Friday, October 12, 2012

Joe Biden's S--- Eating Grin: Meanest Hypocrite in Washington?

Joe Biden is supposedly a "good ol' boy" who everyone "likes", and who is forgiven all of his gaffes and outrageous statements because that is just "our Joe".  Hogwash.  This blog has "outed" Joe Biden, long before he became Vice Presdient, as a man who things that a "s--- eating grin" flasehed at the end of a dishonest, mean statement excuses everything.  This blog has correctgly told you for YEARS, taht Joe Biden is one of the most mean spirited men in Washignton, along with being one of the least intelligent.

Last night, Biden flashed that s---eating grin at the most inapporpirate times, but did much mroe than that.  Last night Biden showed that I have always been rIGHT abut Biden, while people lilke Brit Hume have been WRONG.  Last night, I heard the usually mroe inteligent Hume say that he had always found Biden to be "nice', but that he did have this habit of flashing that "inappropriate grin".  Humer said the grin was "almost a tic".  Sorry, Hume.  No cigar.  I have been right all of these years.  The "grin" has ALWAYS been a DEIBERATE atempt on the part of Biden to conceal one of the meanest natures in all of Washington.  The man--not talking persoanlly here, but as a political figure--does not hav a nice' bone in his body. His "grin' flashes--as I have said befoe--right after he has said the most DISHOENST, mean things. It is a DEIBERATE attempt, by a man who kows what he is, to "disarm"--not really successfully, because the "grin" never reaches his eyes..

Las night, Biden exposed himself for all the world to see, as I saw him long ago.  He grinned smugly and co condescendibly.  He mugged for the camera in a insulting way, as Paul Ryan talked.  He "laughed" at what Ryan said.  In general, Biden showed himself for who and what he is:  one of the meanest, most dishonest politicians around.  Joe Biden is NOT a "nice man", and he showed it once and for all, for all time, last night.

Should Paul Ryan have been able to handle it?  Well, probably better than he did, but it is not like Romney could have done iany better.  The proble is the Roney/Ryan attempt to be 'moderate".  Unlike the cartoon that Obama and Biden are trying to put forth of Romneyh and Ryan as "advocates for the rich", Isee Romney and Ryan for who they really are (and said so before Ryan was even chosen as VP choice):  Romney and Ryan ARE moderates--Big Government Guys who just think they can manage our government better than Obama (probably correctly, although the difference will not be enough to "save" us, in my view).  What Ryan needed to do ws two things:  He needed to ATTACK THE PREMISE of some of the "moderators" questions, and TAKE ON the moderator when she interrupted him and tried to put him off course.  This is NOT "hindsight" on my part.  I gave Mitt Romney EXACTLY this advice before the first debate. However, Romney had Jim Lehrer as a moderator, and Lehreer actually appeared to be interested in INFORMATIN, and in letting tghe CANDIDATES talk.  Last night, in contrast, we got a "moderator" more typical of mainstream "mournalism": partisan and with a "gotcha' mentality, where the "journalists" wants to 'make points" instead of bring out informatino or a real debate between the CANDIDATES. Romney wuld have been no better than Ryan at that ind of questioning, in all probability.  Romney needs to learn a lesson from Ryan ,if he can.  Do NOT let the MODERATOR (or media questions) CONTROL the deate.  That is jsut as important as not letting Obama control the debate--often much more important for the GOP canndidate who shuld KNOW that the media are NOT his "friends".  Worse, the media are the "friends" of the OTHER GUY.    Secon, Ryan really needed to pick out a few of the LIES that Biden has been spreading around, preferably in connection with a specific GAFFE, and CALL Biden on the lie.  In other words, Ryan needed to TAKE ON BIDEN, and not jsut obliquely .

For example, as this blog pointed out, Biden (mean and diishonest) mad e a huge point out of being "serius" about Romney and Ryan's tax plan RAiSING taxes on a typical "middle class" family by $2000.00.  Tat was in the SAME event where Biden said that the "middle class" has been HAMMERED the last 4 years (the four years of Obama and Biden--the 'gaffe" part).  Ryan NEEDED to directly accuse Biden and Obama of MISREPRESENTING the ositions of Ryan and Romney, with specific examples.  Merely saying that Biden should know about things coming out of a person's mouth different than intended was not good enough.  This failure to make STRON G points in a STRONG manenr did not serve Ryan well.

Am I saying Ryan "lost" the debate?  No.  I don't think Biden really did anything to show Ryan would not be at least as good a President as Biden.  With Biden's, mugging, it could well be that Ryan was the long-term "winner" of the debate.  But Ryyan did nothing to really "build" on the MOMENTUM that the GOP seemed to have, and--to that extent--he failed last night.  On substance, if you were not already leaning in one diretin, the debate was probably pretty much a "draw".  As stated, that failed to build on GOP momentum, BUT it did continue to UNDERMINE the Obama//Biden message that Romney and Rayn are some kind of two-headed monster that is out to destroy the "middle class".

Now we get to MY problem with both Romney and Ryan: the reason I cannot vote for them and the reason I think there message is MUDDLED at its core (no matter how fair the quesits).  On taxes, Ryan made a big point out of syaing that the 20% "across the board" tax cuts was gong to be offset primarily with taking away tax deductins, credits and loopholes FROM THE RICH.  The clear, and intended, message was that the "middle class" will actually receive a TAX CUT, while the "rich" will probably end up with a NET tax increase.  Now Romney and Ryan might deny this, if faced witht he dirfect questin (which they should be--I am not sure Ryan quite was last night) as to whether the "middle class" will receive a net "cut" in taxes to come from t"the rich".  In short, Romney and Ruyan (as this blog has pointed out) are engaged in their own CLASS WARFARE--adopting the same concepts and rhetoric as Obama and Biden. What is wrong with that, if you can win that way?  Once you win, you can do the details pretty much as you wish and, and the whole thing will be forgotten in debate in Congress that will end up in some "compromise" anyway, won't it (if anything happens at all, and yo may not be able to get ANYTHING through Congress)?

The above paragraph represents the Romey/Ryan DLLUSION.  There is the problemof adopting the RHETORIC of the other side, and how damaging it is to suggest that we can fiance the whole government with an ever fewer number of rich people.  The positin of Ayn Rand (and "Atlas Shrugged", the movie, is coming out now) is that this idea of the MANY living off of the money and tleants of the FEW is SLAVERY for the few. Rand is looking betetter as a prophet each passing day.  However, the problem is that Romney had Ryan have NO clear messagge.  "Deficit reductin"? Don't be silly.  They have essentially abandoned that idea.  Simple tax code rejecting class warfare?  Don't be silly.  Ryan made clear, as Romney did beofre him, that RoneyRyan are BYING INTO the basic idea of class warfare in favor of the "middle class'. 

Look how BAD this really is.  What is the PRIMARY basis oontention beteen the GOP/Romney/Ryan and Obama on the Bush Tax Cuts?  Obama wants to "raise taxes" (take away the part of the Bush Tax Cuts applying to them, wile keeping the tax cuts for the 'middle class") income taxes on people makng more than $200,000/$250,000, as to income over the "rich" level.  Explain to me how that is DIFFERENT than Romney and Rayn saing that they will TAKE AWAY deductins, loopholes and credits FROM THE RICH to "finance" a "tax cut" for the middle class?  There is NO DIFFERENCE in concept here.  Romney and Ryan are almost direclty saying that they will RAISE TAXES on "the rich" to finance a "tax cut" for the "middle class'.  I nkow.  There is sometng to be said for he LOWER RATES, so that the tax code does nto distrot economic reality.  However, is the GOP "ifghting' so hard against raising taxes on "the rich", if Rmney and Ryan are prooposing to do the SAME THING (if mroe sneakily, and eprhaps in a way that helps the overall economy by tryhing to keep the tax code from being a "Christmas tree" of "goodies' for specific companies and people)?  Do you see why the Romney/Ryan message is MUDDLED?  You should.  It is NOT a message that rejets class warfare. It is a message that embraces it, but merely says: We can do it better than Obama. If Romney is right, and small businesses making more than $250,0000 are a prime source of JOS in this country, how does Rmney justify a SNEAKY TAX INCREASE on those same people?

No. That was the real problem with Ruan last night, and it may yet be the porblem with a LIUCKY Romney (lucky in Obama's approach to first debate).  If Rmney and Ryan continue to merely COP the MESAGE of Obama--as stated, I do NOT think this is some sort of "flip flop" on their part, why shuld people believe Romney will realy be much different from Obama.  I don't.  Now will a GOP HOUSE keep Romney in line?  Maybe. Did not work with Bush. But can't Romney win by merely suggesting he will MANAGE BETTER than Obama, and by not threatening peole with any kind of dramatic change?  Sure. Romney MIGHT win that way, just as football teams SOMETIMES win with a "prevent defense". Obama made a mistkae in the first debate.  I don't believe polls, and do not think Romney was EVER in the kind of truble the polls indicatrte.  Nor do I think that his 'surge" hs necessarily been quite as dramatic as the polls indicate (although Romney clearly won the debate).  And the problem with "polls' is that the 'margin of error" is VERY MUCH greater than the acknowledged number--if only because the number of peole wilng ot CHANGE THEIR MINDS the very next day is very much greater than the polls indicate.  We have had polls now saying Obama was 5% AHEAD nationally, and we now have at least one poll (not the same poll) saying that Romney is now 5% ahead.  All the media does with this incredible emphasis on POLLS is make clear their INCOMPETENCE and USELESSNESS.  Today's "journalists" (ye,s essentially all of them, especially on TV) are WORTHLESS.  Their main "mantra" is not to "get into the wees".  Waht is the FUNCITN of "journalism", if it si not to "get into the weeds", insetead of relying on NON-NEWS like polls? Read Michael Crichton's novel, "Ariframe".  Crichton tells you the "functin" of modern "journaism", and it is NOT INFORMATIN.  Modern "journalism" is aobut the "JOURNALIST", which is the proble with most Presidetnial "debates".  Jim Leher was a major exceptin, which I don't expect to be repeated this year. No. Lehrer was not "biased".  taht was his problem, and the reason he was cirticized by other "journalists".  Lehrer did nto push the AGENDA of 'lefitst journalists", which is wht they would have approved him for doing.

No mmesage. A manstream media that will 'double down' against them. Candidates most comfortable with not realy saiyg much. That is the problem with Romney/Ryan.  I is the reason they will have a lot of trouble MAINTAINGING MOMENTUM, even if they are unlikely to "scare" voters with "exttremism". The "extremism" of Romney and Ryan, and of the GOp in general, is an OBAMA CARICATRUE.  The Obama problem is that it is INCONSISTENT with the other Obama message--more CORRECT--that Romney does not have any real principles. Obama's problem is the ECONOMY (although LIBYA shuld disqualify him from being President).

Thus, it is unlikely that either candidate will get a landslide.  Romney and Ryan do not have the MESSAGE, and Obama does nto have the PERFORMANCE.  Now I think it is guaranteed that Obama will NOT get a "landslide", althoguh Rayn and Romney may yet be able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. However, I do believe that it is POSSIBLE for Romney and Ryan to come close to a landslide, even without a message.  It may require some more Obama mistakes, but Obama has the problem that his 'message" is FALSE (this idea that Romney and Ryan are 'advocates for the rich").  Plus, as Rush Limbaugh points out, there aare any number of peole who now CAN'T STAND Obama, and would wak through heavy snow drifts to vote against thim.  Ther IS an "enthusiasm gap' that COULD create about the same margn for Romney as Obama got against McCain (and Reagan got agaisnt Carter). Contrary to the media mantra, I hink such a "landslide" is mre than possible.  I jsut don't know that it can happen without a clearer message from Romney and Ryan.  At the every least, do not Rmney and Rayn need to ATTACK Obama to moticate people?  Maybe not, if people have motivated themselves.  And maybe that is happening.

Full circle.  You see why Ryan failed to keep the GOP momentum going, even though he did nto "lose" the debate (even if he is eventually "called" the loser).  Ryan did NOT continue the ATTACK on Obama, and Ryan did not have any trul clear message.  That puts more emphasis on Romney to repeat his performance, under what will surel be MORE ADVERSE CONDITIONS.  I will be impressed if Romney can do it--although I have this feeling that he will do it--if he does--in a way I don't really like (ture of hi sfirst deate, except for flashes where Rmney got in some good lines). 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight)

No comments: