe0BFH4IQs You, um, might want to read that before telling people to go f**k themselves.

      The key here is that Biden takes his claim from the Ryan budget, not the spending bills passed by Congress that actually slashed funding for embassy security.

      Biden’s charge comes from assuming that non-defense discretionary spending proposed by Ryan in his budget would make cuts off the top of each program. Ryan’s budget called for a 19 percent across-the-board cut to non-defense discretionary spending in the year 2014. Assuming an across-the-board distribution of cuts, his proposal would cut $298 million for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance, and it’d slash Protection of Foreign Missions and Officials by $5 million, for a total of $303 million. Still, that number also includes money that’s used for construction and maintenance.

      Biden suggests this cut that has already been realized as a result of the Ryan Budget, but in his budget there are no spending levels enumerated for something as specific as Worldwide Security Protection. Funding for that comes from the State/Foreign Ops bill or the Site Security Team (SST – what actually provided security in Benghazi), which comes from Department of Defense’s budget.

      The Department of Defense budget is the one that Romney/Ryan want to raise, even more than the military is asking for if you believe Obama/Biden. Ryan specifically asked why there weren’t Marines in place, and I’m fairly certain that Marines are also covered by DoD. And I can’t help but notice that the attack in Libya didn’t actually happen in 2014. So, yeah, I’m not sure that Ryan is actually being a hypocrite in asking why there weren’t Marines in place on a specific trouble spot on the anniversary of 9/11 when the people in place actually were asking for more support. (That part is covered in the NBC fact-checking thread: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/11/14379368-truth-squad-the-vice-presidential-debate?lite though NBC does adopt Biden’s interpretation of the budget cut.)

      But maybe you want to tell him to go f**k himself anyway. You know what they say about sex with someone you love. And hey, thanks for raising the level of discourse.

      1. No David, it doesn’t quite disagree with me. And I like how you quote all of it except the part that kinda undercuts their assessment as much as Biden’s

        “Plus, the Ryan Budget never became law. It’s not possible to know exactly how cuts to these programs would shake out because Ryan’s budget resolution doesn’t go into that much detail. If Ryan’s budget was ever passed, the House appropriations committee would have to work within that blueprint to pass the appropriations bills and figure out exactly how the money is divvied up and which programs would suffer the brunt of the cuts.”

        So, yeah, you could ultimately wind up with exactly the projected cuts that critics say the Ryan budget would create.

        Also, your link addresses what Ryan’s budget would or would not do, and assumes that their budget would work like the magical thing they’re selling it as, but doesn’t address the budget years we’ve already passed and the impact that it’s had on security or the fact that the exchange between Hillary and her people and the Republicans is what it was. It doesn’t dispute that at all because, if you go by reality, they can’t. And given that it’s the actions and the budgeting of the last few years that would have an impact on what has just recently happened…

        Next time, you might want to actually read both what someone wrote and the complete fact check article a little closer before being flip about it.

        And, yeah, Ryan and Romney can still go f**k themselves.

      2. Jerry,
        I don’t normally get upset at this sort of stupid exchange, but your remarks are making me want to return expletive with expletive!

        Did you really just mean to read David’s well reasoned, documented reply, and then reply back ‘Well, yes, those parts disagree with me, but if you read some other parts, they say I MIGHT be right, if you have a appropriate alternate universe and assume facts not in evidence, so *BLEEP* *BLEEP* *BLEEP*.’ The basic fact is that the Obama administration had total control over the staffing and security at that embassy, but decided, for whatever reasons, to give it minimal security. It is their responsibility, and no amount of whining and complaining is going to get them out of it.

      3. Charlie,

        I addressed multiple points. I addressed what the Republicans themselves wanted done that they’re now acting like and talking like they never did.

        We have passed several little emergency spending budgets. We have, despite your comments above, passed and signed budgets.

        “Congress Passes Budget Bill, but Some in G.O.P. Balk”
        “Scores of House Republicans deserted their leadership to vote against the bill, which cut $38 billion in spending, saying it did not go far enough.”
        http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/us/politics/15congress.html?_r=0

        We have not been sailing along with no new budgets of any kind for years now despite the talking points of the Right. See those words above? See the words “cut $38 billion in spending” up there?

        It’s documented fact that we have seen Republican pushed cuts in these areas. It’s documented fact that the state department objected to cuts that they thought would impact their own security measures abroad.

        The piece that David links to doesn’t address the cuts in the 2011 and 2012 budgets. So what the Republicans wanted and did, cutting funding that would, among other things, go to embassy security, was done and that’s not in dispute at all in the piece that David links to.

        It addresses the proposed Ryan budget, the budget model that Romney/Ryan will use, and says that, yeah, it’ll cause cuts, but that we can’t for sure say that the cuts are what Biden says they will be.

        Doesn’t matter. We’ve seen cuts, we’ve seen cuts pushed by Republicans and we’ve seen that there are projected cuts in the few details that Republicans don’t shift on and run from. That which has happened is fact and not in dispute. That which may happen is certainly open to interpretation, and the best thing that has been presented to say that my comments were wrong or that Biden’s comments made at the same time were wrong is something that says, as David left out of the cut and paste he did, that it’s not possible to know exactly how cuts to these programs would shake out because Ryan’s budget resolution doesn’t go into that much detail but that such cuts could indeed happen under it.

        So my 2011 budget comment? Correct. My 2012 budget comment? Correct. My comment on 2014 based on the budget proposals made and the projections made from them? As likely correct as not since we’re looking at possible outcomes, but still a matter of showing that the guy making the comment wants to cut that same spending just like he and his party already supported such cuts on the past two passed budget measures.

        But suddenly it’s a great political attack tool and Romney and Ryan want to act like it was all Obama?

        F**k the lying little hypocrite.

      4. F**k the lying little hypocrite.

        You mean Biden, when he lied about the embassy asking for the very security that Ryan was suggesting should have been there?

        from:http://harndenblog.dailymail.co.uk/2012/10/ghost-of-al-gore-will-haunt-smirking-interrupting-joe-biden-as-he-plays-fast-and-loose-with-the-fact.html

        Even more startling was Biden’s insistence: ‘Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again.’

        That is directly contradicted by testimony from two State Department officials this week. Eric Nordstrom, expressed frustration at how his appeals for more resources were rebuffed.

        Lt Col Andrew Wood, former head of a 16-member U.S. military team that helped protect the embassy in Tripoli, testified: ‘We were fighting a losing battle. We couldn’t even keep what we had. There were requests for extra security; those requests were not honoured.’

        The State Department refused Nordstrom’s request to deploy security personnel from the embassy in Tripoli to the station in Benghazi. I’m sure you can come up with some convoluted explanation for how the “f**k” that was caused by Ryan’s budget. Go on. He’s a lying hypocrite, kindly explain why.

        Bear in mind that Biden didn’t claim “we wanted to send more security but were prevented by the budget,” which might have opened up the argument you’re making. He denied that the security staff asked for reinforcements at all, which was a lie. Come on, Democrats fess up when their guy screws up, so after calling Romney and Ryan a liar I bet you’re just champing at the bit to admit your guy did there. Also when he claimed that the Joint Chiefs recommended the drawdown in surge troops, notwithstanding the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs testifying to the exact opposite. But that’s only, how did you put it, “if you go by reality.”

        Next time, you might want to actually read both what someone wrote and the complete fact check article a little closer before being flip about it.

        Pot, meet kettle. I’m not the one who started a thread by telling someone to go f**k himself for daring to criticize the Obama administration’s use of resources. Or do you think it’s utterly impossible to cut someone’s budget and still criticize what they do with the money that you do give them? “You didn’t give us what we wanted, so if something goes wrong it’s not our fault.” Um, no. The budget wasn’t $0, especially when you consider that security doesn’t necessarily come out of the budget bill that he cut (you did read that part, right?), and Ryan’s argument is that if you’re going to have embassy security anywhere on earth, a useful amount of it should be in the Middle East, particularly in the part of it that’s been having revolutions lately.

        given that it’s the actions and the budgeting of the last few years that would have an impact on what has just recently happened

        That’s a really good point. Let’s take a look at that, shall we?

        Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance (in $1000)

        FY 2004 1,440,659
        FY 2005 2,095,644
        FY 2006 1,489,727
        FY 2007 1,490,852
        FY 2008 1,502,274
        FY 2009 2,669,369
        FY 2010 1,817,550
        FY 2011 1,630,953
        FY 2012 1,537,000 estimate
        FY 2013 1,637,724 request

        Hasn’t actually been gutted, there. (2009 had an extra $1Bn in construction costs, so I guess they built something big.)

        http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181061.pdf

        The table is on Page 11 (25th page of the pdf). Page 465 (actually the 479th page of the pdf) describes the department you’re so wound up about Ryan et al cutting. It doesn’t seem to cover the actual security personnel that Ryan was asking about, which is exactly what the fact check said.

        What you want is Worldwide Security Protection. “WSP funding supports numerous security programs including a worldwide guard force protecting overseas diplomatic missions, residences, as well as domestic facilities.” (Page 63.) For whatever reason, they don’t provide a 10 year snapshot of that budget, but FY 2011 ($1,497,056), 2012 (1,355,000), and 2013 (1,428,468) are remarkably consistent, varying only 10%. (Page 37, again expressed in thousands of dollars.) From that, you get a Republican cut so severe that Republicans are hypocrites for criticizing how a sitting ambassador is (not) protected? Honestly?

        Ryan and his party did cut the budget that State asked for. He then criticized the Administration for its security arrangements using the money that they were given. Biden, and you, jumped on cuts that haven’t happened yet, and might not happen at all depending on how the final budget gets parceled out, and claim that estops Ryan from making that criticism. Seriously? When the people on the ground were asking for help, notwithstanding what Biden said? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19900756, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/world/africa/hearing-focuses-on-attack-that-killed-ambassador.html?_r=0)

        Gosh, how dare Ryan.

      5. Oh goody. My big long post last night didn’t go through. I get to redo it now. Joy and bliss.

        The piece that David links to doesn’t address the cuts in the 2011 and 2012 budgets. So what the Republicans wanted and did, cutting funding that would, among other things, go to embassy security, was done and that’s not in dispute at all in the piece that David links to.

        The problem is, there weren’t any cuts. The Obama Administration didn’t get the amounts it asked for. You make an excellent observation at one point:

        And given that it’s the actions and the budgeting of the last few years that would have an impact on what has just recently happened…

        So let’s look at those numbers, shall we?

        The budget for Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance is the one everyone is hollering about the cuts in.
        Expressed in $1,000s, their budget has been as follows (2012 projected, 2013 is the current request):
        FY 2004: 1,440,659
        FY 2005: 2,095,644
        FY 2006: 1,489,727
        FY 2007: 1,490,852
        FY 2008: 1,502,274
        FY 2009: 2,669,369
        FY 2010: 1,817,550
        FY 2011: 1,630,953
        FY 2012: 1,537,000
        FY 2013: 1,637,724

        http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181061.pdf Page 11 (Which is actually found on the 25th page of the pdf, as there’s a fair bit of roman-numeral-numbered introductory material.) The funding was actually pretty stable, within 10% or so. If you look at the specific data, there was a larger construction budget for 2009, which accounts for the larger budget that year.

        However, go down to the description of the Embassy Security, etc. department, and you’ll see that it doesn’t seem to cover the actual protection of the embassies. (Which is exactly what is noted in the fact-check article that you accused me of either not reading, or selectively editing, or both.) What you want is Worldwide Security Protection. “WSP funding supports numerous security programs including a worldwide guard force protecting overseas diplomatic missions, residences, as well as domestic facilities.” (Page 63) The funding for that department pretty well obliterates the argument that Republican cuts were behind the security failure.
        FY 2004: 639,896
        FY 2005: 649,904
        FY 2006: 730,816
        FY 2007: 778,449
        FY 2008: 1,178,938
        FY 2009: 1,341,758
        FY 2010: 1,586,214
        FY 2011: 1,497,056
        FY 2012: 1,355,000
        FY 2013: 1,428,468

        Wow, they really gouged the hëll out of that one. It’s only twice what it was at the height of the Iraq war, and again only about 10% different from what the State Department is asking for next year.

        So, given that the State Department was given $1.3 Bn in addition to all the Marines it can handle (comes out of the Defense budget, remember, which Republicans aren’t exactly famous for gouging– in fact Biden whined during the debate that the Republicans wanted to give DoD more than they wanted), Ryan somehow thought it was appropriate to question why they couldn’t allocate sufficient funds to protect an ambassador in a Middle Eastern country that had just gone through a revolution, on the anniversary of 9/11. What nerve.

        You’ll notice that Biden took essentially the same approach you did: because State didn’t get exactly what it requested, it’s off the hook for failing to protect an ambassador, and Republicans are prohibited from criticizing how it spent the billions of dollars that it did receive. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Particularly since the Ryan budget is speculative; the cuts might go as you suggest, they might not, but as you helpfully point out it’s the money that they actually did get that would have been used to protect this base, and didn’t.

        Bear in mind the other facet of Biden making this argument. He didn’t claim “we’d have loved to send more security there but we didn’t have the money.” He claimed (which is a lie) that the people in Libya didn’t ask for more security. The day before the debate, the State Department was on Capitol Hill claiming that they sent the forces that were appropriate– which means that the budget had nothing to do with it.

        “”We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11,” said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of state for diplomatic security.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19900756

        “Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, insisted that Mr. Nordstrom’s request to extend the military team was only a recommendation and that the State Department had been right not to heed it. The broader strategy was to phase out the American military team and rely more on the Libyan militiamen who were protecting the compound along with a small number of American security officers.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/world/africa/hearing-focuses-on-attack-that-killed-ambassador.html?_r=0

        Note how Lamb isn’t claiming that budget cuts prevented them from guarding the ambassador.

        So we’re back to the question Ryan posed: why the f**k weren’t there enough Marines/Special Forces/WSP in a recent war zone to protect the ambassador? According to Lamb, it was part of “a broader strategy” and that is the strategy Ryan criticized.

        F**k the lying little hypocrite.

        In this discussion at least, that’s Biden.

      6. Oh goody. My big long post last night didn’t go through. I get to redo it now. Joy and bliss.

        The piece that David links to doesn’t address the cuts in the 2011 and 2012 budgets. So what the Republicans wanted and did, cutting funding that would, among other things, go to embassy security, was done and that’s not in dispute at all in the piece that David links to.

        The problem is, there weren’t any cuts. The Obama Administration didn’t get the amounts it asked for. You make an excellent observation at one point:

        And given that it’s the actions and the budgeting of the last few years that would have an impact on what has just recently happened…

        So let’s look at those numbers, shall we?

        The budget for Embassy Security, Construction & Maintenance is the one everyone is hollering about the cuts in.
        Expressed in $1,000s, their budget has been as follows (2012 projected, 2013 is the current request):
        FY 2004: 1,440,659| FY 2005: 2,095,644| FY 2006: 1,489,727| FY 2007: 1,490,852| FY 2008: 1,502,274| FY 2009: 2,669,369| FY 2010: 1,817,550| FY 2011: 1,630,953| FY 2012: 1,537,000| FY 2013: 1,637,724

        http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181061.pdf Page 11 (Which is actually found on the 25th page of the pdf, as there’s a fair bit of roman-numeral-numbered introductory material.) The funding was actually pretty stable, within 10% or so. If you look at the specific data, there was a larger construction budget for 2009, which accounts for the larger budget that year.

        However, go down to the description of the Embassy Security, etc. department, and you’ll see that it doesn’t seem to cover the actual protection of the embassies. (Which is exactly what is noted in the fact-check article that you accused me of either not reading, or selectively editing, or both.) What you want is Worldwide Security Protection. “WSP funding supports numerous security programs including a worldwide guard force protecting overseas diplomatic missions, residences, as well as domestic facilities.” (Page 63) The funding for that department pretty well obliterates the argument that Republican cuts were behind the security failure.
        FY 2004: 639,896| FY 2005: 649,904| FY 2006: 730,816| FY 2007: 778,449| FY 2008: 1,178,938| FY 2009: 1,341,758| FY 2010: 1,586,214| FY 2011: 1,497,056| FY 2012: 1,355,000| FY 2013: 1,428,468

        Wow, they really gouged the hëll out of that one. It’s only twice what it was at the height of the Iraq war, and again only about 10% different from what the State Department is asking for next year.

      7. Aha. There appears to be a maximum length to a response. Here’s part II because I just know you’re all dying to receive my insight.

        So, given that the State Department was given $1.3 Bn in addition to all the Marines it can handle (comes out of the Defense budget, remember, which Republicans aren’t exactly famous for gouging– in fact Biden whined during the debate that the Republicans wanted to give DoD more than they wanted), Ryan somehow thought it was appropriate to question why they couldn’t allocate sufficient funds to protect an ambassador in a Middle Eastern country that had just gone through a revolution, on the anniversary of 9/11. What nerve.

        You’ll notice that Biden took essentially the same approach you did: because State didn’t get exactly what it requested, it’s off the hook for failing to protect an ambassador, and Republicans are prohibited from criticizing how it spent the billions of dollars that it did receive. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Particularly since the Ryan budget is speculative; the cuts might go as you suggest, they might not, but as you helpfully point out it’s the money that they actually did get that would have been used to protect this base, and didn’t.

        Bear in mind the other facet of Biden making this argument. He didn’t claim “we’d have loved to send more security there but we didn’t have the money.” He claimed (which is a lie) that the people in Libya didn’t ask for more security. The day before the debate, the State Department was on Capitol Hill claiming that they sent the forces that were appropriate– which means that the budget had nothing to do with it.

        “”We had the correct number of assets in Benghazi at the time of 9/11,” said Charlene Lamb, the deputy secretary of state for diplomatic security.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19900756

        “Charlene Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, insisted that Mr. Nordstrom’s request to extend the military team was only a recommendation and that the State Department had been right not to heed it. The broader strategy was to phase out the American military team and rely more on the Libyan militiamen who were protecting the compound along with a small number of American security officers.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/11/world/africa/hearing-focuses-on-attack-that-killed-ambassador.html?_r=0

        Note how Lamb isn’t claiming that budget cuts prevented them from guarding the ambassador.

        So we’re back to the question Ryan posed: why the f**k weren’t there enough Marines/Special Forces/WSP in a recent war zone to protect the ambassador? According to Lamb, it was part of “a broader strategy” and that is the strategy Ryan criticized.

        F**k the lying little hypocrite.

        In this discussion at least, that’s Biden.

  3. 9:08–Biden’s doing what everyone said that Obama should have done.
    9:24–Biden’s saying all the things that Obama should have said.

    I’m still trying to figure out why in the world Obama bothered with the kid gloves in the first place.

    1. Because Obama did not watch West Wing… ” the best thing about being perceived as Arafat and elitist… It means you can be…” whe he did not come out with a stack of Romney quotes that showed flip flopping ws beyond me…

  4. Ryan’s entire defense of their plans basically adds up to saying that it’ll work because it’s magic and it’s magic because it’ll work.

    It’s like listening to Sir Humphrey Appleby, but minus the wit, charm and likability.

    1. And it’s interesting to surmise what sound bites were on his script. The word “equivocate”, for example. 🙂

  6. The only people who think Ryan won it seems are my right-wing nut friends on FB (the ones who haven’t dropped me for disagreeing with them!)

    1. Mostly the same here. The only people I see calling it a slam dunk win for Ryan are the same people who think that Obama was born in another country, Obama is a secret Muslim and/or that WND, Breitbart.com and News Busters are credible news sources. So, basically, no one who will ever be in touch with the reality based community anyhow.

      3. I’m using Facebook to much, Craig. I just spent three seconds trying to find the “Like” button on your post.

        Know any 12 Step Facebook programs?

      1. My state’s Lt. Governor –

        Bill Bolling: “I thought Paul Ryan did a great job holding the Obama administration accountable for their record of failed leadership and talking about how Mitt Romney will get America back on the right track. I was most impressed by his ability to maintain his composure in the face of Vice President Biden’s constant badgering and interruptions. Biden reminded me of a school yard bully, and he certainly did not conduct himself in a way that is becoming the Vice President of the United States.”

        But, of course, Romney was presidential looking and showed strength on the stage interrupting Obama, interrupting the moderator, telling the moderator when he would get and use time and telling 27 documented lies in 38 minutes. I love Bill and he’s a great guy personally, but he’s selling his soul this election cycle to back a truly crap ticket.

      2. There’s no comparison at all between how Romney acted and how Biden acted. Romney was forceful and took control. If you want to say that wasn’t polite, ok. You could say that. What he did was take advantage of Obama’s weakness to win the debate. What Biden did was snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by being a leering, smirking, obnoxious prìçk.

        By the way, I said the morning after the debate that all anyone would remember about the debate was Biden’s behavior. Although I doubt that I’ll get credit here, I was obviously right. Well, at least in part. They actually remember two things: Biden’s dickish attitude and his outrageous lies about Libya. Ryan came through great, thanks to Biden.

      3. And yet, more of the polls of independents and undecideds done right after the debate said that Biden won than said he lost. And of the ones Ryan won, the average margin of victory appears to have been less than the average margin of victory that Biden won by.

        But, of course, Biden snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because the conservative media says so.

      4. Well, at least we get confirmation from Tim that it’s OK as long as it’s his side doing it.

      5. Of course, Craig, that’s not what I said at all, but don’t let that stop you. What part of not being able to compare Romney’s behavior with Biden’s behavior were you incapable of understanding?

        Tell you what guys – Let’s be bipartisan about this. Really. Let’s have more Biden. He hasn’t been that visible during the campaign, mainly because every time he opens his mouth, he says something incredibly stupid. But I join you guys in your love of Biden. Let’s get him out front. Let’s unleash him on the opposition. Then we’ll all be happy. You can watch him act like a total jáçkášš, which makes you happy. We also will get the old Biden surge in the polls, which is actually Romney pulling ahead. On my end of things, we’ll get Romney winning the election in a blowout, which is good for the country. What do you say?

      8. Really?

        You’ve said that what he did was snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and that he was being a leering, smirking, obnoxious prìçk. She said that he was basically too big for such a small stage.

        And this in your world is her agreeing with you about Biden’s performance?

        Yeah…

  7. That was interesting. Finally a moderator who reminds us that he or she is running the show. And while I thought Biden was being overly aggressive, I think he had to. If you don’t respond to an opponent’s points, those points stand. And Biden wasn’t about to give up any ground.

    1. I didn’t see a moderator who was running a show very well. She allowed Biden to interrupt his opponent over 80 times by some counts.

      1. Short of interrupting the interruptions, I’m not sure how she could have stopped that. What she did do, though, was ask probing questions of both candidates. That was a significant improvement.

  8. Hey, Ryan, the deficit is going down under Obama.

    You can’t say the same about the deficit under Nixon, Ford, Reagan, H.W. Bush, or W. Bush. As a matter of fact, the policies under Reagan and W. Bush, the President you lot praise and the President who owned the policies that Romney wants to go back to and from who Romney is filling his group of advisers with people from, tripled and quadrupled the deficit respectively.

    But you want to stop what we’re doing now and go back to the policies of W. on steroids. Yeah, that’s gonna help the deficit.

  9. Wow, Biden sure did coming off badly… in trying to compensate for what the Left perceived as Obama’s tepid performance in the last debate, he’s overcompensating.

    1. Overcompensating?

      Maybe he was aggressive and was laughing because Ryan is a liar, doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and had the unmitigated gall to bring up a car crash victim.

      2. Truly, this is the only place I’ve seen online so far (admittedly, it’s early in the day) that has Biden destroying Ryan. I called it last night – when the dust settled, all everyone would remember is what a condescending, arrogant, mocking ášš Biden was. If we scored only the first half hour, Biden won. Ryan was nervous. Biden was in control. Then we went on this psychotic trip with the smirking, the laugher, and the insults and blew the debate. If he could have kept himself under control, he would have won, hands down. However, his behavior was so awful that I think on that basis alone, he handed the debate to Ryan.

        Interesting point pertaining to this forum – Sounds like Biden’s handlers read the posts here. Biden followed the formula that was suggested here for dealing with Romney, “the liar.” He made fun of Ryan. Mocked him. Tried to shame him. And it totally backfired. It cost Biden the debate.

      3. Peggy Noonan pretty much sums it up:

        “There were fireworks all the way, and plenty of drama. Each candidate could claim a win in one area or another, but by the end it looked to me like this: For the second time in two weeks, the Democrat came out and defeated himself. In both cases the Republican was strong and the Democrat somewhat disturbing.”

        http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

      5. “Then we went on this psychotic trip with the smirking, the laugher, and the insults and blew the debate.”

        Right…

        But Romney smirking, laughing, throwing little insulting zingers and lying his ášš off on top of that = “WIN!” in Republican playbooks.

        I guess it’s only okay when Republicans do it.

      6. I guess it’s only okay when Republicans do it.

        Based on the responses I’ve read here and elsewhere? That’s exactly what they’re saying.

      7. I see the opposite. Bad behaviour is generally excused by the Democrats if it’s perpetrated by Democrats. They don’t excuse it when it comes from Republicans. In fact, the Dems will make normal behaviour out to be bad behavior if they have to… which they are.

  10. Biden did fantastic! Ryan has no idea about the world. He kept saying “Ayatollahs” implying Iran has more than one. Iran has only one! He also mispronounced Bashir Assad’s name. Ryan also kept talking about events Biden attended and Biden corrected him. Biden is an attack dog and a vicious tiger rolled into one. I loved when he asked Ryan if he wanted another war. Fantastic debate and one I plan to watch again. It is an instant classic.

    1. Ryan has no idea about the world. He kept saying “Ayatollahs” implying Iran has more than one. Iran has only one!

      Actually, there are a few dozen. There are a half dozen of them on the Guardian Council, including the head of the judiciary. “Facts matter.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ayatollahs

      He also mispronounced Bashir Assad’s name.

      So? The French pronounce London with an “R.” I’m not seeing where an Irish-American’s pronunciation of Arabic is a big deal.

      1. The Grand Ayatollahs are not the same as the Supreme Leader in Iran. Only he can male certain decisions. He is the head Ayatollah and the only one who really matters in policy decisions. That is a fact. Plus the sanctions are working and there won’t be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. A lot of westerners dont understand the middle east very well. Personally I dont believe Ryan would be good as foreign relations.

      2. Well, David, the reason the French pronounce London with an “r” is because the French name for London is “Londres” (with an “R” you might note).

        And, I’d point out that the French do NOT pronounce the “s” in Paris (and they pronounce the “i” as a long “e”–which is how the “i” is pronounced in Standard French).

        But REAL politicians, who like to keep up with foreign leaders and know their names–and the PROPER way to pronounce those names–take time to learn the correct (or, at least, the non-embarassing) way. Considering nearly every mainstream news anchor can pronounce Assad as “ah-SAHD,” it’s not asking to much for a US Congressman to take 10 seconds and learn it.

        I somehow don’t think he’d have any problem pronouncing “Netanyahu” even though Hebrew is a linguistic sibling to Arabic.

      3. Well, David, the reason the French pronounce London with an “r” is because the French name for London is “Londres” (with an “R” you might note).

        Gosh, I had no frigging idea, notwithstanding the fact that I was the one who brought it up. Thank you for your condescension, I really appreciate it.

        BTW, va te faire f**tre.

        And, I’d point out that the French do NOT pronounce the “s” in Paris (and they pronounce the “i” as a long “e”–which is how the “i” is pronounced in Standard French).

        Um, yes. That’s rather my point: people tend to pronounce things phonetically based on their own native languages. The French call the United States Les Etats-Unis, and refer to my own state as Caroline du Nord, and don’t pronounce the S in Paris, whereas an American politician who referred to a town called “Paree” when addressing an American audience would be rightly mocked for affectation. (Or even worse, pronounce Rome as a two-syllable word.) Even within the same language, Britons will say “the United States are” in common with the British English convention of addressing collective nouns as plural. (They do the same thing with corporations.) Here, “United States” has been a singular noun since the Civil War. Do you think Gordon Brown or David Cameron should hang their head in shame for their English usage? (And before you jump in again, I am aware that Brown is Scottish, but he still speaks English.) Jimmy Carter pronounced “nuclear” as “nukyular,” which is for some reason a fairly common pronunciation which he may have picked up in the Navy, yet even his harshest critics don’t adduce his diction as something that made him a bad president.

        Frankly I think Ryan should be thrilled if his opponents are reduced to jumping on his pronunciation as criticisms of his performance.

      4. David, to begin, I kindly request you take your own advice.

        My initial point, which you so conveniently chose to ignore, is that you wrote “The French pronounce London with an ‘R.'” In other words, you simple-minded nit, you suggested the idea that the French ADD an “r” to their pronunciation of the word “London.” A Frenchman speaking the word “London” will NOT randomly insert an “r” sound in there since it doesn’t exist. (More likely, they would simply nasalize the two “n”s since an “n” following a vowel in spoken French is nasalized.)

        As for the straw man argument about Britons, British English has its own set of rules (as well as spellings) that often differs from American English. (It’s also worth remembering that the language IS called “English”–originating in England–rather than “American”; our form is merely a dialect of the Mother Tongue.) But, you may have noticed we’re NOT discussing any Britons; we ARE discussing an American. This is more in line with typical GOP arrogance where *other* people’s names and designations aren’t as important as the GOPers. (Remember Dubya, and his flat “a” usage in Saddam Hussein’s name, as though the name were pronounced like “the beavers built a mighty sad dam?”)

        It’s not like Assad’s name is an ungodly mishmash like Ahmadinejad which is a serious challenge, even to veteran newscasters. Assad contains a total of 3 letters and 2 syllables. Because English imposes a series of stressed and unstressed syllables, we (especially in the US) have a tendency to schwa the unstressed vowel, allowing for a leeway of acceptability in Assad’s name being pronounced as “uh-SAHD” in AmerEnglish, especially at a standard rate of speaking, just as the Israeli PM’s name is typically pronounced as “neh-tuhn-YAH-hoo,” even by educated Americans. But as neither Standard Arabic nor Standard Hebrew have a “flat a” (as in “apple” or “flat”), it’s nothing less than stupidity or a desire to be insulting to DELIBERATELY mispronounce the man’s name.

        And one last little note, don’t use the incredibly absurd excuse that Paul Ryan’s Irish heritage has anything to do with how he pronounces Arabic. I’ve heard the man speak and he speaks like a Wisconsinite. (The Kennedys were also Irish-Americans and Paul Ryan doesn’t sound like any of them so his stupidity has nothing to do with his long-ago heritage. Besides, this is supposed to be one of the GOP’s little wunderkinder and he can’t be bothered to take a couple of minutes and learn how to pronounce a person’s name.)

      5. “And one last little note, don’t use the incredibly absurd excuse that Paul Ryan’s Irish heritage has anything to do with how he pronounces Arabic. I’ve heard the man speak and he speaks like a Wisconsinite. (The Kennedys were also Irish-Americans and Paul Ryan doesn’t sound like any of them so his stupidity has nothing to do with his long-ago heritage. Besides, this is supposed to be one of the GOP’s little wunderkinder and he can’t be bothered to take a couple of minutes and learn how to pronounce a person’s name.)”

        For that matter, Obama is in part of Irish ancestry. That joke he told overseas about looking for the apostrophe that the “O’Bama” family lost wasn’t completely a joke.

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367217/Barack-Obamas-long-lost-relatives-Irish-heritage-pleased-hear-news.html

  11. CBS News INSTANT POLL of Undecided Voters: Who won VP debate? BIDEN: 50% RYAN: 31% TIE: 19%

      1. Yeah. Biden slapped Ryan around so badly that the GOP is discussing taking child abuse charges out on Biden.

        That wasn’t even close and Ryan looked pathetic. Obama better have been taking notes.

      2. A TIE? This is carrying undecided to new heights.

        No, that would be the CNN poll giving Ryan 48%, Biden, 44%.

    2. What’s interesting is the completely predictable polling that asserts Ryan won by a narrow margin. Why predictable?

      Because in polls after the first debate, Democrats were honest enough to say, “Yeah, our guy sucked.”

      Republicans, on the other hand, cannot bring themselves to admit that their guy’s ášš got kicked. Ryan could have gone fetal and started sucking his thumb and the GOP would still claim that he triumphed.

      PAD

      1. So a poll saying that Biden won is proof that Biden won, with incredulity that some people thought it was a tie. A poll saying that Ryan might have a slight edge in a tossup is proof that Republicans lie.

        Okaaaaaaay. I guess the poll Jerry cited must not have found enough liars. Or Republicans. Same thing, right?

      2. I know it won’t surprise anyone that I disagree with that assessment.

        First, both candidates did what a VP is supposed to and appealed to the base. Obama utterly failed to do even that in his first debate while also failing to appeal to independents. Ryan also had some very good moments in his debate which is also something Obama lacked. In the end Obama gave his side nothing to cheer for, while Ryan did.

        Also, I think you’re looking at the debate from the p.o.v. of a wonk. Let’s face it, anyone who comments on the political threads here has the tendency to look at this with a wonk’s eye. We unconsciously fill in minor details the candidates forget. We don’t mind if our candidates are rude to each other. You might think it was fine that Biden “controlled” the debate, but an “independent” (read someone who doesn’t pay attention to politics until the last few weeks of a campaign) won’t be fine with it. The remarks of independent friends of mine lead me to believe they saw Biden as an arrogant, mean bombast who rudely smirked, giggled and interrupted Ryan. The interupting was the worst part, because while Biden (who ended with a slight edge in talk time)may have talked over things you didn’t care to hear, the independents did want to hear it.

        I think Charles Krauthammer nailed it when he asserted that the transcripts show the debate as a draw, the radio would have Biden winning, and the TV score Ryan winning. In essence, the JFK effect actually worked to the Republican’s advantage this time.

      3. Also, I think 20-25% percent of those polled believed Obama won the first debate. My suspicion is that those people were probably Democrats. I also seem to recall the post-debate Democratic narrative was more along the lines of “Romney lied so much that it overloaded Obama’s ability to keep up.” That theory was more popular until the details of Obama’s complete lack of preparation for the debate lead many to adopt the “Yeah, our guy sucked” theory.

        Please note, I’m not accusing you or anyone else who posts here of holding the former theory, PAD. I’m just saying I’ll need a lot of convincing before I believe that Dems are inherently more self-aware, or honest about the debate performances of their chosen candidate.

      4. “Okaaaaaaay. I guess the poll Jerry cited must not have found enough liars. Or Republicans. Same thing, right?”

        Well, if you want to call them all liars…

      5. From the article detailing the CNN poll:

        “By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.”

        This sample that broke down 33% Republicans, 31% Democrat, and 34% independents. So even if Republicans lied, and all Democrats surveyed sided with there guy, half of the independents said they saw Ryan as better expressing himself. Also note that two percent of those polled said that Ryan better expressed himself, but didn’t win. I doubt that 2% was Republican.

        “Seven in ten said Biden was seen as spending more time attacking his opponent, and that may be a contributing factor in Ryan’s 53%-43% advantage on being more likable.”

        And this is the problem of modern debates. It’s not about who commands facts and figures better. It’s about who is more likable. It’s hard to interrupt someone 82 times (that’s the number I’ve seen) in 90 minutes, complain about your own lack of time, argue with the moderator, and seem like a nice, decent human being. Biden might have “controlled” the debate, but he did so at the expense of his ability to connect with the average viewer.

        source article – http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/?hpt=hp_t1

  12. I can see this as a debate where both sides can claim victory.

    Fully agree with you on the negative campaign question. I shook my head when Biden did it and then Ryan went and did it too.

  13. Again, local NPR station played jazz instead of the debate. The state NPR broadcast the debate, but cut off analysis afterward.

    The Wichita newspaper has a column on the editorial page made up of stuff e-mailed in by people, but without names or email addresses. One I sent in last year that was reprinted for the end-of-year edition, and it was proved again tonight — Kansas is NOT a red state/

    It’s infrared.

  14. Just a general thought on debates:

    If folks really want the moderator to have more authority, shouldn’t the moderator be able to turn off the debaters’ microphones? I’d be fine with a 10- or 20-second warning light letting them know their time was almost up, but it seems like the only way to keep a candidate within their allotted time is to *force* them to do so.

    1. Reagan killed that forever in the NH primary debates back in 1980 when he declared, “I paid for this mic, and you will not shut me off!”

      If a moderator does that, he is automatically seen as taking sides, and his perceived objectivity is compromised. Furthermore, it can actually help the candidate who was silenced if he refuses to stand for it. There’s too much at risk for a moderator to even consider it now.

    2. Simple: put the mics on an automatic timer that works the mics.

      The candidate presses a button to turn on the mic and starts the timer. Then it automatically shuts off after however long they’re given to speak.

      And the Right really needs to STFU about Biden being disrespectful after Romney’s performance in the first debate. And Malcolm, you can shove it as well about which side is more honest regarding who ‘won’ each debate, because the last thing Republicans have an eye right now for is honesty.

  15. It is also worth noting regarding the CNN poll that it contained a disproportionately higher number of GOP voters compared to the National average. Which underscores what I said earlier: Dems will cop to their guy doing poorly, while the GOP will close ranks.

    PAD

    1. Which is why even after ostensibly betraying the conservative cause during his debate by redefining himself as a defender of Medicare, advocate of Wall Street regulation, scourge of the big banks, enemy of tax cuts for the rich, and champion of tax relief for the middle class — reversing his positions of the last several months and essentially adopting Obama’s own — there was not so much as a peep of indignation from the Right. Funny that.

      Roger Ebert has an excellent blog post on the topic, “Who Do You Believe, Mitt, or Your Lyin’ Memory?”: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2012/10/who_do_you_believe–mitt_or_yo.html

      1. You should note, Sasha, the part that you thought significant to actually quote (I assume your not putting it in quote marks was oversight and not plagiarism) was from Hendrik Hertzberg in The New Yorker. Something Ebert attributed and put quote marks around correctly.

    2. It is also worth noting regarding the CNN poll that it contained a disproportionately higher number of GOP voters compared to the National average. Which underscores what I said earlier: Dems will cop to their guy doing poorly, while the GOP will close ranks.

      33% of the sample identified as Republican. 48% of the sample said Ryan won. Apparently we’re so good at closing ranks that we increase our number by 50%. Though Peter is half right about a disproportionate number of the respondents being Republican: it was a point low. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2012/10/08/how-party-id-explains-romneys-surge/

    1. That’s because the GOP is a total wuss itself. Like all bullies, it has no real strength or courage and cries FOUL! whenever someone doesn’t let them beat him up.

      1. I’m aware that’s what they would prefer to be called. Like a lot of conservatives, I simply choose not to call them that. Your ignorance is showing.

      2. And if rational people called the GOP the “Republicanist” Party (considering that their aims are not particularly in tune with a republican form of government), would you be good with that, too?

      3. You’re ignorance is showing.

        Please tell me that was on purpose. (If so, it’s actually kind of funny.)

      4. Darin

        October 12, 2012 at 9:12 pm

        I’m aware that’s what they would prefer to be called. Like a lot of conservatives, I simply choose not to call them that. Your ignorance is showing.
        ——

        Based on that “logic,” you won’t object to being called Durweed since “I simply choose not to call” you what you’d like.

        The simple fact, Durweed, is that Democrat is the term for a PERSON. Democratic is the term for the PARTY. (Democrat is a proper noun; Democratic is a proper adjective.)

      5. Darin: I’m aware that’s what they would prefer to be called. Like a lot of conservatives, I simply choose not to call them that.

        It’s not just what they prefer, Darin. It’s what their actual name is.

        That you insist on getting it wrong, and then take pride in that fact, merely demonstrates how childish you are. And how unseriously you should be taken.

      6. David: Please tell me that was on purpose. (If so, it’s actually kind of funny.)

        Honestly, it was a typo. But I noticed it immediately (as if that counts for anything) and got the irony.

        I was actually wondering if Darin would catch it. Of course, he didn’t.

  18. “What’s interesting is the completely predictable polling that asserts Ryan won by a narrow margin. Why predictable?

    Because in polls after the first debate, Democrats were honest enough to say, “Yeah, our guy sucked.”

    Republicans, on the other hand, cannot bring themselves to admit that their guy’s ášš got kicked. Ryan could have gone fetal and started sucking his thumb and the GOP would still claim that he triumphed.

    PAD”

    And boy has the last 24 hours been an eye opener on that one. In discussions I’ve had in the real flesh and blood world, discussions I listened to while in the doctor’s office today and various discussions I’ve seen or been in on social media… Good God…

    Seriously, what is up with some of the Romney supporters? Last week the various Obama supporters slapped their heads into their hands and openly discussed how badly he blew a debate that by all rights should have been his. Every Obama supporter I know admitted it and the only two major media figures I saw who declared that he didn’t were Sharpton, who somewhat sanely went with the idea that Obama would be declared the real winner after a day of fact checking, and Lawrence O’Donnell, who went the insane path of playing it up like Obama let Romney hang himself as genius strategy in the long game, on MSNBC.

    And in various quarters, the Romney supporters acted like some of the poorest winners I’ve seen anywhere.

    But today? I’ve never seen such absolutely delusional attitudes. Ryan destroyed Biden, Ryan spoke only truth and facts, as Romney did a week ago, and Biden was rude, mean, a bully and, like Obama a week ago, lied through the whole debate.

    And if you disagree with that? Some of them get volatile. Some of them get practically to the stage of threatening you over saying that Ryan lost. I have never, never, seen reactions like this to a dámņëd VP debate. Even some of the most faithful Palin admires handled themselves with more dignity and class last election’s VP debate.

    And what makes this all the more insane is that many of the people I know of who are flipping out like this hated Romney one year ago. They called him a liar. They called him a RINO. They called him an opportunist who has no core values or beliefs. They called his record as Governor sad and pathetic. Some even said that he was less of a conservative than Obama on some matters.

    But now he’s honest as the day is long and a conservative who had a sterling record?

    I can’t handle delusional attitudes to this degree from regular people.

    Although I fully expected it from this lot.

    “GOP Leaders Endorse Mitt Romney For President”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=av3q7-a-ayc

  19. This is classic.

    Play the video and listen carefully. Carlson actually says that Biden won on substance, but that he lost in the far more important areas of how he looked.

    Substance means much less than grinning and laughing whenever Ryan started drifting off into fantasy land with his responses.

    The Fox News motto I suppose. Must explain the hiring of all of the news models. You have to look really good if you’re not going to have any real substance in your average broadcast day.

    http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2012/10/12/video-foxs-carlson-reading-the-transcript-biden-likely-won-the-debate-but-lets-focus-on-bidens-demeanor/

  20. I want to take a quick moment to talk about the meaning of the word “respect” as has been used in this debates.

    Four years ago, everyone said that Biden couldn’t do what he usually does when debating Palin. He couldn’t look smug, he couldn’t come off as combative, and he couldn’t do anything that might make it look like he was being mean to a girl. He followed that logic and was much more restrained than usual.

    This year, he let loose on his opponent with everything he had.

    Right now people are using the word “disrespectful” to say that respect is measured in how nice you are. By that standard, he was very respectful to Palin and not to Ryan.

    However, let’s phrase it another way. Who did he respect more *as an opponent*? The opponent he went at with everything hes got, or the opponent he restrained himself with?

    To my mind, the fact that he didn’t hold back showed Ryan a lot more respect than Palin.

    1. What was the difference between Palin’s performance and Ryan’s?

      Lipstick and winks.

      Like I told someone on Facebook the other day, the conservatives know flat out that Ryan lost. When you’re entire spin for 24 hours after the debate is just trying to convince everyone that Biden was a big, mean, bullying old man who committed child abuse on poor little Ryan… You know Ryan blew it 110% on the substance.

      When even Fox News hosts slip up and say that Ryan won it hands down on substance before declaring that he lost the debate itself because he smiled, laughed and interrupted Ryan when he was telling lies… Just have the intellectual honesty to say that Ryan lost.

      But then, most of these people, to use your example, declared Palin the hands down winner of the 2008 VP debate and discussed her masterful performance and debating style, so I’m not holding my breath.

      1. So you aren’t at all convinced by the theory that both parties are claiming victory because their nominees said what their own bases wanted to hear?
        Democrats: I liked everything Biden did! He won!
        Republicans: I liked everything Ryan did! He won!

        No?

      2. Of course, David, of course. That’s exactly it. That’s why everyone on the left here watched Romney lie his ášš off in the first debate, heard Obama say things that we would “wanted to hear” and then said that Obama won the debate hands down.

        Except, that’s not what happened. We all watched the far more important Presidential Debate, heard Obama say what we supposedly “wanted to hear” and listened to Romney lie about every topic and still said that Obama blew a debate he should have won.

        We watched the VP debate. We watched Ryan try to lie his ášš off and watched Biden back him into a corner and made Ryan look alternately like a fool and a liar and occasionally both at once.

        As I said above, when even Fox News has a verbal accident and slips up and says that Biden won the thing on substance, Ryan done got his ášš whupped.

      3. Jerry, this discussion now boils down as follows:

        Me: Isn’t it possible that reasonable minds can disagree?
        Jerry: No, I’m right.
        (Repeat as needed.)

        Look, based on (holy crap, I’ve been coming here more than 8 years, off and on) long-term exposure to political threads on this blog, sometimes agreeing with you but more often not, it’s fair to conclude you and I don’t agree about the proper role of government in the economy, healthcare, indeed the very legitimacy of the welfare state. We don’t see the world the same way. Why is it so surprising to you that we perceived the debate differently? You saw Biden backing Ryan into a corner, I saw Biden shouting like a petulant child. You saw Ryan lying his ášš off, I was focused on Biden denying that the Libyan diplomatic mission asked for reinforcements. (Incidentally my biggest complaint about Ryan’s debate was that he was too vague– it’s hard to lie one’s ášš off when being that nonspecific.) I didn’t think Ryan did nearly as badly or Biden half as well as you did. That doesn’t mean I’m lying or closing ranks with my fellow Republicans; it means I have an opinion different from yours. Most value judgments are subjective; it’s only going to be extreme cases– like the President phoning it in on the first debate– where there’s going to be a clear winner or loser of a debate. The VP debate wasn’t one of them. I’m perfectly willing to believe that you thought Biden’s performance was clearly superior to Ryan’s; I’m just asking you to think it possible that Republicans are neither deluded nor lying when we say we were satisfied with Ryan and/or thought Biden made an ášš of himself.

      4. No. You clarified your point as this.

        “So you aren’t at all convinced by the theory that both parties are claiming victory because their nominees said what their own bases wanted to hear?
        Democrats: I liked everything Biden did! He won!
        Republicans: I liked everything Ryan did! He won!”

        And I disagreed with that. The biggest reason that I disagree with that is what I alluded to above. If that was the case, if that was all there was to anyone here who is left of center calling that debate a win for Biden, we would have seen all of the same players here, elsewhere and in the media declaring victory for Obama in the first Presidential debate.

        Didn’t happen. Everybody here who was left of center said that Obama blew it.

        It’s not about, as you put it –

        Democrats: I liked everything Biden did! He won!
        Republicans: I liked everything Ryan did! He won!”

        It really is becoming more like what Peter observed. Republicans cannot admit when their guys blow it or when Democrats win one.

      5. Look, let me clarify something so that you aren’t taking this as personal against you.

        You might be legitimately seeing a Ryan win. Fine. Not every single person out there fits the model being discussed.

        But at this point, I’m talking about the masses. I’m talking about the idiots that said that Palin won her debate with Biden. I’m talking about the idiots who declared that reality was wrong and Palin and Bachmann’s alternate reality versions of history were right and set about to changing wiki and attacking historians who said differently. I’m talking about the mass number of idiots I know and deal with who will tell you point blank that Romney hasn’t lied once this campaign, that Romney isn’t flip-flopping on positions and that Romney has been steady as a rock on his platform and his principles in the last year.

        I’m dealing with people, in real life, screw blogs, who will point blank tell you that McCain and Palin should have won because they made a clean sweep of the 2008 debates.

        There is an unreality bubble out there that conservatives are building for the faithful and the bubble is getting bigger and bigger and more and more of the faithful are crawling into it.

        There are a huge number of people on the left who are idiots, but there’s a huge mass of people on the right who are becoming a cult.

        You’re not one of them. Not all of my comments about this matter, the debate thing, are addressed at you personally. But when talking about the conservative movement as a whole? Yeah, there’s a huge chunk of it that’s starting to become an alternate reality cult and they view everything through the bubble that they’ve created.

  21. And apparently Ryan’s plan to recover from his beating is to do phony photo-ops in places where they don’t want him and where he can jeopardize the places possible future funding.

    Good job there, Lyin’ Ryan.

    “They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors.”

    “The photo-op they did wasn’t even accurate. He did nothing. He just came in here to get his picture taken at the dining hall.”

    “Ryan had stopped by the soup kitchen for about 15 minutes on his way to the airport after his Saturday morning town hall in Youngstown. By the time he arrived, the food had already been served, the patrons had left, and the hall had been cleaned.

    Upon entering the soup kitchen, Ryan, his wife and three young children greeted and thanked several volunteers, then donned white aprons and offered to clean some dishes. Photographers snapped photos and TV cameras shot footage of Ryan and his family washing pots and pans that did not appear to be dirty.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/15/charity-president-unhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/

    1. Hmm, I can’t say I’ve seen a story like this one before.

      It’s become common enough with each election where you hear about some campaign using a song without permission, or where a musician tells the campaign to stop using their song because they aren’t on the same side of the political aisle.

      Another one recently from my neck of the woods was a Denver restaurant received death threats after they refused the Romney campaign because they didn’t want to be used as a campaign stop:
      http://www.denverpost.com/ci_21702380/rosa-lindas-gets-death-threats-after-accused-refusing

      How DARE a business not want to be involved in politics!?

      Maybe instead of showing up at restaurants and soup kitchens, Romney and Ryan should just show up at businesses owned by the Koch brothers? After all, Kochs employees have already been informed that they’ll vote Romney/Ryan or risk getting laid off…

Comments are closed.