Biden fit for VP? (OP-ed)
Find a Conversation
| Sat, 10-11-2008 - 9:25am |
Pull The Hair Plug On This Guy
If Sarah Palin had made just one of the wildly inaccurate statements smugly uttered by Sen. Joe Biden in last week's vice presidential debate, there would have been 3-inch headlines in newspapers across America. (I can almost hear Katie Couric asking me, "Which newspapers?")
These weren't insignificant errors, such as when Biden said, "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years."
It turns out that Katie's restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. The only evidence that he spends any time in Home Depot is that it appears that a pipe wrench fell on his head one too many times.
Palin would surely have been forced to withdraw from the ticket had she said something like that, but most of Biden's errors were not trifling mistakes like these. They were lengthy Lyndon LaRouche-like disquisitions that were pure fantasy from beginning to end.
For example, Biden said about Hezbollah: "When we kicked -- along with France -- we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon.
He continued: "I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.'" This is madness -- Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon.
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of foreign policy.
Biden also stoutly denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Liberals find it hilarious that McCain can't use a computer keyboard on account of his war injuries, but Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over the Internet of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year.
Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama's answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no."
And that's still not all! Obama's own Web site says: "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to remember well-known facts.
Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney's "dangerous" belief that "he's part of the legislative branch." The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney "works in the executive branch" and has "no authority relative to the Congress." Biden huffily added: "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."
Palin would have had to deny that Alaska is a state in the union in order to say something comparably stupid.
Article II, not I, describes the executive branch. Someone tell Biden, who is supposed to be a lawyer. Apart from getting the Articles of the Constitution mixed up, what on earth does Biden mean when he says that the vice president "has no authority relative to Congress," apart from breaking ties?
The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. I realize that Biden may not be able to count to two, but Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress -- the one Biden is in, for crying out loud -- which is what you might call "authority relative to Congress."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of the Constitution.
In one especially hallucinatory answer, Biden authoritatively stated: "With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. ... We spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country."
According to the Congressional Research Service, since 9/11, we've spent $172 billion in Afghanistan and $653 billion in Iraq. The most money spent in Iraq came in 2008, when we have been spending less than $3 billion a week. So by Biden's calculations, we've spent only about $9 billion "on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." There isn't even a "9" in $172 billion.
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his knowledge of math.
In the same answer, Biden went on to claim that "John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported."
The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the '90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: "Last week, Senate Republicans thundered 'no' to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994." Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That's the treaty Biden says "every Republican has supported."
Somebody please tell me that Biden wasn't picked for the Democrat ticket based on his ability to function as vice president.
Ann Coulter http://www.redstatesusa.com/archives/2008/10/pull_the_hair_p.html


Pages
LOL! No, getting a low vote-total and "being an idiot" aren't remotely comparable. By that measure, everyone but the top one or two finishers in the Presidential primaries of BOTH parties could be labeled "idiots." This would include (this year only) Rudy Giuliani, Sam Brownback, Duncan Hunter, Chris Dodd, Fred Thompson, etc, etc, etc.....ready to call them all "idiots?" And everyone from all previous Presidential primaries who didn't finish in the top two positions?
Didn't think so.
Edited 10/13/2008 9:50 am ET by chillychillychilly
<<"I don't need to compare Biden against Palin, especially about anything Ann Coulter has to say.">>
Then by all means dón't. Like I said, "never mind Coulter's personal comments" which will BTW occur in any OP-ed... why not address what he said, ánd was quoted to?
<<"And the reason I don't have anything to say against my candidate is because he is a reputable, honest, non-investigated senator with whom I whole-heartedly agree">>
Reading the actual quotes (= 'what Biden actually said'), I surely wóuld be worried if he (or anyone FTM) were my candidate. But you apparently aren't, so all is well I suppose. (your 'argument' would sóóó not fly overhere.......but....oh well).
Do you áctually believe Biden is being "honest" when he keeps (at least) implying that his wife and child were killed by a DUI truck driver, when police investigation clearly states differently?
False - and pure speculation on your part.
I think Joe Biden doesn't do well in primaries because he's not a particularly charismatic individual. He can give a rousing speech when he gets fired up, but it's more effective when he's speaking from a position of already being WITHIN something, not leading a charge to BE or DO something, like trying to run for President. That, plus his penchant for shooting from the hip, and the usual presence of someone more charismatic or otherwise interesting, makes him a perennial also-ran....but not an idiot or disliked. You're grasping at straws that just aren't there.
Reading the actual quotes (= 'what Biden actually said'), I surely wóuld be worried if he (or anyone FTM) were my candidate. But you apparently aren't, so all is well I suppose. (your 'argument' would sóóó not fly overhere.......but....oh well).
If you feel the need to worry, please worry.
You are correct, I am not worried, and all is very well.
And since I'm not over there, I won't worry about that either - but thanks for your concern.
Pages