In 2007 he said he DOES NOT want to be Vice President. He said he has NO DESIRE TO BE Vice President. ... The same year he also said that Obama was not fit for President and during these times we are not able to have to settle with someone who is gonna get on the job training. He said this repeatedly and was even asked to confirm at a debate in front of Obama’s face and he said he still agrees with it.I'll make one note on that last part: It's fine to have a VP who complements where the President lacks, so long as those deficiencies are in areas that are less important or don't need instant decisions. In that vein, it is more important that a President have a good grasp on foreign policy, war, and the like than long-term economic decisions, even as that is possibly more important in general most of the time.
This pick burns his bridges with Clinton supporters. ...When you chose a Vice President you are choosing someone who can possibly be [sic] President if something happens to you. This means that to Hillary supporters Obama is saying that he thinks Biden would be a better President then Hillary. Joe Biden barely got 8,000 votes throughout his entire primary run! ...
Republicans are dancing in the street. The love that Biden has shown McCain for years is gonna hurt Obama. Biden has said tons of nice things about McCain including a few years ago that he loves McCain, he supports him, he’d even RUN with him! ...
Another great thing is this message of “Change”, apparently Obama thinks Change is a guy who has been sitting in Washington in the Senate for 35 years! Biden is the very definition of old dog, old washington politics. This guy is the poster child for business as usual back room politics.
I’ve got more, this pick is terrible because he picked someone who supposedly does well in places where Obama doesn’t. He has longtime experience and a good record on Foreign Policy. Why is that bad? Easy, because he picked someone who very clearly highlights his own faults and just like the Democrats will all remind us, Vice Presidents don’t matter. So what good does it do his voters to learn that in the places where he lacks, his Vice President makes up. Who cares? Biden isn’t running for PRESIDENT!
Also, courtesy of DGEsq, check out Obama's face as Biden calls him not ready to be President in a debate.
This is just wishful thinking by the Republicans. Biden is a reasonable pick and will serve as an able attack dog. He's not well-known enough to lose any votes, but he is well-known enough to pick up some elderly votes in PA and perhaps the rest of Appalachia.
ReplyDeletePicking Hillary would have been idiotic. The anti-Hillary vote would be approximately 10,000 times larger than the anti-Biden vote, if such a thing could even be said to exist. Also, she and Bill would be able to completely undermine Obama at every turn and he would have to devote considerable energy to negotiating with them as president.
All of the criticisms you have for Biden could have been applied to Bush's pick of Cheney or Reagan's pick of GHWB, but of course you see it differently when they're on "your team."
Some of these criticisms are just laughable, and you would never give them a second's thought if they were made against someone on "your team." Biden said he didn't want to be VP?? Oh noes!! Obama stands for "change" and Biden represents the establishment?? The horrors! I mean, George Bush represented "compassionate conservatism," so obviously Cheney must have been the most compassionate conservative around!
More on Biden and the Jews
ReplyDeletehttp://hamercaz.com/hamercaz/site/news_item.php?id=941
How is he a reasonable pick? What has he done/can he do that makes him reasonable?
ReplyDeleteI doubt that Biden picks up any votes. This was specifically a "don't lose votes" move.
I don't think Hillary should have been the pick for the reason you mention, but picking Biden is a nice slap in the face. Kaine or others would have been a better pick in that specific regard.
How do any of the criticisms apply to Cheney or Bush I?
Biden said he didn't want to be VP - this just pens him as an opportunist, along with Obama. Not something that comes across well. When your central focus is "change" and you pick the epitome of "the establishment" that's going to hurt. Bush ran primarily on economic issues like his tax cuts, which Cheney was strongly aligned with. They had similar views on anything important. Bush was praised by all for picking a great team back in 2000. Obama is simply not going to get that.
That Cheney is viewed as this evil ideologue is a left-wing construction over the last number of years. He certainly wasn't viewed as anything close to the anti-Bush before the elections, and he crushed Edwards in their debate. The big "strike" on Cheney was his lesbian daughter who he supports fully - a strike from the RW, not from the left. Biden is completely the reverse.
How is he a reasonable pick? What has he done/can he do that makes him reasonable?
ReplyDelete1) He's the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations committee and brings a lot of foreign policy knowledge.
2) He knows how to Get Things Done.
3) He's a good attacker.
I doubt that Biden picks up any votes. This was specifically a "don't lose votes" move.
That is completely at odds with the fact that Biden is unbelievably gaffe-prone. Baye/Kaine would have been a "don't lose votes" move.
I don't think Hillary should have been the pick for the reason you mention, but picking Biden is a nice slap in the face. Kaine or others would have been a better pick in that specific regard.
Obama should pick a VP based on whether Hillary's feelings are going to be hurt? How does this jive with your idea that it's a "don't lose votes" pick?
How do any of the criticisms apply to Cheney or Bush I?
Bush I sharply criticized Reagan. Cheney was picked to assuage voter fears about Bush's lack of foreign-policy experience, which you say would only highlight it regarding Biden. He's also totally establishment and anti-compassion.
Biden said he didn't want to be VP - this just pens him as an opportunist, along with Obama. Not something that comes across well.
Oh please.
When your central focus is "change" and you pick the epitome of "the establishment" that's going to hurt. Bush ran primarily on economic issues like his tax cuts, which Cheney was strongly aligned with. They had similar views on anything important. Bush was praised by all for picking a great team back in 2000. Obama is simply not going to get that.
No, this is untrue. Bush ran as a new kind of Republican -- a "compassionate" conservative. Cheney is the opposite.
That Cheney is viewed as this evil ideologue is a left-wing construction over the last number of years. He certainly wasn't viewed as anything close to the anti-Bush before the elections, and he crushed Edwards in their debate. The big "strike" on Cheney was his lesbian daughter who he supports fully - a strike from the RW, not from the left. Biden is completely the reverse.
Cheney cannot emote compassion no matter how hard he tries. He was the worst possible pick in that way.
The way you defend Cheney from the same accusations you throw at Biden shows your bias. I guarantee that if they were on 'your team' you'd be hailing the pick as inspired.
1) ...except Obama ran on the premise that he knows what to do in the foreign policy arena. Either he's now acknowledging that he has no clue or... what?
ReplyDelete2) LOL. What?!
3) What does that mean? He's dirty? That resonates soooo well.
That is completely at odds with the fact that Biden is unbelievably gaffe-prone. Baye/Kaine would have been a "don't lose votes" move.
No, they think he can be coached not to make mistakes. Everything a VP candidate does is vetted by the handlers. The only risk is the single VP debate, in their mind, and that can be well-prepared for.
Obama should pick a VP based on whether Hillary's feelings are going to be hurt? How does this jive with your idea that it's a "don't lose votes" pick?
Not Hillary, but her supporters, who already aren't big fans of Obama. Obama should have been looking to pick up the Clinton voters and moderates without alienating his base. I don't think Biden accomplishes that.
Bush I sharply criticized Reagan. Cheney was picked to assuage voter fears about Bush's lack of foreign-policy experience, which you say would only highlight it regarding Biden. He's also totally establishment and anti-compassion.
And Reagan picked Bush to shore up all his voters - "above politics". It played very well. Cheney picked up on the FP experience that Bush lacked at a time when FP was viewed (wrongly, IMHO) as less important. It's like when McCain names someone who is good on economics - putting the priorities first.
No, this is untrue. Bush ran as a new kind of Republican -- a "compassionate" conservative. Cheney is the opposite.
Yes, he did - strong economically, reasonably moderate socially. Cheney's lesbian daughter reinforced that. At the time, (and even now) show me how Cheney is the opposite.
Cheney cannot emote compassion no matter how hard he tries. He was the worst possible pick in that way.
Compassionate conservatism is not some far-left liberal appeal to emotion, but action. That's why it played well in the middle and was despised by the left.
The way you defend Cheney from the same accusations you throw at Biden shows your bias. I guarantee that if they were on 'your team' you'd be hailing the pick as inspired.
Not at all. If Romney is the pick, I'll be happy on the economics, upset because I think he cost himself a ton of votes. If Huckabee is the pick, I'll be annoyed in general from what I know now. If it's Palin or Jindal, I'd likely be much happier.
Had Obama picked Bayh I'd have been far more impressed and concerned. It would have been the perfect answer in advance to Palin or Jindal, would have been better than Romney or Huckabee, and wouldn't have sacrificed Obama's mantra of change. I honestly thought it would be him or Kaine.
JA-
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with sentiment of your first comment.
Just so long as you are aware that you would (and will when the time comes) do the same exact thing.
ezzie:
ReplyDelete1) ...except Obama ran on the premise that he knows what to do in the foreign policy arena. Either he's now acknowledging that he has no clue or... what?
Or he's doubling down with someone else who knows foreign policy AND possibly more importantly, someone else who others know knows foreign policy.
3) What does that mean? He's dirty? That resonates soooo well.
Huh? It means he speaks passionately and is good at attacking. Look how naturally he demolished Giuliani in this clip while walking to his car.
No, they think he can be coached not to make mistakes. Everything a VP candidate does is vetted by the handlers. The only risk is the single VP debate, in their mind, and that can be well-prepared for.
At his age, they're going to change his spots? I doubt they're that dumb.
Not Hillary, but her supporters, who already aren't big fans of Obama. Obama should have been looking to pick up the Clinton voters and moderates without alienating his base. I don't think Biden accomplishes that.
Who did Hillary have? Working class whites, especially older ones. Who does Biden appeal to? Working class whites, especially older ones.
And Reagan picked Bush to shore up all his voters - "above politics". It played very well.
And that's different from this how?
Cheney picked up on the FP experience that Bush lacked at a time when FP was viewed (wrongly, IMHO) as less important. It's like when McCain names someone who is good on economics - putting the priorities first.
Um, exactly.
Compassionate conservatism is not some far-left liberal appeal to emotion, but action. That's why it played well in the middle and was despised by the left.
?!?! What action?? It was 100% talk/emotion. Zero action.
g:
ReplyDeleteI couldn't agree more with sentiment of your first comment.
Just so long as you are aware that you would (and will when the time comes) do the same exact thing.
I honestly believe that I make more effort to understand the other side than most people do. Maybe realizing that the religion you were brought up in is just so much made up mythology will do that to you.
Or he's doubling down with someone else who knows foreign policy AND possibly more importantly, someone else who others know knows foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteDoubling down does little for Obama. The latter is offset by the whole idea behind Obama, which is why it's a bad move.
That Guiliani line is one that was clearly previously practiced. NYTimes quote? Come on. It's like he wanted to say this at a debate and didn't get a chance.
At his age, they're going to change his spots? I doubt they're that dumb.
!? I mean, really - you don't think they can reinforce to the guy and keep him busy enough to avoid candid clips and interviews? The camp the media fawns over can't get him prepared for softballs?
Who did Hillary have? Working class whites, especially older ones. Who does Biden appeal to? Working class whites, especially older ones.
Not Hillary's supporters. They are not fans of Biden - go look at what they're saying.
And that's different from this how?
Huh? The similar pick would have been Clinton, not Biden.
Um, exactly.
? You missed that. Obama's theme was big change/big change/big change, starting with how he was right on Iraq. Biden calls that whole premise into question. McCain readily admits he doesn't know economics, which he considers secondary. An economic VP would be great for him.
?!?! What action?? It was 100% talk/emotion. Zero action.
Revisionist. Go look back. I wonder if this is why Dems can't win major elections - they convince themselves that how they see things is how everyone else does.
I honestly believe that I make more effort to understand the other side than most people do. Maybe realizing that the religion you were brought up in is just so much made up mythology will do that to you.
ReplyDeleteSnort. Or, alternatively, once you've made a decision, everything conveniently fits into it and anything opposed must be wrong, because after all, your premise is clearly true.
I honestly believe that I make more effort to understand the other side than most people do.
ReplyDelete--I'm sure you do...we'll see
Maybe realizing that the religion you were brought up in is just so much made up mythology will do that to you.
--A)beside the point, though it was a nice try & B)you have no idea what my stance is on the religion that I was brought up in
Revisionist. Go look back. I wonder if this is why Dems can't win major elections - they convince themselves that how they see things is how everyone else does.
ReplyDeleteNo, Democrats lose elections because they keep nominating people who are long on policy but short on being able to weather character attacks. Policy-wise, the Democrats are almost always in the majority.
g:
--A)beside the point, though it was a nice try & B)you have no idea what my stance is on the religion that I was brought up in
I was talking about myself, not about you. Sorry if I was unclear.
No, Democrats lose elections because they keep nominating people who are long on policy but short on being able to weather character attacks. Policy-wise, the Democrats are almost always in the majority.
ReplyDeleteLOL. If anything, you just proved my point.
ezzie:
ReplyDeleteSnort. Or, alternatively, once you've made a decision, everything conveniently fits into it and anything opposed must be wrong, because after all, your premise is clearly true.
I don't think that's true. I'm not closed-minded about most of my positions. I'm so confident about OJ being false because the evidence is overwhelming. Most other positions I hold I hold less tightly.
If that's true, name me one position you've changed on in the last few years.
ReplyDeleteLOL. If anything, you just proved my point.
ReplyDeleteHow do you figure? Let's look at various issues:
Abortion: the majority of Americans believe abortions should usually be legal.
Iraq: the majority of Americans think it was a mistake and we should get out.
The economy: the majority of Americans trust the Dems more on the economy.
Education: the majority of Americans trust the Dems more on education.
Guns: I think the Republicans have this one, which is why the Dems have all but dropped it.
Where am I wrong?
If that's true, name me one position you've changed on in the last few years.
ReplyDeleteI started believing in some of the "race realist" stuff despite really, really wanting not to. I started believing that religion is correlated with health, happiness, and longevity. I've become much more anti-gun-control. I've come to believe that low-carb diets are probably healthier and more effective than low-fat ones, despite the consensus against it.
What have you changed your mind on?
How do you figure? Let's look at various issues:
ReplyDeleteAbortion: the majority of Americans believe abortions should usually be legal.
Iraq: the majority of Americans think it was a mistake and we should get out.
The economy: the majority of Americans trust the Dems more on the economy.
Education: the majority of Americans trust the Dems more on education.
Guns: I think the Republicans have this one, which is why the Dems have all but dropped it.
Where am I wrong?
Abortion: The majority of Americans believe it should be legal in limited cases. Not always - particularly late-term. It's why even most Republicans aren't fans of bans on abortion, and how John McCain is a GOP Presidential nominee. Most Americans do NOT want abortion to always be legal, and think that many cases are similar to if not actually murder.
Iraq: The majority of Americans thought at the time it was a good idea, which shows that people are easily swayed by images of death. Most Americans think the right thing was to get rid of Hussein, now they are convinced that people are being killed. The surge is completely ignored even though it worked. And finally, if you actually want to go with public opinion on this, most people wish for us to NOT abandon Iraq but to pull out as it makes sense to do so - sounds like who? Oh right. McCain.
Economy and education: You mean in popularity polls?! That's so stupid. Ask them specific policy questions that include noting that they will have to pay for them (i.e. not every program can be instituted despite Dem claims), and guaranteed they line up with Republican positions.
I was talking about myself, not about you. Sorry if I was unclear.
ReplyDeleteWell...that takes alot of the air out of my snarkiness balloon , now doesn't it.
Humph...ok, now I'm just bored by this whole comment thread.
Give ezzie hell!
What do you mean "race realist" stuff?
ReplyDeleteLet's see: I changed my position on abortion. I believe that health is far more genetic and dependent on exercise than on eating habits. I think that religion has changed far more than people think, and that politics play a role as often as truth in religious decisions. I changed my views on the initial invasion, in that it wasn't well planned, though I still think that that's due to political pandering, and I still think it was wise. I think that segments of the black community are the biggest race-mongerers, whereas before I didn't believe that. I believe now that there are two distinct groups within the Democratic Party in regards to social programs - those who wish to truly help and think programs can accomplish that and those who deep down will do anything to keep minorities in their own communities away from their white ones. Formerly, I believed most were a combination of the two. I've changed my view on economics - I no longer think that average Dems are actually opposed to Republican views, I think they either don't understand economics well enough (most of the country doesn't) or it doesn't impact them enough for them to care. (Note: That's not a knock - people will vote in a self-serving fashion. Jews will care about Israel at the expense of other issues, too, for example.)
On most political issues, I'm far more of a moderate than I was. There's simply been little worth swaying to the other side over. For every liberal ideal there's a countering realism, often economic-based.
Flower In The Crannied Wall
ReplyDeleteFlower in the crannied wall,
I pluck you out of the crannies,
I hold you here, root and all, in my hand,
Little flower---but if I could understand
What you are, root and all, and all in all,
I should know what God and man is.
-----by Age Of Conan gold