August 20, 2012

"If it had been a Republican vice presidential candidate who had made those gaffes, one after another, so comically..."

"... and all on tape, the subject today of the panel would be how stupid is this person, can this person possibly govern?" — Peggy Noonan.

Rudy Giuliani: "I truly believe if that were a Republican, if Sarah Palin made that level of mistakes, Dick Cheney, he'd be plastered all over the media. The New York Times would go nuts."

165 comments:

Mogget said...

Noonon, trying to be relevant again. Sorry, lady, you blew it in 2008.

Matthew Sablan said...

Why weren't we asking this in 2008 when Biden said stupid things?

t-man said...

Biden is the poster child for the media double standard. I'm glad she pointed that out on MTP, because it cannot possibly be denied or really explained away. What response did she get from the liberal side? Crickets, I suppose, because what cannot be denied or explained by the MSM is ignored.

edutcher said...

We've all been saying how the media would turn if they thought Zero and Halo Joe might lose.

They don't call it a worm for nothing.

Pogo said...

Obama says stupid things all the time; has all of his life.

Made Noonan swoon.

Biden's buffoonery isn't exactly new, so what gives?

Is this her political hangover, she's got a bad headache, the place has been trashed, and she's asking what the hell happened last night?

Chip S. said...

At least David Brooks still admires the sharp crease in Biden's skull.

Tom Spaulding said...

“I’m happy and proud of Joe Biden and I’m happy and proud to have him on the trail every day.” - Joe Gibbs

Whatever crap job you might have, it's not as bad as having to say those words to the World.

The same World where failed comedian Bill Maher gives the re-elect Joe Biden ticket $1 million... and calls other people "dumb c**ts".

John Althouse Cohen said...

Why don't Peggy Noonan's comments count as what the panel is talking about?

It doesn't make sense for a big-name journalist like Noonan to say the media isn't talking about X. They're the media. If they're talking about X, the media is talking about X. It especially doesn't make sense to go on Meet the Press and complain that the topic isn't being talked about on Meet the Press.

Methadras said...

Ugh. Establishment morons pontificating on other establishment morons. Hello? Noonan? He's got a D by his name. His defacto state run media apparatchiks aren't going to say or do anything against him.

bagoh20 said...

He's been a top player in our government for 4 decades and vice President for 4 years. Whatever working in government requires, Biden must have it in spades.

Could there be a better argument for smaller government?

edutcher said...

Tom Spaulding said...

“I’m happy and proud of Joe Biden and I’m happy and proud to have him on the trail every day.” - Joe Gibbs

Think you mean Robert, unless the old coach of the Redskins has gone into PR.

Beta Rube said...

I think Mr. Cohen there is a difference between a full blown media meme and a brief discussion on a Sunday talk show.

Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin were covered in roughly the same fashion as Abu Ghraib. Idiot Joe not so much.

AprilApple said...

Why would the idiots in the pro-democrat media point out stupidity within their own ranks? They agree with Biden and think he's charming.

This is the same idiot hack media who blamed Sarah Palin for murder.

rhhardin said...

It's always hormone watch time with Noonan.

They kick in and out at her age.

Whatever happened to tough old broads.

You can't decide to be a serious writer. It has to happen on its own.

I'd suggest throwing in a bon mot or joke here and there, to kill off the threat.

That leaves space for something to happen.

Lindsey Meadows said...

The clearest explanation is that Noonan is dumb. Let's just get right to it.

chuckR said...

The youtube of Joe Biden singing the Villages song while blotto always brings a smile when I'm down. But then I remember how close he is to real power and that wipes the smile right off my face.

Chip S. said...

It especially doesn't make sense to go on Meet the Press and complain that the topic isn't being talked about on Meet the Press.

OK, fine. "The topic has been ignored by everyone on MtP except me."--Peggy Noonan, edited for precision.

Tom Spaulding said...

@edutcher- Ha! Either this means I am Dem VP material, or I need to stop reading PFT and Althouse at the same time!

Robert Gibbs, of course.

ricpic said...

There's a double standard? Whodathunkit?

Bob Ellison said...

Doesn't anyone remember that circa 2007, Biden was regarded nationally as a brainy, thoughtful, wise, well informed person? He brought gravitas to the Obama ticket, it was said.

As Pogo says, Biden has always been a buffoon, but when we elected him VP, that was not widely known.

rhhardin said...

The clearest explanation is that Noonan is dumb. Let's just get right to it.

Women like unresolved issues, as opposed to men, whose first thought is to resolve them.

The unresolved issue instinct can lead to an insight, or it can lead to foolishness. Noonan doesn't distinguish these very well.

She needs to learn to spot the remaining estrogen and edit it out.

Revenant said...

This is nothing new. He did the same thing back in '08 and nobody cared.

Pastafarian said...

Lindsey @ 10:15: Are you saying she's dumb for having supported Obama in 2008? Or for now pointing out the media double standard?

Because I don't think stupidity necessarily follows from either of those things.

The media double standard is painfully obvious; and only a very smart person could have done something as stupid as supporting Obama in 2008. (See our hostess for an example.)

Sam L. said...

The Media are butt-kissers for Dems, though that new NEWSWEAK...

Nonapod said...

I guess admitting the truth every once in a while lends more credence to the gobbledygook that's emitted from your face hole the rest of the time.

Either way, Joe Biden is the gift that keeps on giving.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Do we really need this thread?

Of course Biden is a clown, unfit to govern.

And remember, he was the first example we got of Obama's decision making and judgement.

Some of us took note then.

MadisonMan said...

A Presidential Candidate should never pick a person to serve as VP who will outshine them. Obama did well, in that respect, to pick Biden.

Conspiracy theory: Biden is doing this on purpose, so that he can be cast aside with ease (while citing "medical issues") for a candidate that is better suited to help Obama win re-election.

Pastafarian said...

MadisonMan -- I've seen other people float that theory, but I can't think of anyone who would actually help.

I don't think an aging Hildebeast will counter Ryan -- hell, it will bring more people out to vote against her than for her. And there's no electoral vote advantage to that move at all. And supposedly, she's already turned them down.

Baron Zemo said...

Soon Ms Oop will appear to tell us that the Vice President means well and should not be blamed for his words.

And the Paul Ryan want's to control her vagina.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Early on, back before Lewinski, when Ken Star was investigating a bunch of other Clinton shenanigans (Whitewater, Madison Guaranty, missing Rose Law billing records, cattle futures trading), I wanted to find out if there was anything to any of the accusations, or if was just muckraking.

At the time, there'd be a couple/three column inches on the scandal of the month every so often, buried pretty far back in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and not enough information in any one article to put the pieces together into a coherent whole.

So, I started reading newspapers on the internet, and started recording and watching the Sunday morning political talk shows.

At the time, Joe Biden was a frequent guest. I didn't know him, and had no opinion of him. What struck me about him was how he would say absolute things with complete confidence.

As people would say things on these shows, I would sometimes pause the tape and search the internet for supporting evidence. It quickly became clear that Joe Biden, in spite of the absoluteness of his statements, and the complete confidence he exuded while making them, was talking out of his ass the majority of the time.

I think Biden has really bullshitted himself into believing that he is the smartest man in the room, and therefore is incapable of being wrong. At one time there was a pre-hair-plug video of Biden floating around where he's berating someone, calling into question their intelligence, and bragging about his genius, his three degrees, graduating near the top of his class, his scholarships, etc.. If I could find the video, I'd link to it.

Chip S. said...

@ MtM: Here you go.

I think maybe one of his statements about his record is true.

AF said...

Professor Althouse: Since when were you a whiner? I always thought being anti-whining was one of your qualities. But come to think of it, I've always been wrong. You're just against specific types of whining.

furious_a said...

And remember, he was the first example we got of Obama's decision making and judgement.

"Chains, y'all!" Biden being a heartbeat away from the Big Red Button (he'd probably sit on it by mistake) has replaced the White Whale in me nightmares. Y'arrrr...

shiloh said...

"Since when were you a whiner?"

No, Althouse is just pandering to her 90/10 con flock.

So, in a sense, she's moderating their daily whining er giving them an outlet to vent.

Indeed, she's very empathetic to their pent-up emotions! :-P

I, for one, applaud her efforts!

AF said...

Serious question: What, exactly, is so wrong with Biden's statement? Even assuming it was in fact a reference to slavery, which is questionable. Under that assumption, it is a ridiculous statement. But what I'm missing is why it is considered particularly offensive rather than just off-key.

Is the suggestion that Biden actually meant that Republicans want to reinstitute slavery, or that they are pursuing racist policies that are the moral equivalent to slavery? How is that a reasonable interpretation, when the statement was made in the context of financial regulation, not racial politics? Or is the idea that mentioning slavery in any context is somehow taboo?

I just don't get the source of the faux outrage.

ricpic said...

I don't know how Biden got as far as he did given that his fratboy/salesman personality should have taken him no higher than a car dealership in Delaware. All you can say is, "What a country!"

BarrySanders20 said...

So it's true, but Noonan's a whiner if she points out the truth.

And if Althouse links, then it's still true, but it's pandering.

That's a pretty weak defense.

furious_a said...

I think Biden has really bullshitted himself into believing that he is the smartest man in the room...

Oh, there's absolutely no doubt about that.

Richard Dolan said...

JAC: "They're the media. If they're talking about X, the media is talking about X. It especially doesn't make sense to go on Meet the Press and complain that the topic isn't being talked about on Meet the Press."

Well, there is talk (as in the Qualyle-fixation on how dumb you have to be to come up with 'potatoe', or why 'you're no JFK' fits), and there is mere talk (like Peggy going on for 10 seconds). Nobody who watches Meet the Press is even slightly up for grabs in terms of who they will vote for. As for the voters both sides are trying to reach, anything less than Qualyle-like fixation isn't really having the media 'talk' about a story.

It may yet happen to Biden, especially if he performs his foot-in-mouth act when debating Ryan in October.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

What, exactly, is so wrong with Biden's statement?

Ummm, how about . . . implying that Republicans are racists.

Despicable assertion.

If you don't see what is "wrong" with that, then you may be a so-called progressive, but actually a Liberal with more than a little fascist tendency.

shiloh said...

"What a country!"

Indeed, Willard I'm not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said whatever it was mittens born w/a silver spoon and never having to worry about $$$ a day in his life agrees.

Michael The Magnificent said...

Chip, that's it! I'm bookmarking it this time.

Surprisingly, it's worse than I remember!

BarryD said...

"Doesn't anyone remember that circa 2007, Biden was regarded nationally as a brainy, thoughtful, wise, well informed person?"

No, I don't. What I remember is being TOLD that I was supposed to think so, by people like Noonan, and thinking that I was being sold a bill of goods, and that Noonan, Brooks and everyone else at the NYT are a vile, disgusting little hive of self-serving sycophants.

AF said...

"Ummm, how about . . . implying that Republicans are racists."

Do you all have guilty consciences or something? Because it takes a special kind of thin skin to hear someone make a point about financial regulation and then get all offended because you think he's calling you a racist.

And again, I'm agreeing that his words were poorly chosen and could be interpreted as a far-fetched and inappropriate reference to slavery. My question is why would an inappropriate reference to slavery in the middle of a discussion about financial regulation be interpreted as calling anyone racist?

shiloh said...

Yes, Biden was talkin' about Wall St. putting "you all" in chains.

But if con racists took it the wrong way "we" shouldn't be surprised. Indeed conservatives are fixated on race, especially here.

Darcy said...

Quit lumping "women", hardin. Please.

shiloh said...

Darcy, cons love inane generalizations as it's how they roll.

hmm, another truthful generalization lol.

Chip S. said...

...in the middle of a discussion about financial regulation...

You didn't see the video, did you?

There was no "discussion" of financial regulation. There was a rhetorical ploy linking "unchaining Wall Street" to "puttin' y'all back in chains." Not an off-the-cuff gaffe like "illegitimate rape."

If you really can't comprehend what Biden was trying to do, write to Douglas Wilder and ask him why he thought it was disgusting.

AF said...

I mean, if Romney said that Obama's policy of extra-judicial killing (eg Osama bin Laden) was reminiscent of Stalin, you wouldn't hear Democrats taking offense called Communists. Or, for that matter, if Mitt Romney told a group of African American businessmen that Obama's overregulation of business was putting them back in chains, you wouldn't hear Obama complaining that he was being called racist. You have to have some sort of preconception to hear it that way.

But actually, I think your answer explains a lot. It explains why the right-wing noise machine is so upset -- because you are all so primed to get offended by anything you perceive as an accusation of racism. And it explains why the rest of the country is kind of shrugging its shoulders -- because not everyone shares your sensitivity on this issue.

Chip S. said...

I usually make every attempt to scroll past shiloh's comments, but I inadvertently read this:

cons love inane generalizations as it's how they roll

Seems like I may have been missing some fine inadvertent humor.

Carry on. ;P

William said...

He has hair plugs that don't work. That's the appropriate metaphor for Joe Biden. His ineffectuality distracts from his underlying vanity and dishonesty. He plagiarizes the biography of another politician and does it so clumsily that the issue becomes not the plagiarism but the stupidity.....I'm not sure if Biden's likeability is a function of his gregarious nature or of the media's gentle coverage of him. He has a son who landed a lucrative job with a hedge fund company at the time that Biden was chairman of a Senate committee that supervised banking. I have the feeling that this would have been reported in greater detail if Biden were a Republican. I do remember the press making a big deal about his other son who went to Iraq in a JA position. That story disappeared when the sons of both McCain and Palin went to Iraq as grunts....

shiloh said...

"I usually make every attempt"

Indeed!

Marshal said...

AF said...
"Ummm, how about . . . implying that Republicans are racists."

Do you all have guilty consciences or something? Because it takes a special kind of thin skin to hear someone make a point about financial regulation and then get all offended because you think he's calling you a racist.


What an asshole this guy is. Biden says Republicans want to reinstitute chattel slavery and his position is that those who take offense are at fault.

Unbelievable. It just goes to show you some people can excuse anything.

shiloh said...

"It just goes to show you some people can excuse anything."

This conservative blog in a nutshell ...

Jay said...

AF said...

But actually, I think your answer explains a lot. It explains why the right-wing noise machine is so upset -- because you are all so primed to get offended by anything you perceive as an accusation of racism. And it explains why the rest of the country is kind of shrugging its shoulders -- because not everyone shares your sensitivity on this issue


Yep, kind of like for (D) Gov of VA, Doug Wilder.

Your silly, blinkered comments are frankly stunning in their stupidity.

Marshal said...

it explains why the rest of the country is kind of shrugging its shoulders -- because not everyone shares your sensitivity on this issue.

Ah, it's bubble-boy. Most of the country thinks it was outrageous, excepting only those prepared to excuse anything from a Democrat.

Jay said...

AF said...


Do you all have guilty consciences or something? Because it takes a special kind of thin skin to hear someone make a point about financial regulation and then get all offended because you think he's calling you a racist.


Are you retarded or something?

Because "chains" has nothing to do with financial regulations.

Darcy said...

I used to find Biden smarmy but sharp on the Sunday morning talk shows. He had a pretty good instinct for hitting the mark. I would groan when I knew he was going to be on because I felt he was a pretty effective Dem mouthpiece.

I really do think the Biden of the last few years is a different guy. I do wonder what happened. Losing some cognitive ability due to age, possibly?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Ho hum, it is not confidence-instilling when something that has been apparent for such a long time is only now positioned as one writers' 'eureka' moment.

The people of the MSM are as dumb as those that are willing to trade their liberty for the illusion of security.

harrogate said...

"It doesn't make sense for a big-name journalist like Noonan to say the media isn't talking about X. They're the media. If they're talking about X, the media is talking about X. It especially doesn't make sense to go on Meet the Press and complain that the topic isn't being talked about on Meet the Press.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner.

"OK, fine. 'The topic has been ignored by everyone on MtP except me.'--Peggy Noonan, edited for precision."

Not even close. The television cable channels and the newspaper editorial pages and webnews-o-sphere are filled with references to the thing that is not being talked about. Quite often, these tv clips/print blurbs/blogosphere orgies devote the lion's share of the space to how the thing they are talking about is never talked about.

It's exactly the same as the stuff about Obama's "associations" that "we never talk about" in 2008. Was quite a spell there where anywhere you swung a cat in the political discourse land, you'd be guaranteed to hit someone wondering why we weren't talking about Rev. Wright.

TMink said...

I do not think that the media give Biden a pass per se, I think they resonate and agree with him. So what is the problem from their perspective. The people who call themselves journalists agree that our next president and vice president want to put black people in chains, so what is there to report?

Trey

Chip S. said...

Losing some cognitive ability due to age, possibly?

I think whoever installed his hair plugs drilled too deeply.

Jay said...

AF said...
My question is why would an inappropriate reference to slavery in the middle of a discussion about financial regulation be interpreted as calling anyone racist?


My question is, why are you asking these questions in the charade that you actually care what the answers are?

Even you can understand that financial regulations have nothing to do with slavery, right?

AF said...

"Biden says Republicans want to reinstitute chattel slavery . . . ."

But that's the thing: he didn't say that, on any interpretation of his words. It's one thing to take stupid word choices out of context and ding someone for it; that is par for the course and both sides do it. It's quite another thing to interpret the stupid word choice as being an actual statement that Biden didn't come close to saying, and would be absurd.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

shiloh,

Yes, Biden was talkin' about Wall St. putting "you all" in chains.

Enh, no. He said "y'all." Biden does not normally go all Southern like that.

I've seen, btw, the defense that Biden was merely responding to Republican talk of "unshackling" business, &c., which of course was what was in his remarks right before the line in question. But does it make sense? At all? If you "unshackle" A, does that imply that you're just itching to use the unoccupied shackles on B?

But if con racists took it the wrong way "we" shouldn't be surprised. Indeed conservatives are fixated on race, especially here.

You think? We went through eight years of the POTUS being called "Chimpy" (just as we had eight years, earlier on, of Reagan being constantly tied to Bedtime For Bonzo), and I don't recall much pushback from the leftward side of the spectrum about how associating the POTUS with chimpanzees was really not very dignified. Any reference to Obama that alluded to apes or monkeys, OTOH, was instantly denounced as racist. ISTR, for example, a rather contentious thread around the face-eating chimpanzee incident in 2009, and someone's political cartoon about same.

Chip S. said...

It's quite another thing to interpret the stupid word choice as being an actual statement that Biden didn't come close to saying, and would be absurd.

Either AF is a partisan hack or Douglas Wilder has switched parties.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

If it weren't for double standards, some folks wouldn't have any.

Just sayin'.

AllenS said...

AF said...
Serious question: What, exactly, is so wrong with Biden's statement?

...

Or is the idea that mentioning slavery in any context is somehow taboo?

I just don't get the source of the faux outrage.


You realize, don't you, that Biden was speaking to a mostly black audience.

AF said...

"Ah, it's bubble-boy. Most of the country thinks it was outrageous, excepting only those prepared to excuse anything from a Democrat."

Well, in that case, Marshal, you Althouse and Peggy Noonan don't have anything to whine about do you?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Or, for that matter, if Mitt Romney told a group of African American businessmen that Obama's overregulation of business was putting them back in chains, you wouldn't hear Obama complaining that he was being called racist. You have to have some sort of preconception to hear it that way.

Yes, you do. Like the "preconception" that Obama, being Black, is incapable of being racist. But if you don't think Obama wouldn't bridle at being explicitly compared to a slaveholder, I think you are wrong.

It's a charge that's much less effective against a black man than a white man, because in this country almost all (not all) slaveholders were white (though Africa was rife with Black slaveholders during the centuries of the transatlantic slave trade, and as I understand it the institution isn't extinct even now).

Matthew Sablan said...

It wasn't the chains part that made it clear Biden's intent. It was the y'all and the dialect shift. Which is sad, because I want to like Biden. But, it seems like since becoming the VP nominee, he's just given up and been nasty.

By the way, Romney was accused of racism for using the words "angry" and "cool" at different points. If he made this line, that would know.

AF said...

"But if you don't think Obama wouldn't bridle at being explicitly compared to a slaveholder, I think you are wrong."

This actually isn't a hypothetical. The Republicans have been talking about "unshackling" the private sector from the Democrats' alleged overregulation. No complaint by any Democrats that they are being called racist.

Matthew Sablan said...

Unshackle Wall Street regulation is different from the VP telling an audience filled with African Americans that Republicans want to put y'all in chains.

Surely you see the difference.

AllenS said...

I don't think that he'll ever see the difference, Matthew.

Jay said...

AF said...


This actually isn't a hypothetical. The Republicans have been talking about "unshackling" the private sector from the Democrats' alleged overregulation. No complaint by any Democrats that they are being called racist.


Hysterical.

The resident obfuscator can't seem to understand that "unshackling" does not equal "putting you in chains"

Tom Spaulding said...

Do you all have guilty consciences or something? Because it takes a special kind of thin skin to hear someone make a point about financial regulation and then get all offended because you think he's calling you a racist.

It takes a special kind of idiocy to interpret Mitt Romney calling Obama's campaign "angry" and claim it's a deep code-word and an attempt at "Ni**erization".

Lib pundit Toure said that, and since you are a Lib, you must think that, too...probably because of your guilty conscience of being the party of slavery, Bull Connor, the Klan, Robert Byrd, George Wallace and voting against the '64 Civil Rights Act ala Al Gore, Sr....father of your 2000 presidential candidate.

See how that works both ways?

Nah, ya probably didn't.

AF said...

"Surely you see the difference."

Absolutely. But the one was in response to the other. Biden's point was that the Republicans go around the country talking about unshackling big business, while they seem pretty unconcerned about everyone else. So he tried to turn Republicans' language around on them. And he mangled it. But the idea that he was actually accusing anyone of wanting to reinstate slavery is silly. Which is why, I think, most people are rolling their eyes at Biden putting his foot in his mouth, rather than getting outraged.

Christopher in MA said...

What a world we live in, where the word "picnic" is considered racist, but a sitting vice president shrieking, They're gonna put you all back in chains! to a black audience is just politics as usual.

But, consider the audience. Democrat blacks. The same people who nodded in agreement when Whoopi Goldberg seriously asked John McCain if his election would mean returning her to slavery.

I don't know why I'm surprised that Democrats treat blacks like retarded children. It's been their MO since 1776.

AF said...

"The resident obfuscator can't seem to understand that "unshackling" does not equal "putting you in chains""

How can you be unshackled if you someone hasn't shackled you? Or are you drawing a distinction between "shackles" and "chains"?

Marshal said...

AF said...
"Biden says Republicans want to reinstitute chattel slavery . . . ."

But that's the thing: he didn't say that, on any interpretation of his words


Either you're an idiot or you're trying to influence the fools.

The Republicans have been talking about "unshackling" the private sector from the Democrats' alleged overregulation. No complaint by any Democrats that they are being called racist.

Note the difference between the inanimate object subject "the private sector" and Biden saying Republicans are going to put "y'all back in chains" to actual people. Do you seriously think this is an intelligent comparison?

furious_a said...

It was the y'all and the dialect shift.

...and the word "back", an explicit reference to the ancestors of many of those in the audience being brought here in chains. And the ellision from "Romney" unshackling banks to "they" chaining African-Americans.

Apparently AF is as obtuse about sentence structure as it is about context.

The Republicans have been talking about "unshackling" the private sector from the Democrats' alleged overregulation.

Have they been lapsing into drawls and y'alls in front of African-American audiences while doing so?..Thought not.

bagoh20 said...

rhhardin: "Women like unresolved issues, as opposed to men, whose first thought is to resolve them."

I've seen the problem between men and women stated a lot of ways, but this seems to nail it for me.

Women never seem so invested as when they are describing a problem, and men when they are solving it, and both are important. It makes anthropological sense that this is how we evolved. It takes too much attention to be both involved in the work of solving a problem and have your head up looking for new ones. I think modern technology is making it possible to have more problem finders and less problem solvers, so we talk a lot more.

Matthew Sablan said...

If men put as much effort into understanding problems as we put into solving them, we'd get it right the first time.

AF said...

"Note the difference between the inanimate object subject "the private sector" and Biden saying Republicans are going to put "y'all back in chains" to actual people. Do you seriously think this is an intelligent comparison?"

See above. Republicans were using the language of slavery to talk about regulation, Biden tried to turn it around on them, and went over the top. But the only way you get from there to outrage is by having a very thin skin, a guilty conscience, or being disingenuous.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

""The resident obfuscator can't seem to understand that "unshackling" does not equal "putting you in chains""

How can you be unshackled if you someone hasn't shackled you? Or are you drawing a distinction between "shackles" and "chains"?"

The penchant of liberals is the circular, nonsensical 'argument'.

Stick your tongue out, I'm willing to bet there's a fork in it.

Christopher in MA said...

One other thing, which AF seems determined to ignore:

Biden isn't southern. He doesn't have a drawl. People in Delaware don't have a drawl. Biden most certainly doesn't say "ya'll" as part of his daily speech, and I defy you to find any other attempt at his doing so.

It's a "dog whistle," the favored left slander of any Republican proposal.

They gonna put ya'll back in chains! Hmm - fake southern drawl, black audience, the word "chains" - sounds like the spirit of Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane. And everyone knows Southern sheriffs are racist. And only Republicans are racist southerners. QED.

You do yourself no favors trying to excuse this demented old fool's rank hackery.

Matthew Sablan said...

So, the short of it, after going through the two big blog posts this morning/afternoon:

A Republican uses a mangled phrase -- legitimate rape -- that everyone agrees is stupid, but it is also a window into the soul of the woman-hating Republican party that all right thinking people must repudiate.

A Democrat uses a mangled phrase -- put y'all back in chains -- and that is just a funny slip of the tongue that provides no insight into anything what so ever. Ha ha, kind of funny to misspeak like that.

Standards: Doubled for your convenience.

Matthew Sablan said...

"People in Delaware don't have a drawl."

-- Let me tell you about what Newark and Bear refer to as "slower, lower Delaware..."

Tom Spaulding said...

But the only way you get from there to outrage is by having a very thin skin, a guilty conscience, or being disingenuous.

Projection.

You're going to vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden (again) and you come here talking about "thin skin, guilty consciences and being disingenuous"?


Marshal said...

AF said...
"Note the difference between the inanimate object subject "the private sector" and Biden saying Republicans are going to put "y'all back in chains" to actual people. Do you seriously think this is an intelligent comparison?"

See above. Republicans were using the language of slavery to talk about regulation, Biden tried to turn it around on them, and went over the top. But the only way you get from there to outrage is by having a very thin skin, a guilty conscience, or being disingenuous.


I see above quite clearly, where you fail to address the obvious and incontrovertible fact that the Republicans use of the the term was not directed at people while Biden's was. It takes a special kind of stupid to claim that putting people in chains is not slavery. But since it takes a special kind of stupid to believe all leftist claptrap why should anyone be surprised?

bgates said...

AF, I thought you were a progressive. Why aren't you defending Biden on this?

Michael The Magnificent said...

Sorry to say Darcy, but had you fact-checked Biden back then, your opinion of him would have been that he was both smarmy and ill-informed.

Darcy said...

I never said he was correct, Michael! Heh. I said he was sharp and effective. You don't need to be correct if you're a Democrat on the Sunday shows.

shiloh said...

"We went through eight years of the POTUS being called "Chimpy"

MDT, one would think inane generalizations would be beneath one of the few intellectuals here who knows what begging the question actually means.

Apparently not. In any even, your false equivalency is duly noted.

btw, did main stream Rep politicians, or evangelical leaders call Dutch or Bush43 a Muslim born in Kenya, the anti-christ, "who palled around w/terrorists" ie mama grizzly, etc. etc.

Indeed, as Obama has certainly helped racist Rep politicians come out of the closet lol.

Once again I yield back the balance of my time to MDT and other disingenuous, self-righteous, Althouse cons!

AF said...

"A Republican uses a mangled phrase -- legitimate rape -- that everyone agrees is stupid, but it is also a window into the soul of the woman-hating Republican party that all right thinking people must repudiate.

A Democrat uses a mangled phrase -- put y'all back in chains -- and that is just a funny slip of the tongue that provides no insight into anything what so ever. Ha ha, kind of funny to misspeak like that."

The difference is that some gaffes are "Kinsley gaffes" in that they accidentally reveal what the person really thinks, whereas others are just stupid statements. The key question is: Is it reasonable to conclude that the candidate means the stupid thing he just said.

In Akin's case, the answer is clearly yes. In Biden's case, the answer is no.

And it's not just a Democrat/Republican thing. Examples of Kinsley gaffes by Obama are his infamous "cling to guns and religion" quote and more recently his "you didn't build that" quote. Those (like Mitt's "corporations are people" or "I like to fire people") are misstatements that, even though taken out of context, really do reflect something the candidate believes.

For that matter, if Obama rather than Biden had made the "chains" comment, it would have been a much bigger deal. But I just can't see how anyone could really think that Uncle Joe Biden believes that Republicans want to reinstate slavery.

AF said...

And by the way, the Akin comment is going to take down Akin, but it's not going to take down Romney/Ryan or the Republican Party. Reason being, once again, that Akin actually believes that crap but you can't credibly argue that it is the mainstream position of the Republican Party.

Matthew Sablan said...

"And it's not just a Democrat/Republican thing. Examples of Kinsley gaffes by Obama are his infamous "cling to guns and religion" quote and more recently his "you didn't build that" quote. Those (like Mitt's "corporations are people" or "I like to fire people")"

-- The first Romney quote is a true statement in what he was discussing (the legal fiction), the second is literally being edited to make it sound worse than it was (the full quote is something along the lines of liking to fire people who give bad service.)

Matthew Sablan said...

And, I don't know. It is entirely possible Biden honestly believes Republicans want to reinstate the slavery they fought so hard to get rid of. That's a fairly normal position advanced by some elements of the netroots.

Marshal said...

To summarize AF:

Biden's comment is so outrageous it cannot be outrageous.

shiloh said...

Indeed, conservatives are soooo fixated on race, they're trying to disenfranchise the minority vote.

Now that's what you call being really, really, really pissed off an African/American was easily elected president!

'nuf said!

Jay said...

AF said...

In Akin's case, the answer is clearly yes. In Biden's case, the answer is no.


There is no evidence, anywhere at all, supporting the idea that Joe Biden wouldn't believe this.

After all, he actually said rapes would go up if the Obama jobs bill wasn't passed.

Jay said...

shiloh said...
Indeed, conservatives are soooo fixated on race, they're trying to disenfranchise the minority vote.


Hysterical.

Do you do anything other than post silly talking points?

shiloh said...

Jay, do you do anything other than act silly? Rhetorical.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"Indeed, conservatives are soooo fixated on race, they're trying to disenfranchise the minority vote."

Great fairy tale you got there.

Trouble is, it simply isn't true.

You are a tool.

AF said...

"The first Romney quote is a true statement in what he was discussing (the legal fiction), the second is literally being edited to make it sound worse than it was (the full quote is something along the lines of liking to fire people who give bad service.)"

Similarly, the first Obama quote (clinging to guns and religion) is a true quote and the second ("you didn't build that") is out of context.

As I've said before, out of context is par for the course and both sides do it. I'm not whining about the "you didn't build that" distortions because the fact is it was a poor choice of words and reflects a legitimate debate between the parties.

(And by the way, Romney was actually making a different point about corporations. He wasn't talking about the legal fiction, he was saying that corporations are made up of people, which is also partially true, but which reflects a level of sympathy for corporations that many people disagree with.)

Matthew Sablan said...

"Similarly, the first Obama quote (clinging to guns and religion) is a true quote and the second ("you didn't build that") is out of context."

-- And again, you fail to understand the counter point. "Clinging to guns and religion" is not a content/value neutral claim as "Corporations are people" is. It shows an actual value judgment on the speaker's part in the first, as opposed to the second.

And "You didn't build that" was perfectly in context. But, I understand the need for a comforting lie so you can just say something like "All those rubes just didn't understand what we meant. With better messaging, we could have won."

Jay said...

AF said...
and the second ("you didn't build that") is out of context.


Um, no it isn't.

Tom Spaulding said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
EMD said...

If men put as much effort into understanding problems as we put into solving them, we'd get it right the first time.

If women put as much effort into solving problems as they put into understanding them, they'd get more done.

Matthew Sablan said...

See AF, that DWS quote is another reason that Biden should be taken seriously, that this is his honest belief. It is a talking point that the left uses when it can get away with it. They literally tell people Republicans want to enslave you, steal away your rights and strip away your dignity as a human.

Tom Spaulding said...

DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said Republicans wanted to "literally drag us back the Jim Crow laws".

I am outraged because:

a) I am thin-skinned

b) I have a guilty conscience... even though racist Dems passed original Jim Crow laws

c) I am disingenuous

d) Like most idiots, DWS does not know what "literally" means.

Please, let me know.

shiloh said...

Here's another rhetorical question:

Do you think the presidential election will be decided by the never ending conservative minutiae presented in this thread?

Matthew Sablan said...

Let's not forget all the wonderful bon mots from the left about the right promoting "wage slavery."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Do you think the presidential election will be decided by the never ending conservative minutiae presented in this thread?"

-- Paul Ryan and Romney have put forward actual proposals to be vetted and discussed. Ryan went to Florida to discuss Medicare with seniors, while Romney broke out a whiteboard to lecture the press on his plan.

Obama has made jokes about Seamus, demanded Romney's tax returns and said that Ryan was against a farm bill that Ryan voted on and passed.

Who's doing the what now?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

See, MF,

This actually isn't a hypothetical. The Republicans have been talking about "unshackling" the private sector from the Democrats' alleged overregulation. No complaint by any Democrats that they are being called racist.

The difference is that in your hypothetical,

Or, for that matter, if Mitt Romney told a group of African American businessmen that Obama's overregulation of business was putting them back in chains, you wouldn't hear Obama complaining that he was being called racist.

Back in chains, you see. As in "going to re-enslave you." Whereas all Romney and other Republicans have said is that business is shackled by excess regulation and it might be a good idea to loosen the shackles. That does not entail putting them on someone else, as Biden implied. The proper use for unneeded metaphorical shackles is melting them metaphorically down and using them for for some better metaphorical use. (Like almost anything else, really.)

AF said...

Jay and Matthew Sablan: If you actually think that Biden meant to accuse the Republicans favoring chattel slavery, I'm not sure how I can persuade you otherwise. I don't think very many people see it that way. And that, I hypothesize, is why the Biden comment doesn't seem to be generating the level of outrage Althouse and Peggy Noonan would like to see.

Jay said...

shiloh said...


Do you think the presidential election will be decided by the never ending conservative minutiae presented in this thread?


Says the bozo 20 minutes after the President added the always helpful "Rape is Rape"

No sense of irony
No sense of self-awareness

Matthew Sablan said...

No, we're not saying he actually believes that. We're saying that is his intended message to rile up potential voters and stoke the fear, anger and resentment over racial issues.

You know, dog whistling. That thing that everyone is only able to hear when Romney or a Republican refers to Obama as angry or cool.

Darcy said...

So women like unresolved problems because they don't like, not to mention aren't good at solving problems?

Is Joe Biden writing these comments?

Jay said...

AF said...
Jay and Matthew Sablan: If you actually think that Biden meant to accuse the Republicans favoring chattel slavery, I'm not sure how I can persuade you otherwise


Based on the fact that the Democrats have done this before, saying the same things, you are the one who is being willfully blind on the issue.

It is fun to watch someone actually argue that we shouldn't listen to what that crazy cracker Joe says though.

Matthew Sablan said...

The real reason the Biden comment isn't generating outrage, by the way, is no one expects Biden to say anything smart. He's basically the court jester of the Obama administration. The fact he said something stupid -and- racially insensitive isn't that big of a surprise, considering he said, what was it? You need to speak with an Indian accent to order coffee in Delaware? Something like that.

But hey, calling Obama cool? Totally racist.

Michael K said...

" And that, I hypothesize, is why the Biden comment doesn't seem to be generating the level of outrage Althouse and Peggy Noonan would like to see."

Everybody knows Biden is an idiot. What is interesting is the fact that the black audience sat there and applauded being ridiculed by Biden's descent into dialect.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

EMD said...
If women put as much effort into solving problems as they put into understanding them, they'd get more done.


Quote of the month! Very well put.

Marshal said...

Compare AF's position to the Jewish blood libel. If someone claims Jews kill gentile children to make their ritual food, do they really believe it? I have a hard time believing so, at least in America. But is it tough to believe such a person is trying to demonize Jews? So what do we think of the person defending the accuser? Do we say no one believes it so no big deal? Or do we recognize his efforts are in effect spent defending the demonization?

Biden absolutely intended to smear Republicans as racist. It's a standard Democratic tactic and a primary theme of the left for four decades. The fact that his speech was hyperbolic doesn't change that conclusion.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

AF,

How can you be unshackled if you someone hasn't shackled you? Or are you drawing a distinction between "shackles" and "chains"?

Not sure if I'm ever going to get through here. But, AF, unshackling someone doesn't ordinarily putting the shackles on someone else. You seem to be reading Biden as saying, "They want to take the shackles off business, so obviously they want to chain 'y'all' up instead, there being now all this spare chain lying about."

Tom Spaulding said...

Another boring shiloh attempt to whine abut everyone else's "whining".

Anyone not voting for Romney/Ryan is voting to re-elect Obama/Biden: The two guys whose economic polices are so disastrous that they are essentially asking the voters they put on food stamps and unemployment to help them keep them there.

That is all you need to reveal in a post, we can infer the rest.

Valentine Smith said...

What's really interesting is that Biden concedes that The Big O's regulatory restraints are akin to bonds of slavery.

AF said...

"You seem to be reading Biden as saying, "They want to take the shackles off business, so obviously they want to chain 'y'all' up instead, there being now all this spare chain lying about.""

Yup, that's basically what Biden was saying. And as you observe, it was a pretty poor rhetorical move.

shiloh said...

No Tom S, just stating the obvious.

btw re: the v-p debate:

Ryan = high expectations

Biden = low expectations

= Biden's already won. You bet'cha!

And if Biden wipes the floor w/ad nauseam prevaricator, I've passed a post office name change and a decrease arrow tax bill in my (12) years in congress Ryan. Oh my! :)

Nathan Alexander said...

I looked up "shackle" via google.

The first entry was the wikipedia article on shackles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shackle

Notice: not a mention of the word slavery at all.

But "putting y'all back in chains" is clearly a reference to slavery. No reasonable or honest person could argue otherwise.

According to wikipedia, a related word is fetters:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetters

Per wikipedia, "With respect to humans, typically only prisoners or bondage fetishists will wear shackles."

Again, not slavery for shackles or fetters.

So unshackling or unfettering the economy would mean releasing it from restrictive binding placed as part of punishment.

Not slavery.

So it is disingenuous, at best, to equate unshackling the economy with putting people back in chains.

shiloh said...

Correction: 14 yrs. in congress.

garage mahal said...

The two guys whose economic polices are so disastrous that they are essentially asking the voters they put on food stamps and unemployment to help them keep them there.

Like Paul Ryan once said: "you got to spend a little to grow a little. What we’re trying to do is stimulate that part of the economy that’s on its back.”

Of course that was back when there was a Republican as President.

I'm sure all is forgiven now.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Shiloh,
I've passed a post office name change and a decrease arrow tax bill in my (12) years in congress

Why is letting people keep more of the money they earn a bad thing in your view, Shiloh?

Please explain what, exactly, is the correct percentage of earning someone should keep as a consequence of working?

I daresay your statement reveals that liberals embrace the knee-jerk assumption that the govt has an unalienable right to control all wealth and all means of production.

bagoh20 said...

"So women like unresolved problems because they don't like, not to mention aren't good at solving problems?"

Darcy, I'm not saying women can't solve problems, anymore than I'm saying men can't identify them, but there are innate differences in us, and culture has it's influences too, with the result that women as a group find much more pleasure in discussing problems and men in solving them.

This is why women generally have to drag their husbands to therapy. Therapy is 90% discussing the problem. Men would generally prefer she just say what she wants and and then be happy when she gets it. You know you see this all the time, where the guy just wants to know what's broken in 10 words or less, but the woman wants him to know really really well.
Of course it's just a generality, but pretty pervasive.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jay said...

shiloh said...


And if Biden wipes the floor w/ad nauseam prevaricator, I've passed a post office name change and a decrease arrow tax bill in my (12) years in congress Ryan. Oh my! :)


Yes!

Because on top of being factually untrue, what Biden should totally highlight is the Obama Administrations failure to pass a budget the entirety of their 1st term.

Don't worry imbecile, it all makes logical sense to you.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

shiloh,

btw, did main stream Rep politicians, or evangelical leaders call Dutch or Bush43 a Muslim born in Kenya, the anti-christ, "who palled around w/terrorists" ie mama grizzly, etc. etc.

I am fairly certain that neither Reagan nor Bush The Second was ever described as a Muslim born in Kenya, by anyone.

But I also do not remember any mainstream politician calling Obama either a closet Muslim, or anything but an American citizen.

The Birthers (and I'm going to include the other sort of Birther, Andrew Sullivan, who spent untold hours trying to prove that Trig Palin was not Sarah Palin's child) are just the flip side of the 9/11 Truthers, who are still very much around.

America breeds crazy people, and attracts crazy people from other places (cf. the aforementioned Sullivan).

As to the rest: Ayers and Dohrn are, absolutely-certainly-without-possibility-of-error, domestic terrorists. You disagree? Or that they have close connections to the Obamas?

Indeed, as Obama has certainly helped racist Rep politicians come out of the closet lol.

Well, certainly racists of all political stripes have been eased out of the closet, though honestly how Biden survived describing Obama as the first "clean" Black candidate for President, and saying that you couldn't order at a 7/11 without an Indian accent I don't know. That's all fluff, I suppose, but the fact that the guy who was supposed to add foreign policy gravitas to the Obama ticket's great idea was to partition Iraq into three countries is not.

Nathan Alexander said...

Like Paul Ryan once said: "you got to spend a little to grow a little. What we’re trying to do is stimulate that part of the economy that’s on its back.”

Nope. Not forgiven, nor forgotten.

Still, his budget proposals demonstrate that unlike you or Obama, he's realized from direct observation of TARP and Stimulus that stimulus spending doesn't work to improve the economy as well as liberals like you argue, and really doesn't work if you actively attempt to strangle wealth-producing sectors of the economy in order to pay off cronies and scam projects like Solyndra.

And if he ever forgets that, well, that's why there is the Tea Party.

So since you are mentioning the stimulus in context of Ryan in a negative manner, are we to conclude that you will never again vote for a party or candidate that embraces Keynes' theories, and will vote against Obama this fall?

Or should we assume you are just being a dishonest hack again?

Christopher in MA said...

Of course, that was back when a Republican was President.

Yes, those halcyon days when dissent was patriotic, Gitmo was a moral stain on the United States and Dubya and his big oil buddies were conspiring to keep the price of gasoline artifically high.

As opposed to today, when dissent is the highest form of racism, Gitmo is a necessary national security facility and where the president has no control over the fluctuation in gas prices.

Why anybody here regards you as anything more than ambulatory slime escapes me.

mariner said...

Chip S.,
I think whoever installed his hair plugs drilled too deeply.

It's not like there was anything in there that could leak out.

damikesc said...

Serious question: What, exactly, is so wrong with Biden's statement?

"So he played the race card, being one of the whitest people in existence. So what?"

How is that a reasonable interpretation, when the statement was made in the context of financial regulation, not racial politics?

Can you explain why he suddenly started using a Southern dialect for that one phrase when he didn't do so before?

Also, Biden making racist comments isn't a new thing. I was stunned to learn that you had to have an Indian accent to work in a 7/11. It has to be true because he said he wasn't kidding about that.

I mean, if Romney said that Obama's policy of extra-judicial killing (eg Osama bin Laden) was reminiscent of Stalin, you wouldn't hear Democrats taking offense called Communists.

*cough* bullshit *cough*

Or, for that matter, if Mitt Romney told a group of African American businessmen that Obama's overregulation of business was putting them back in chains, you wouldn't hear Obama complaining that he was being called racist.

What planet do you live on?

Stating that Obama is running a very vicious campaign is "niggerizing" him (per MSNBC's Toure). Calling him "cool" is racist, per the CBC.

The race card is the only card in the deck his sycophants can play.

btw, did main stream Rep politicians, or evangelical leaders call Dutch or Bush43 a Muslim born in Kenya, the anti-christ, "who palled around w/terrorists" ie mama grizzly, etc. etc.

When did Palin accuse him of being a Kenyan Muslim? As far as palling around with terrorists, maybe you don't feel Ayers was one --- most wouldn't agree.

Bush was only accused of allowing 9/11 to happen by several major figures in the Democratic party, was an "idiot" (as all Republicans are, apparently), corrupt, criminal, etc.

The difference is that some gaffes are "Kinsley gaffes" in that they accidentally reveal what the person really thinks, whereas others are just stupid statements. The key question is: Is it reasonable to conclude that the candidate means the stupid thing he just said.

In Akin's case, the answer is clearly yes. In Biden's case, the answer is no.


The reason why it's reasonable? Because one is a Republican and the other is not.

Indeed, conservatives are soooo fixated on race, they're trying to disenfranchise the minority vote.

Only a Progressive can be such a moron.

bagoh20 said...

"Ryan = high expectations
Biden = low expectations"


So you prefer to hire people for whom you have low expectations.

And your vote counts the same as smart people's. That's just not right.

Nathan Alexander said...

@Darcy,
you said: "So women like unresolved problems because they don't like, not to mention aren't good at solving problems?"


Interestingly, that sounds less like you are trying to resolve a problem, and more like you are exploring, relishing, and reveling in an unresolved problem...and in fact, trying to heighten the conflict.

But, please, don't let me get in the way of you embodying a characterization you ostensibly object to.

furious_a said...

AF: I'm not sure how I can persuade you otherwise.

The important thing, AF, is that you have persuaded yourself. Whom are we going to believe, you or our own lyin' ears?

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

AF,

[me:] You seem to be reading Biden as saying, "They want to take the shackles off business, so obviously they want to chain 'y'all' up instead, there being now all this spare chain lying about.

[AF:] Yup, that's basically what Biden was saying. And as you observe, it was a pretty poor rhetorical move.

So why did he say it? You seem to class it as a slip of the tongue, but, honestly, who, after speaking of someone trying to unshackle one class of people, leaps immediately to the idea of the same person fettering other people? That's not a slip of the tongue; that a wholesale conspiracy theory.

gadfly said...

BIDEN: I resent when they talk about families like mine that I grew up in. I resent the fact that they think we're talking about envy, it's job envy, it's wealth envy, that we don't dream. My mother believed and my father believed that if I wanted to be president of the United States, I could be. I could be vice president. My mother and father believed that if my brother or sister wanted to be a millionaire, they could be a millionaire. My mother and father dreamed as much as any rich guy dreams. They don't get us. They don't get who we are.

We just don't get it, STUPIDITY RULES according to Joe "You can call me Plugs" Biden

Jay said...

garage mahal said...


Of course that was back when there was a Republican as President.


Right, because there is like zero difference between the $248.8 billion dollar deficit Harry & Nancy inherited and the $1.3 trillion dollar one the modest spender Barry is running now.

Really. It's all the same.

Boob.

garage mahal said...

Why anybody here regards you as anything more than ambulatory slime escapes me.

You sounds a bit jealous.

I'm in an open relationship with the commenters here. And I'm already taken Kris, sorry!

MadisonMan said...

btw re: the v-p debate:

Ryan = high expectations

Biden = low expectations

I agree that this scenario is starting to play out. However, I'm not sure Biden wins simply because he rises above the lowest of expectations (that is, he doesn't say anything completely stupid).

How many real people (Not Blog commenters, and not opinion writers) will watch Biden and Ryan debate, anyway? And will it change any minds? I'm guessing no.

virgil xenophon said...

As an added fillip to Biden's ignorance, any true "southerner" would know than when addressing a multitude of people, the proper usage of the term "y'all" is "All y'all."

Matthew Sablan said...

"Ryan laid out a detailed plan for Medicare and the economy, but damn it, Biden nailed what century we're in. Let's call the debate a tie. Back to you, George."

Tom Spaulding said...

Anyone not voting for Romney/Ryan is voting to re-elect Obama/Biden.

Worth repeating.

And I will for another 80+ days.

Original Mike said...

"if Mitt Romney told a group of African American businessmen that Obama's overregulation of business was putting them back in chains, you wouldn't hear Obama complaining that he was being called racist."

I literally laughed out loud over that one.

Darcy said...

@bagoh20 That characterization is a little more to my liking. I am known as a problem solver, so I truly did not agree with the idea that women generally enjoy the unresolved more than the solving. But yes, women generally do spend a lot of time on "understanding". And I agree that it often can be wasted time. I trying to be clear that the it was the generalization that was bothering me.

@Nathan Alexander Touché. I did laugh at that. :)

Darcy said...

I *was* trying. Ugh. I got interrupted while writing that comment.

Darcy said...

Oh, hell. That whole comment is garbled.

*slinks away*

Calypso Facto said...

Biden nailed what century we're in.

Nope. (Maybe that's what you were referencing?) Joe "any expectations are too high" Biden

Cedarford said...

Pastafarian -

The media double standard is painfully obvious; and only a very smart person could have done something as stupid as supporting Obama in 2008. (See our hostess for an example.)

If Hero McCain was the right choice in 2008, why didn't the Hero run again? Or why did Republicans and independents generally coalesce around the idea that McCain was an awful pick?

Could it be that:

We really didn't like the idea of a guy who proudly said he knew little about and cared even less about economic matters compared to national security and the need for America to start and get deep into over half a dozen new wars for "Freedom Lovers!!"

War with Venezuela, Iran, Sudan for the Noble Darfurans, War against Russia for the Noble Georgians? Heroes with Boots on the Ground in Somalia again and in Yemen?
McCains dreams of major wars to liberate and then nation-build the Noble Syrians and Noble Iranian people that would welcome us with open arms???

bagoh20 said...

Some people sure get creative with the alternative history, and surprisingly, it always seems to end up being self-flattering, as in defensive.

The only thing worse about a McCain win in 2008 is who would be getting the blame for a stagnant economy that only lasted 2 years instead of 4 and counting. Even with Obama as President, if he just kept his mouth shut and his hand off, the economy would be on the mend by now.

Carnifex said...

Re Biden: "Just leave Slow Joe alone!" My god, he's the only fun thing about this election cycle. And as for his racists commentS,SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't loose focus. Make this election about the economy. Make this election about what a miserable fuck up Zero, and the democrats are.

I give kudos to Shiloh, and Garage, for suckering you all in to playing their game. Fuck them though. You want Zero to win, then get in there and wrestle that pig. Put some lipstick on it too, while you're at it.

Shiloh...What's the unemployment rate? Including those that have dropped off the rolls, and those that went on disability. I dare you to answer that question with even a modicum of logic and sincerity. Is it better than under Bush? Do you really want the people that chose Solyndra, and gave us "Cash for Clunkers" in charge of the economy?

Garage...It was bad for Bush to invade Iraq, and Afghanistan. Is it okay for Zero to continue those wars? Is it okay for the President of the United States to have a kill list? Is it okay to blow up innocent women and children trying to send a hellfire missile up some ragheads ass? Answer those questions. Then tell us why it's okay for Zero to do it, but not Bush.

Here's one for both of you retards...Besides Donald Trump, name another prominent Republican that is harping about Zero's BC.

Ps. Trump is a prominent Democrat, look to see who he has consistenly given campaign contributions too. And birtherism came out of the Clinton campaign. Last time I looked, a prominent Democrat.

chickelit said...

Cedarford wrote: Or why did Republicans and independents generally coalesce around the idea that McCain was an awful pick?

I dunno, but few of them went where you did which was to conclude that Obama/Biden was a better choice.

You and your McCain's phony war justification for your Obama vote...you're the only one worse than Althouse. I'm surprised you didn't throw in a couple of your choice "totem-Goddess Palin" barbs, but I guess those don't wear as well.

shiloh said...

Re: who will watch each party's convention? Basically each party's choir. Independent swing voters have already had their fill of turbblossom/con billionaire overlords ad nauseam negative, over saturation campaign ads so why would "they" want to sit thru a convention of more negativity.

MDT, your non-equivalent, whining rationalizations are duly noted.

btw, when did the Rep party become the wallow in self-pity, I'm a victim circle jerk? Or does it only exist at con blogs lol.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

shiloh,

MDT, your non-equivalent, whining rationalizations are duly noted.

But not answered. Jeez, dude, is it "whining" to point out that it's not exactly responsive to observe that no one ever called either Reagan or Bush 43 a Kenyan-born Muslim? You are twiddling your thumbs there, and imagining that it's impressive. Good luck with that.

wv: 16 akeose. Sounds like a nasty new sugar.

shiloh said...

No MDT, you were just being cute as you knew what I meant re: false equivalency.

Although, Obama is like Jackie Robinson ie the 1st of a kind, so hard to really compare him to previous WASP presidents unless race is involved.

Indeed, it's laughable when libs complain about Obama by comparing what he has accomplished to WASP's FDR and LBJ, who had extreme Dem majorities. I digress.

Matthew Sablan said...

"Nope. (Maybe that's what you were referencing?) Joe "any expectations are too high" Biden."

-- I assume by the debates he'd've been prepped.