The motive
Commenter “effess” asks:
Is it possible that the Obama-Biden campaign wanted Biden to behave this way during the debate? If so, why? Was Biden trying to win the clown vote?
My answer is: sort of.
I believe the campaign wanted Biden to be aggressive, and to mock Ryan as a liar. After all, the charge “liar” was almost the entire thrust of Biden’s strange antics. Furthermore, “liar” accusations have been a huge part of the Obama campaign against Ryan from the moment his candidacy was declared, and particularly since his speech at the Republican Convention. Much of the MSM has been complicit, so much so that till now if you asked most low-information voters what they think of Ryan they just might have said “liar.”
Biden was also appealing to the base, which is hostile and juvenile. He certainly accomplished his goal in that. What the Obama campaign may not have counted on is how Joe’s behavior would play to the middle. Obama also probably did not expect Joe to overplay his role in such strange and offputting fashion.
Almost anything is ‘possible’. This may fall under trying to be too smart? Smart and Slow Joe is not something I usually associate.
What Biden did with his “clowning around” was to distract viewers from the points Ryan was making. Raddatz did the same thing several times. It’s hard to pay attention to someone when another’s voice is laughing, snorting to the side. It was annoying and disrespectful.
I think Biden went into this debate with two things in mind: 1) make as few gaffes as possible, and 2) rattle Ryan to minimize him sounding polished and presidential. Overarching that, Biden probably felt that he would do as he pleases because he couldn’t do much worse than Obama. If Obama Co. was critical, he could always retort that he was cleaning up a debacle and shouldn’t be questioned how he did so. In other words, an empowered Biden with little concern of the downside. Bad mix. That bizarre, debate-long smirk was nervousness and an old-hack’s attempt to intimidate based merely on his 40 year insider-status and status as VPOTUS. I really can’t see any undecided walking away with a changed mind in favor of Obama/Biden. Just plain weird. I think it was worse than most commentary today, even the negative commentary. Simply, neither Obama or Biden can really be taken seriously. Wait a day or two; no one wants to call it because they’ll seem like they’re piling on.
If you interrupt somebody a few times that’s just impolite. If you do it continually, that’s crude and boorish. I don’t know who Biden was trying to impress by being a boor.
Biden lied about his votes on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq.
60s liberalism is going down in flames.
All disagreement, according to liberals, is either “lying” or “bigotry.”
This is the obvious sign of a dying ideology that can exist only by shouting down new ideas.
Because 60s liberalism has no new ideas.
“…probably did not expect Joe to overplay his role in such strange and offputting fashion”
I expect this is correct. Which means: the Obama Campaign was counting on Joe Biden to display nuance.
Snorfle.
Oops, my snorfle equates to “Bidening” the Obama Campaign.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most Dem politicians have a limited grasp of the scope of the cynicism which lurks behind the official Leftist Narratives of the moment.* Which is say, even veteran Dems, such as Obama and his campaign, fall victim to believing that some Leftist Narrative lies … are actually true. This is what we have seen over the past week:
Barack the Inexperienced … somehow came to believe that Romney truly was a buffoon. Thus, Barack the Inexperienced was laid low by hubris.
Obama Campaign somehow came to believe their own lies about Romney’s economic agenda. Thus, post debate, we have seen Dems loudly complaining that Romney did not conform to their lies about who he was. How unfair of him.
The Obama Campaign came to believe that Romney won b/c of his unfair/bullying debate tactics. Thus, we saw Biden conduct an intentional campaign of unfair/bullying debate tactics. The problem with their tactics: Romney was not unfair. Rather, Romney was decisively superior.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally,
what we saw from Biden was a classic old school politician. Which is to say: a politician who honed his craft before videotape + internet + YouTube. Which is to say, a politician who honed his craft in an age in which he could, the following day, deny that he had done what he had done, and not be contradicted by videotape.
I enjoyed Biden’s old school performance, as a type of old school period piece of performance art. It was very enjoyable, at performance art, even as I recognized that it was massively deceptive, and even as I began to suspect that nonpartisan voters would be turned off by it.
It was enjoyable performance art. And, in the end, it was a performance by a campaign which understands it has lost, and which is merely trying to salvage down-ballot elections. Biden’s performance constituted an implicit acknowledgment, by the Obama Campaign, that they have lost; constituted an acknowledgment that their internal polls show that they have lost. For the Obama Campaign, the situation is not merely bleak, but over. Fini.
As a side note: this increases the possibility of desperate last moment action by the Obama Campaign. Military Attack, anyone? Cafe waitress overhearing Ann Romney use the n-word? Anyone? Tagg Romney becoming pregnant with Todd Palin’s child? Anyone?
*As an example of the cynicism of the Leftist Narratives, note that Leftist Narratives are malleable: leftists may expend multiple decades in rigorous defense of A, only to turn, in lockstep, in near instantaneous support of “not A”. Leftists who supported A on Monday (and during the previous 30 years), will – two days later, on Wed – proclaim that anyone who supports A is a hater who should be scorned by all decent persons.
I thought that Ryan did a very good job last night, especially since it was his first public debate at this “level”. In fact, I think he did a much better job than Romney in his first debate with Obama–though it might not seem like it since Biden didn’t do a dismal a job as his boss. Honestly, I again wish that Ryan was at the top of the ticket. Like many, I’m afraid that Romney is going to win the election and then “Obama” will be inaugurated again come January (and don’t pretend you don’t know what I mean).
Ryan let Biden walk all over him. Ryan gulped water like a nervous gerbil. I saw a meek man and a blowhard. Despite the love for his policies, y’all have to agree that Ryan wasn’t the strong little chickenhawk who puts Foghorn Leghorn in his place, right?
Foxmarks,
Discretion is sometimes the better part of valor.
I’ve got to use Preview more often. Here is how I wanted to lay this out:
I bet Ryan will studio the video of this debate over and over and become a much better debater. By the way, I thought Ryan overcame the Biden interruptions very well.
re Ryan as nervous and meek
To me, Ryan came across as a man who was cognizant that “discretion is the better part of valor”.
I mean this: does anyone truly believe that Ryan would afraid to take off the gloves and conduct a debate brawl with Biden? I do not, for a moment, believe that Ryan would be afraid to debate brawl with Biden. Rather, I think Ryan would RELISH a debate brawl with Biden; would CRAVE a no-holds-barred debate brawl with Biden.
And, I suspect that viewers came away with same impression as I came away with: Ryan was not afraid. Rather, Ryan was being discrete.
Now, is it correct that Ryan could have been a stronger debater? Yes. Definitely correct. Ryan could have been stronger. However, such strength only comes via repetition. Give Ryan a season as a participant in Repub. Pres. Candidate debates, and he will emerge as an EXTREMELY capable debater.
So, Ryan was fine. Ryan could have been a stronger debater, but he was still fine, and, importantly, Ryan did display his innate excellence as public servant. Ryan was discrete, yet he WAS NOT afraid to engage Biden at the level of ideas and principles. I doubt that many viewers came away with impression that Ryan was afraid to engage on principle. For Ryan, that was the important thing.
As for discretion v. valor see the WSJ review:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443749204578051073494711456.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
IMHO,
gcothcarn pretty much nailed it.
Rob,
I predict you will be pleasantly surprised by Romney, IF he has a Republican majority to enact needed legislation. Without that majority, compromise that favors democrats is unavoidable because the dems will block everything unless they get more than they lose.
foxmarks,
We all see through our own subjective filters, sometimes those filters align with reality, sometimes they don’t. I didn’t see a man cowed by Biden but a man strong enough to weather Biden’s derision, while remaining unruffled. The election will decide which of our filters (in this case) was more accurate.
this is all well and good…
but a horse with blinders on is still a horse with blinders on…
to magnify our focus by not allowing focus on anything else. cant let the illegal alien slashing the throat of a ny man and escaping to mexico, too distracting..
but hows this you guys are TOTALLY MISSING
Neo Nazi Golden Dawn is rising in Greece
its not in the debates, so most dont know
but it gets A LOT WORSE…
from OCT 9 onwards..
Dockworkers storm defense ministry in Athens.. (anyone want to tell others of Kronstadt in history? and even the riots that put blacks in their place in the US by longshoremen (a howitzer was fired in Manhattan at people))
Syria has been shelling turkey..
since Oct 3, Turkey has been moving tanks, howitzers and missile defense units to the borders. 25 f-16 moved to Diyarbakir..
Assad is contemplating full military mobilization in response to turkey responding to shelling
Israel shoots down a drone over Negev… the drone flew in from the Mediterranean sea, and Gaza strip Oct 6… the drone is thought to be from Hezbollah (through Iran).
Syrian rebels retake Maaret Al Neuman…
80% of border towns in idlib and aleppo under rebel control.
Turkish fighter jets intercept Syrian Arab airlines plane from Moscow to Damascus due to military cargo. A-320 searched and continues onwards. Damascus livid, Putin responds too
[note, by hiding this, people will HAVE To accept some narative to inform them once it appears suddenly to them. ie. their lack of knowing how and why and who is heating it up, will cause them to suddenly turn and there is this big thing they want to know why… and then the narrative can be inserted. but if they knew along the whole time, the narrative would not be able to be inserted, it woudl have to fight it out like in the debates]
oct 11, Turkish pm now informs us that they removed the weapons and such from the Moscow Damascus plane. Erdogan fm voes to stop all syria bound weapons (from Russia). Ankara gets a tip, stop another plane and find the weapons. Russia Rosoboronexport refuses to comment on their work.
1500 US troops schedule to arrive in Israel on OCt 14.. (two days!!!!)… for joint missile training. IDF testing hetz missiles and “iron dome”…
150 army special forces are deployed to Jordan to monitor Syria chemical weapons (ie. the Iraq weapons and such were transferred to Syria in prior conflicts).. talk of civil war spilling over..
TODAY
Turkey turns its NATO missile system at Kurecik towards Syria.
Turkey scrambles jets as Assads forces shell border town of Azmarin
Ankara deny US And French special forces at incirlic airbase…
Free Syrian Army captured Air defense base aleppo..
a Syrian missile shot down a Turkish warplane in international air space
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
this means that as of today, the jihadis have missiles and such. [so can someone ask biden if the missles they just stole from turkey can now carry the nuclear load iran needs? ]
Opposition forces, fighting alongside Islamic radicals linked to al-Qaida, capture Syrian army air defense base near Aleppo, say activists; Turkey scrambles fighter jets to Syrian border area, after regime helicopters bomb Syrian border town.
NATO has promised to help defend Turkey from Syria’s artillery attacks.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
on another aside, they have released more information about the cuban missile crisis… ie. a big distraction for leftists to keep them from looking at whats going on.
will they take the bait? (will we?)
basically, they suddenly decided to call up and tell us what archives say..(which we know a lot of from prior archives)…
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
note that they also had taken the Daraa base… Daraa means “fortress”
note with the recent slaying of the girl over education, and other things… we have a repeating story template
the use of children to incite or develop the reasoning and so forth… worked better than a youtube video, eh ?
and for those who dont have freaky memory, just remember what is in TARTUS..
so we are entering the conditions of a classical big war… IF you study history…
When a politician has to pander this hard to his base this close to an election you know they know they are in deep, deep trouble. I know it is said that VP debates don’t change the minds of undecideds, in this case I don’t think it changes the current momentum in the polls for Romney.
Undecideds and moderators are the ones that don’t like partisanship and want everybody to get along. There was a striking similarity in both Biden’s and Obama’s performances in that Biden with obnoxious and boorish behavior and Obama with unengaged detachment could be perfect examples of the cause of the extreme partisanship currently in DC.
Can you imagine either one in a meeting with government officials and elected representatives that aren’t in their party or don’t agree with their ideals?
My fear is not that Romney will need to compromise with the Democrats.
My fear is that he will not need to compromise with the Democrats–while they’re in the majority.
opps! “Moderates” not “moderators.”
From the UK:
Biden’s performance here in Danville, Kentucky was both comical and self-defeating. Just as Al Gore sighed and rolled his eyes in 2000, so Biden smirked and guffawed.
His brief was to show the aggression that Obama so obviously lacked when the President went up against Mitt Romney last week. But as the dust settles today many will be left feeling that he went too far, tried too hard.
Many women and swing voters will have hated his condescending, swaggering display.
how bad would it get if two liberals debated each other?
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/261655-congressmen-separated-by-police-during-debate
California Democratic Reps. Brad Sherman and Howard Berman appeared to nearly come to blows at their debate Thursday night.
A police officer separated the two congressmen, who are locked in a tight, nasty primary fight, after Sherman put his arm around Berman and seemed to challenge him to a fight.
“Howard, you want to get into this?” Sherman shouted as he wrapped his arm around Berman and squeezed him tight.
A police officer then approached from behind and placed his hand on Sherman in an attempt to calm him down. The crowd whooped and cheered throughout the moment.
Romney-Obama debate: a lost chapter of “Atlas Shrugged”
For almost four years now we’ve been seeing Rand’s dystopia coming to life: cronyism in the government and big business, manipulative media, corrupted education, dying economy, social stratification, massive poverty, unemployment, and disillusionment – all the result of a well-meaning attempt to “fundamentally transform” this country on the basis of “giving everyone his fair share.”
And finally, in full agreement with Rand’s writing style, comes a larger-than-life businessman-turned-politician and defends capitalism – not just on the grounds of its efficiency, but also morality – because taking people’s earnings by force in order to subsidize something they disagree with, is fundamentally immoral.
And, just like in Rand’s works of romantic realism, we finally saw the American president as he ought to be – a wise, understanding, and trustworthy father figure, who knows what he is doing and is willing to take charge, doesn’t fear the responsibility, says what he believes, and does what he says.
thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/romney-obama-debate-a-lost-chapter-of-atlas-shrugged-t9778.html
Artfldgr,
You wrote: “For almost four years now we’ve been seeing Rand’s dystopia coming to life: cronyism in the government and big business, manipulative media . . . .”
I disagree only because this has been going on incrementally for much longer than 4 years. It’s just that the last 4 years under Obama have been like giving this trend massive doses of growth hormone and steroids.
As I have said, we owe Obama thanks for inadvertently exposing the trend by accelerating it as forcefully as he has. Otherwise we may have inched and inched along until, by the time we recognized the extent of what happened, it may have been too late.
If Romney/Ryan win, as I expect, and are as successful as they have the potential to be, I will have to take Bismarck’s observation very seriously to heart (“God protects drunks, fools and the United States of America”).
I only have this to say…Biden reminded me of why I am divorced.
Lisa,
Ouch!
I have one question:
Is Joe Biden the best candidate that the Democrats have for the office of Vice President of the United States?
Biden was there to push two lies:
1) Ryan wants to take away Grandma’s healthcare
2) Ryan is a liar
Repeat the lies enough, and the low-information voters (which is the majority of voters) begin to parrot them as fact.
I’m convinced that Spielberg could have convinced the vast majority of the country that Abe Lincoln was actually a Democrat if he portrayed him as such in his movie and had the mainstream media run cover for him.
I think Biden had several goals:
1] Do whatever it takes to prevent Ryan from effectively communicating his point. He did this through distraction and interruption.
2] Goad Ryan into appearing angry or slipping up so that they’d one or more campaign ad soundbites.
This is the same behavior we’ve seen from Senator Joe for decades. He’s been ugly like during hearings (just ask Clarence Thomas). I’ve never gotten the affection people in the media have for him – he’s a jerk.
It took Joe Biden six days to rehearse for this? We are in worse trouble than we know.
I noticed in my relations with my ex-wife that it was typically the one losing the argument that was the loudest, crudest, and most offensive. That was true for Biden last night.
What’s most interesting to me (since I have no affinity to either campaign) is how opinions on the VP debate seem to be extremely influenced by the partisan filter. It is more like rooting for rival sports teams than usual. Everyone saw what they wanted to see, and all their team’s low points were because the refs were biased.
Since I haven’t seen very much of Ryan, I don’t know that he would do so well in a no-holds-barred debate. As a Congresscritter in hearings, he had the seat of power. Can/could he really hold his own when he doesn’t get automatic deference?
Imagine either of these guys negotiating with Putin. Or LBJ. Ryan looked like he would get eaten. Palin was a stronger presence (who actually had already beaten some big bad oil dudes in real life).
After I realized I must have seen a different debate than pretty much all my FB pallys from all factions, I watched the first 20 mins or so on replay. Ryan smirked and reacted, too. Just more muted. Biden’s affect was more annoying the second time through, but I see it more like gcotharn, as a masterful performance of political theater. I don’t know how Biden could have done a better job.
As a little more time passes, I am astounded that Biden managed to stake out the anti-war space for the Dems. After Obama’s seven wars and incessant droning, he still managed to make R&R look more belligerent.
Neither side has much foreign policy credibility with me, as we know GWB acted on incorrect intelligence reports. They’re both cherry-picking the past 10 years of activity, and completely ignoring the totality of the past 50 years of US meddling. Not that I need to spark a foreign policy argument in this thread…I’m just trying to give some background to why I saw the debate as I did. Benghazi is a huge problem for Obama, but R&R are ill-suited to exploit it.
Ryan did a lousy job responding to Biden’s attack on asking for stimulus dollars. Ryan burped out some wonkish bureaucratese. I’m tuned to that attack since it was a standard line used against Ron Paul. Would have been nice if Ryan would have used RP’s defense. Or Palin’s defense on a similar attack from last time.
I wish I had time to fisk the whole show.
Rob,
Please explain, “My fear is that he [Romney] will not need to compromise with the Democrats—while they’re in the majority.”
How does Romney not need to compromise is democrats hold the majority in the Senate?
Since without legislation a President’s ability to effect needed change is substantially limited and without a majority, compromise is a necessity… I’m at a bit of a loss as to what your point might be.
JFM,
No, of course not but Obama didn’t want a well qualified running mate. He wanted the intersection between least threatening and politically advantageous.
He got that in 2008, fortunately Obama’s political ego kept him from replacing Biden, whose buffoonishness is now a detriment.
Let see The Romney-Ryan Strategy: Thirsting for an Answer
Vice President Joe Biden’s repeated laughter during Thursday’s debate was a reflection of the “enormous amount of passion and joy” he brings to the job of serving the American people, White House press secretary Jay Carney said on Friday.
Uh Artfldgr, at least some of us and perhaps many are well aware of what’s happening in Greece and Syria, especially anyone who regularly visits the Drudge Report.
Yes, the region is volatile and Iran’s attaining nuclear weapons capability is a game changer. So arguably, it would be far better that a war erupt in the M.E. now, than after Iran has the bomb.
However IMO, it’s still a bit premature for war to erupt in the region but war is coming.
Egypt is now a sympathetic hotbed for Al Qaeda and jihadist radicalism.
Qaddafi’s weapons may now well be in the hands of Al Qaeda. Those weapons can be used to push our diplomats out of the region. Especially if Obama is reelected.
The sole major bulwark against jihadist radicalism sweeping the region is now the corrupt Saudi’s…
Appeasement has its price and we are going to pay it, thanks to Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of that ilk.
Right after Munich, Churchill made a comment that is apropos to Obama and his administration’s handling of the Middle East, “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.”
Is this what Obama wanted? Plausible. Van Jones was quoted as saying this debate was not for the independents. If so, this is stunning. It says the Dem base is so juvenile that the Obamans are willing to alienate independents, especially female ones, simply to get the base riled up enough to actually go out and vote.
Remember when gravitas was a Democratic talking point? Biden showed as much gravitas last night as high school boys who snort soda out of their noses or make rude noises with their arm pits.
Television is a cool medium. Chortling, snickering, rolling your eyes — none of these evince the coolness, competence, or gravitas that the American public expects of its highest officials. One thing people are expert at is reading body language on television. So, while the short-term verdict may be that the debate was a draw, the longer lasting impression is going to be that Biden is a boor, a clown, and an utter embarrassment.
Some of you, no names will be revealed, do not appear to have faith in the ability of many of those who voted for BHO in 2008 to understand the damage done by Team Obama over the last 4 years. 2008 was the outlier, a time of mass hypnosis. 2010 was the harbinger of things to come. The republicans will hold the house (easily). The senate will be close. R&R will win the popular vote by 5+% and the electoral vote will be very lopsided with R&R receiving 300-330. Yes, 40% are incapable of understanding reality; this is why we need a simple intelligence test to determine who is and who is not eligible to vote.
Biden did the country a great service. He did not encourage fence sitters to jump over to the messiah’s side of the fence; just the opposite. Thank you crazy Joe.
parker, do we need an intelligence test or just the elimination of the near monopoly that the left has in the MSM? Absolute power corrupts whether in politics or in the media. I am with you on the election results.
Lisa, T — you guys should see a counselor…
Re:
“God protects drunks, fools and the United States of America”
If true, isn’t this two to one in Biden’s favor?
When you are lying threw your teeth … you look around and see nothing but liars to cover yours.
” Yes, 40% are incapable of understanding reality; this is why we need a simple intelligence test to determine who is and who is not eligible to vote.”
Parker, I agree with you that we need some sort of “filter” to apply to who can vote but intelligence isn’t enough…think about all those Ivy League profs…they probably would score highly on an intelligence test.
We also need sort sort of American history/civics test also.
One other thing.
According to the WH press secretary, when Biden said that “none of them” knew about requests for more security in Libya, he was not speaking of the entire Administration, but only of the White House.
So … the White House is confessing to it’s own irrelevance within its Administration as to the running of the country? This is similar to Nancy Pelosi’s dismissal of the President when she muted his telephone call so that she could continue in person negotiations with Harry Reid.
You all remembering Obama 2008 when he said:
So now Khamenei browning Obama’s verse (Arabic text) “Yes We Can Change” asking Iranian to get rid of the amusements of western values and image?
southpaw,
LOL. Most importantly, it includes us, so I guess we can bring Joe along for the ride—just don’tlet him drive.
Poor Ryan. It must have been like trying to have an adult conversation with Woody Woodpecker.
My proposed test, all questions must be answered correctly, to determine eligibility to vote:
1. The sun revolves around the earth from east to west. T or F
2. The Bill of Rights lists the privileges the federal government grants to the citizens. T of F
3. The United States of America was founded as a democracy. T of F
4. North America is in the Eastern Hemisphere and south of the equator. T or F
5. The current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is ________. T or F
Its a simple test and it would weed out 20+% of those now eligible to vote.
“Poor Ryan. It must have been like trying to have an adult conversation with Woody Woodpecker.”
That is not only accurate, it is a total crack up! 😉
Shouting Thomas Says:
‘This is the obvious sign of a dying ideology that can exist only by shouting down new ideas.’
It worked for the USSR until they went bankrupt.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/10/11/the_economic_case_for_romney-ryan_115748-2.html
and the zinger
if and when conflict starts, how do we pay to defend ourselves and make what we need to make to do so?
I agree mainly with Lizzy: Biden was (a) trying to goad Ryan; (b) trying to drown out Ryan’s message; and (I would add) (c) .making damn sure nobody accused HIM of displaying insufficient passion. As for “(c),” notice how Biden’s goal of maintaining his own bona fides as an exponent of the angry left took priority over enhancing the general electoral appeal of the Dem ticket.
he voted FOR not against…
The lefty counterpoint to “putting wars on the credit card” is that it isn’t about the wars, its about the credit card.
If Biden voted for the AUMF and also voted for and/or sponsored some new revenue bill to fund the AUMF, his statement is acceptable.
Both sides like to cry about liars, but their truths are partisan.
foxmarks,
I hope you do not believe that objective truth does not exist.
I hope you do not subscribe to what is actually a leftist ideological talking point: do not be partisan, just do what works.
HOW does ANYONE determine what works? Answer: show evidence, use reason, compose a compelling argument.
If right-side partisans are blinded to truth by their ideology (b/c the supposedly nonpartisan accusation is ACTUALLY about discrediting the right), then pretend nonpartisans ought be able to muster an argument for what constitutes actual truth. In other words: the accusation of being blinded by ideology is a bunch of manure. Pretend nonpartisans must either make a compelling argument, or hush.
Alleging “partisanship” is hooey; is just one more leftist tactic to avoid addressing the substance of issues.
The Benghazi (Benghazi meaning “City of Holy Warriors”) disaster–a “clusterfark” of epic proportions–has many aspects, and one item that I noted in passing, but did not investigate any further, was the question of the “local Libyan security” that was supposed to protect our diplomatic post, and that seems to have just melted away; a subject that, from the MSM reports that I have seen, no government official has really looked into or yet commented on.
It was this “local security” that was cited by a State Department official, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Programs Charlene Lamb, at that Congressional House Oversight Committee Hearing the other day, as justifying her refusal to extend the stay of our 12 man Special Forces team that had been protecting our diplomatic compound and diplomats, or to grant the requests–pleas really–from the few security guys left on the ground for more assets and soldiers because, she testified, the local forces assigned to protect our compound made assigning more U.S. forces unnecessary; our forces–i.e. three or four security personnel, if that many, were “sized right for the situation.”
Well, what I had noticed was that these Libyan troops were called the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade.” And what, you may ask, is the “February 17th Martyrs Brigade”? Well, according to the linked article (here at http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1012/west101212.php3) the first thing to know is that the Benghazi area has sent more Jihadis, per capita, into Iraq to kill U.S. troops that any other area in the world and, then, that the group that apparently led the attack on our compound and killed our people, the Al-Q linked Ansar al-Shari’a (Supporters of Islamic Law) is a spin-off of the February 17th Martyrs Brigade. The Brigade named, by the way, in honor of the February 17th 2006 attack by thousands of people in Benghazi against the Italian Consulate, after the Italian Ambassador made statements on TV defending free speech during the Muhammad cartoons violence (Jihadis love to stage attacks on significant anniversaries and dates, and it is no coincidence that the demos that led to Khadaffy’s eventual ouster, capture, and death started on February 17th). It appears that all these groups, according to this article, also have links to the Muslim Brotherhood.
So, the Muslim troops who provided the bulk of the security for our diplomatic compound–some of these troops reportedly stationed inside the compound and, therefore, in a perfect position, it would seem to me, to gather all sorts of Intel on the layout of the compound, its defenses and weak points, diplomat’s schedules, etc. and to melt away–inside the compound and out–at the appropriate time, leaving our diplomatic compound essentially naked and almost totally defenseless–were Muslim Jihadis, hostile–one would think–to the West and to everything we stood for.
Keeping this information from leaking out and becoming widely known would seem to me to be a real incentive for devising a cover-up, and for pointing all sorts of fingers at anyone else except the key players in Obama & Co. and its State Department.
Parker, judging solely from the ignorance of high school students whom I have attempted to teach (particularly those at or near voting age), I’d say your proposed test would weed out far more than 20% of currently eligible voters. More like 80%. Not that that would be a bad thing…
Artfldgr,
“President Obama was elected precisely because of this stubborn refusal to recognize the failure of the statist ideal. ”
But perhaps there is another point of view. Perhaps it’s not a refusal to recognize statist failure, perhaps Obama sees that as a benefit. You know, turn us all into beggars because they’re easier to please.
Obama has dropped numerous hints which reveal his total lack of understanding of economics. This may not be coincidental ignorance, this may well be that his only concern is for a social justice state, the economy be damned. Remember in his interview wqith Charles Gibson, when asked why he would support raising the capital gains tax even though evidence shows lower cap gains taxes create increased govt revenue. His response was that he would raise cap gains taxes because it was fairer to do so. Screw higher govt revenue, he wants theoretical “fairness.” So who will pay for his social justice state? He doesn’t care; there is a disconnect between his goal and his means of achieving it.
His treatment of Iran is no different. He will talk and appease in the hopes of achieving a non-nuclear Iran and out of fear of offending the mullahs, and when Iran detonates their first nuclear bomb, he’ll simply shrug it off with no understanding that you can’t put that genie back in the bottle.
There was one very obvious Adult in the room last night: Neither the Crazy Uncle in the Attic nor the grotesque Obama Water Carrier Moderator. The first Bizarre & Infantile. The second…Rash inducing.
Paul Ryan came off ADULT. Smart, classy, steady, professional, unflappable, knowledgable and ADULT.
Question for the Undecideds-Independents: Who do you prefer–in these Huge & Dangerous Times–one heartbeat away from the presidency???
DUUHHHHHHHH….!
But perhaps there is another point of view. Perhaps it’s not a refusal to recognize statist failure, perhaps Obama sees that as a benefit. You know, turn us all into beggars because they’re easier to please.
The subject of the sentence is the people who voted refused to recognize the failure of the statist idea, not Obama (we cant know his reason. he may be exploiting that failure, or suffer it himself, or something else. any answer here would be unsupportable fantasy).
Their refusal (to recognize the failure…) became their acceptance of him rather than rejection of him.
This can be derived from knowing what he was presenting to them publicly, what it means, and what the people who voted would have to disregard to do so.
but there is a bigger problem with your analysis which isn’t an analysis. TIME. the knowledge you put forth came over years AFTER the vote, not before.
How could that be an alternative reason to anything that happened years ago (the vote showing the failure), when that future had not yet been made and known yet to be examined and considered?
even now, its the same failure…in the voters…
foxmarks says, “Both sides like to cry about liars, but their truths are partisan.”
This is true, but compared to what? As gcotharn states, “I hope you do not believe that objective truth does not exist.” Reality is not relative, it is real. We can discuss our perception of reality and sometimes each of us is going to be wrong and other times we may be correct. But the choice we face is undeniably clear.
So, each of us must decide where we stand for the stakes are very high. Unfortunately, there is no credible alternative or middle ground; its BHO or Romney. Choose and stop complaining. Where do you stand?
Artfldgr,
“The subject of the sentence is the people who voted refused to recognize the failure of the statist idea . . . .”
But how can they recognize that failure when for the past 60 years our congress has been kicking the can down the road? The fact is that the statist idea seems to have worked (not that it DID work, but it was given the appearance of working because the bill for payment kept getting put off into the future).
Corporate execs make this mistake all the time. They make decisions that result in short term benefits while pushing difficult decisions to future executives. That is precisely where the underfunded pension problems come from and why GM entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy; Biden’s claim notwithstanding.
So you have voters who see their social security checks continue to show up in the mail and welfare checks that just keep on coming all due to the largesse of the taxing authority of various levels of govt.
Remember many of these are people who keep doing things like borrowing against he equity of their home and have been able to do so because the equity in their home has done nothing but continue to rise (until now). They fail to see the failure of the statist model because in that present, the statist model wasn’t failing. People take current circumstances and see the future as a trend line based upon the present. They think the economy will continue to grow because over the past 70 years it has continued to grow.
Now everything is hitting the fan. From their perspective there is a new paradigm in play, one they have never seen before. Now, the new conventional wisdom is that the country is in ruin and I offer that this new paradigm is not necessarily any more true than the former belief.
Savings rates have increased because people are economically scared. People are postponing purchases like our parents and grandparents did because they’re afraid of spending money they might need. We are in a period of transition and while there is no guarantee that we will emerge at all, I am confident that we will emerge. We will be changed, but perhaps it will be a good change that has shaken us out of our complacency. I think this is precisely what is happening and as I have said, with my reliance on the spirit of the descendants of risk takers, we will see a new road forward. It will not be as it was but I believe we will be changed for the better, at least a little bit. As a new beginning, that may be enough.
T at 10:22 PM:
Total agreement with your many salient points. I do not disparage those who have failed to see the fault lines in the conventional wisdom; they have been myopic but largely innocent. But we are in the caca hits the fan time, as I know you realize, and this election is the last chance (slim) chance for our children and grandchildren.
So say we all.
Parker,
I don’t know if it is really our last chance, but the veil has been pulled from our eyes and we are truly foolish if we don’t take advantage of the opportunity while we still have some “wiggle room.”
That’s why I’ve been saying we owe the Obama adminsitration a “Thank you.” Under any other less aggressive statist (McCain?), we probably would have continued to limp toward the precipice making a turnaround more difficult (at the least) and perhaps nigh impossible.
I agree that this was totally intentional – afterall, what are folks talking about post-debate? Ryan’s brilliant ideas or Biden foolishness?
gcotharn & parker: On the epistemological question of truth, I am a coherentist. Yes, absolute truths do exist.
I was talking about the political and rhetorical concept of truth. A judgment or speculation about future events (like projections in a CBO budget analysis) is not a fact and cannot be true. What cannot be true cannot be lied about. A little less eggheady, my beef is over the standard tactic of saying anyone who disagrees is a liar.
Rare is the person who tries to understand how a speaker’s point might be valid instead of just calling it a lie. Most of life is not transacted in simple declarative statements. A stump speech or debate is not a deposition.
This is stunning. A top State Department official (Charlene Lamb, Diplomatic Security) has testified to Congress that not only did Obama and Hillary Clinton know about the attacks on the Libyan consulate – they watched it as it happened FOR FIVE HOURS (via drone, over the phone with a besieged staffer, and via cameras in situ) and did NOT allow the military to rescue the ambassador and our people.
So Biden flat-out lied when he called Benghazi an “intelligence failure” in the debate and pretended that he didn’t know anything that night. (He would have been called as soon as word reached DC: within two minutes of the Benghazi embassy staffer’s initial call for help, Col. Hunt estimates.)
Colonel Hunt talked about it to a Boston radio host, here: http://preview.tinyurl.com/8hb484y Worth the time it takes to hear the whole thing.
He’s clearly staggered by the implications, and by the fact that the media is so utterly corrupt that they refuse to cover this dereliction of duty by the Commander in Chief. Not that he’s naive about them, but he simply cannot believe that the Fourth Estate is now so entirely the Fifth Column that they are no longer functioning as the Press, even with a fat lure like this huge story dangling in front of their noses. Involving the Secy. of State, the SecDef, the President, the CIA, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It could only bring down a Presidency, that’s all: ergo, “not fit to print” on the front page of the NY Times.
In other words: rewatch the part of the debate where Biden briefly addresses the Benghazi debacle, with this in mind: he, the Prez, Hillary, Panetta, all of them were called as soon as the attack started . . . they heard the frantic pleas, the description of the assault . . . they saw it happen from a drone hovering overhead, and in the White House Situation Room, were able to see the attack unfold via cameras onsite.
And know that they coldly, deliberately, decided to let our ambassador and our men die. Just like they refused to let them have even minimal security, or guns for their bullets.
And know, too, that these corrupt, evil people have coldly and deliberately lied about all of this, nonstop, in the weeks since then: even over the coffins of the men whose deaths they allowed.
Ruthless. Vicious.
We’re not in “Leave It to Beaver” land any more. It’s starting to feel more like “That Hideous Strength.”
T Says:
October 12th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
FIFY.
“I don’t know how Biden could have done a better job.”
This tells us more about foxmarks than about the debate.
It is certainly true that “they are liars” is Team Obama’s main campaign message. So far they have offered little or nothing of substance as to what they would do in a second term. Biden certainly didn’t in his debate with Paul Ryan.
But in fairness this has become a tactic each side uses all too often. No one is allowed to have a different opinion, or to interpret facts differently, or to think that one set of facts is more important than another. All disagreements are portrayed as “lies.” It’s gotten to the point where I wonder if people even know what the word means.
The more I think about this, the more I think that Biden’s behavior was scripted and intentional and designed to draw attention away from Ryan — so that no one would hear what Ryan had to say, think about it, or notice that his ideas make sense. It seems to have worked. Here we are a couple of days later, and everyone’s still talking about what Biden did and what Biden said. Nobody much is talking about Ryan. I don’t think this actually hurts R/R much, but it does say something about the desperation level of the Obama campaign — they had to trot out the clown act because they knew they had no chance to win on the facts.
Beverly – fix link please – this one does not lead to that interview and we’d like to hear it.
meantime, back in the plot, AP has a report out from “unnamed source” at State Dept that the WH version is not and never was the State Dept version. Oh, this is truly like a Greek tragedy. Hillary and Bill are playing their cards so close to the vest and have been for four years. talk about Chess – ha. This is life. And Karma rules. here’s the AP http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2215431/Death-U-S-ambassador-Chris-Stevens-revealed-AK-47s-grenade-attacks-smoke-filled-safe-room.html?ITO=1490 you have to scroll way down to the bottom for the Vid, but lots of info – or intrigue – along the way.
If this is what’s going on, then Biden’s wig-out and BO’s Big Bird jokes are just their personal versions of how they freak out when caught: one weird and the other in the denial of ego-control.
M of Hollywood: see this new post.
This i a bit OT, but I have to respond to foxmarks’ point about Bush relying on intelligence reports about WMD. Iraq was not some random country singled out for attack because of WMD. It was a country violationg truce conditions that Saddam wit weapons inspectors and give up all WMD. He never did that. Furthermore, he was shooting at our planes, pretending that Iraqi citizens were dying because of our sanctions (this played very big on European TV) and bribing the UN people and French and Russian sleazebags with the money that was supposed to feed his people. He was making every effort to get a free hand to return without scrutiny to whatever WMD efforts he chose. Once we backed down, there would have been no one tough enough to take him on again, and he would have been the tough guy to the Arab Street. The fact that our intellligence couldn’t accurately verify his WMD activities is beside the point. They should not have had to. This was a powerplay by Saddam, and I’m glad he lost.
correction: “that Saddam cooperate with weapons inspectors”.
One of the features of the debate schedule is that it set up defined periods of political consideration. We are currently in the time period — between the VP debate and the second Presidential debate — where everyone talks about the Vice Presidential candidates and their debate performance.
So what is everyone talking about in the conservative forums and around the water cooler these days? Talk about the issues is overwhelmed by the talk about the bizarre behavior of Joe Biden. Virtually no one talks about the differences between Biden and Ryan’s answers on Medicare, Social Security, Bengazi, Iran or anything else, because all that was overshadowed by Biden’s weird behavior.
The watershed event during the first Romney/Obama debate was that 70 million Americans were finally introduced to Mitt Romney. They had been told, over and over, that Romney was a fatally flawed candidate. That he was unlikeable and off-putting. That even Republicans didn’t like him much. That he cared about nothing except for himself and millionaires. That he was the bad candidate that the Republicans were stuck with. Then Romney came on at the debate, and people got a good, hard look at him and a good, hard listen to what he had to say, and all that battlefield preparation flew out the window, because in fact he was likeable, he did seem to care about other Americans. In short, he turned out to be a very credible and viable candidate, and the general public realization of this essentially dynamited the core Obama campaign message, which was:
You may not like Obama, but Romney is unacceptable.
The same thing was about to happen with the Biden/Ryan debate. America has been told since Ryan was selected that he is an ultra-right wing tea partier who is way outside the mainstream of thought. That he is a crazy, unacceptable candidate. In other words:
You may not like Biden, but Ryan is unacceptable.
What Biden did was essentially burn himself to the ground in exchange for so distracting people from Paul Ryan that they would fail to reach the same conclusion that they did in the first debate. Had Biden debated normally, respectfully allowed Ryan to make his points, people would have formed the opinion about Paul Ryan that they did about Mitt Romney — that he is rational, intelligent, cares about everyone, and is a credible, acceptable candidate for Vice President. What Biden was trying to do was spoil the Ryan rollout — to make sure that people didn’t get to see what he was really like, both by interrupting him continuously and by acting out and distracting from Ryan. His crazy laughs were carefully timed to take place when Ryan was starting to make a point that could do some political damage.
Based on the fact that so many people rated the debate as a draw, I think that it largely worked. It was a draw not because the two candidates made equally valid points, or expressed themselves equally well, or inspired equal confidence. It was a draw because people couldn’t make heads or tails about the candidates. They could not get a good feel for what Paul Ryan was like in the way people got a good feel for what Mitt Romney was like. Of course, it made Biden look like a complete idiot. However, Biden has spent his entire career looking like a buffoon, yet it never seems to hurt him. For some reason, he can do that and it doesn’t hurt him. Actually, if you watch, he got dead-serious in the last five or so minutes of the debate. First impressions are what people are supposed to remember, but in this case it was probably the last impression that people remembered, because it was the only time during the entire debate that Biden behaved in a comprehensible manner and acted like he was in a Vice Presidential debate.
The Obama campaign must be incredibly desperate to use this strategy. To use a sports analogy, they were deliberately taking a 10 yard penalty in order to avoid an interception run back for a touchdown. I think that their strategy has been to try and run the clock out — to keep the election as uninteresting and undramatic as possible, while leaning on the polling organizations to keep falsifying the polls. If they could go into election day with the polls showing the race as a 50-50 tossup, with little voter enthusiasm, that would give them a lot of options to squeak by, or quietly steal the election out from under the electorate. That strategy is rapidly collapsing — people are starting to realize that Romney is running away with a landslide.
I’m so sick and tired of being gaslighted by these people and I suspect that a growing percentage of Americans are starting to feel the same. The Obama era can’t be over soon enough.
Watching Biden so happily interrupting Ryan at every chance I was reminded of these lines from a Gordon Lightfoot song ‘Sundown’
“Sometimes I think it’s a sin
When I feel like I’m winnin’ when I’m losin’ again.”
Biden’s performance felt good to the base perhaps, but cost Obama/Biden votes among independents.
jms:
“Gaslighted”. Good point. I haven’t thought about it that way before.
Mrs Whatsit:
Exactly. That’s why Biden couldn’t have done a better job. He simultaneously energized his audience while preventing the opponent from communicating with any audience. Brilliant performance.
expat:
Saddam successfully misled the experts on WMD. I do not fault GWB for his choice. Further, I say the WMD argument was not necessary to justify invading Iraq. I align with the camp that says, “the first Gulf War never ended, we just stopped paying attention.”