I cannot dispel the image of how lame and idiotic VP Joe Biden looked on Wednesday, running around with ashes on his forehead.
Honestly, every time I saw that video, I thought 'target.'
How can you not? The idiot bumbles his way around as perhaps the most useless US Vice-President in history. It's as if he is just begging to be put out his misery.
What a moron.
Showing posts with label Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biden. Show all posts
Friday, February 19, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Beau Biden Drops Out of Delware Senate Race
Apparently the fallout from Scott Brown's win in the recent Massachusetts Senate race continues and spreads across the country.
Michelle Malkin wrote this piece explaining the real reason why VP "Lying" Joe Biden's son Beau dropped out of the race to replace his father in the Senate.
According to Malkin, the younger Biden began to realize how much of the shady deals, deep-pockets connections of his family to the trial bar, and all round sleazy litigation deals would come to light, were he to remain in the race.
Maybe Scott Brown has become a sort of modern day political Paul Revere, warning American voters everywhere of the danger that is cresting in this era of the Chicago Way.
Whatever the reason, and I think Malkin is on target, let's be grateful yet another Senate family line of corrupt succession has been broken.
Michelle Malkin wrote this piece explaining the real reason why VP "Lying" Joe Biden's son Beau dropped out of the race to replace his father in the Senate.
According to Malkin, the younger Biden began to realize how much of the shady deals, deep-pockets connections of his family to the trial bar, and all round sleazy litigation deals would come to light, were he to remain in the race.
Maybe Scott Brown has become a sort of modern day political Paul Revere, warning American voters everywhere of the danger that is cresting in this era of the Chicago Way.
Whatever the reason, and I think Malkin is on target, let's be grateful yet another Senate family line of corrupt succession has been broken.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Joe Biden's Eulogy
Recently I was in a place where a large screen television was tuned to the funeral for Joe Biden's mother.
To make matters worse, the hapless idiot was giving a eulogy to his mother, and the establishment had that text option enabled which displayed his remarks for those not tuned to the proper audio channel.
Was this really necessary?
Since when has the VP been seen as truly important in an administration? And why, for God's sake, must the guy's mother's funeral be telecast?
As if it sickening enough just knowing Biden is actually the VP. Beyond that, any further public display of him, to me, constitutes a gross offense against my sensibilities.
To make matters worse, the hapless idiot was giving a eulogy to his mother, and the establishment had that text option enabled which displayed his remarks for those not tuned to the proper audio channel.
Was this really necessary?
Since when has the VP been seen as truly important in an administration? And why, for God's sake, must the guy's mother's funeral be telecast?
As if it sickening enough just knowing Biden is actually the VP. Beyond that, any further public display of him, to me, constitutes a gross offense against my sensibilities.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Promises, Promises.....Unaffordable Promises
I haven't located the video clip on YouTube yet, but bumbling VP Joe Biden made an unbelievable promise on camera to a group of school kids the other day. The clip aired on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News channel program last night. As soon as I locate it, I'll embed it or paste the link into a post.
Biden was captured live promising that Wonderboy and he will make sure that every child who wants to, goes to college. And if their family can't afford the expenses, the federal government will pay for it.
Not loan them money. Not offer grants.
No, the government will just pick up the tab. Period.
How in the world can US taxpayers afford this promise?
Biden was captured live promising that Wonderboy and he will make sure that every child who wants to, goes to college. And if their family can't afford the expenses, the federal government will pay for it.
Not loan them money. Not offer grants.
No, the government will just pick up the tab. Period.
How in the world can US taxpayers afford this promise?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama's Socialist & Marxist Plans for US
The last two days have seen Obama's campaign ducking for deep cover and enlisting every Democratic spinmeister available to attempt to deflect honest questions about the rookie Illinois Senator's socialist and Marxist economic comments and plans.
On Sunday, Biden was interviewed by a Florida TV reporter. Here's the YouTube video.
Obama's campaign has now cut off this large central Florida TV station from any further campaign contact for asking about the candidate's clearly socialist remarks.
Yesterday, an interview with the Illinois freshman Senator from 2001 has him regretting that the 1960s civil rights movement focused on courts, when it could have made progress on 'redistributive' economics through community organizing.
In effect, the Democratic candidate clearly lamented that socialist economic policies were not implemented within and because of civil rights activities.
Later that afternoon, Chuck Schumer, New York's mediocre, not-too-bright senior Senator, was on Fox News doing damage control. He refused to admit Obama's socialist comments were just that.
Instead, he chalked it up to "gotcha" journalism and campaigning, waving off any admission of the truth of the content of his candidate's remarks.
It's truly a sad moment, when legitimate questions about a Presidential candidate's explicitly socialist and Marxist economic policies draw punitive reaction from the campaign, and then are ignored by the candidate and his handlers.
On Sunday, Biden was interviewed by a Florida TV reporter. Here's the YouTube video.
Obama's campaign has now cut off this large central Florida TV station from any further campaign contact for asking about the candidate's clearly socialist remarks.
Yesterday, an interview with the Illinois freshman Senator from 2001 has him regretting that the 1960s civil rights movement focused on courts, when it could have made progress on 'redistributive' economics through community organizing.
In effect, the Democratic candidate clearly lamented that socialist economic policies were not implemented within and because of civil rights activities.
Later that afternoon, Chuck Schumer, New York's mediocre, not-too-bright senior Senator, was on Fox News doing damage control. He refused to admit Obama's socialist comments were just that.
Instead, he chalked it up to "gotcha" journalism and campaigning, waving off any admission of the truth of the content of his candidate's remarks.
It's truly a sad moment, when legitimate questions about a Presidential candidate's explicitly socialist and Marxist economic policies draw punitive reaction from the campaign, and then are ignored by the candidate and his handlers.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
What Sarah Palin Needs To Do In Her VP Debate
I saw an extensive interview this afternoon on Fox News with Geraldine Ferraro. Aside from cramming her partisan views on this election into her closing remarks, I found Ferraro to be dead wrong in her assessment of the situation confronting Sarah Palin.
Simply put, one cannot be what one is not. Sarah Palin cannot, and should not, attempt to become a policy wonk for tomorrow evening's debate in Saint Louis.
Ferraro all but chastised Palin for having no grasp of the 'big issues,' the 'Federal issues' with which she must grapple, both in the debate and in the office of President, should she rise to that. Then Ferraro laughably argued that Lying Joe Biden has 'experience' as a long-serving Senator.
I disagree. Emphatically.
What Sarah Palin brings to the table is an intelligent, well-educated American's view of many important issues confronting our government and nation. This isn't somehow wiped out simply because she is running for VP on McCain's ticket.
Ferraro's comments displayed her typical politician's disdain for the lower class whom she represented. Those silly voters who just don't know anything, until Geraldine would tell them how to think.
Palin is from the opposite end of the spectrum. Unlike Ferraro, the product of Democratic machine politics in New York City, Palin ran against and toppled Alaska's corrupt state government and the GOP leaders who fostered the corruption.
Sarah Palin is the quintessential citizen governor and representative.
Thus, to me, it seems simple. Palin ought not try to train in only a few weeks to sound like a Senator. Instead, she should simply become acquainted with what the issues are. From there, any intelligent, educated American can form reasonably cogent views in a matter of days. Usually, Washington politicians make these things out to be far more difficult and intractable than they really are.
What Sarah Palin should emphasize, to Biden's disadvantage, is her real and formidable experience as a sitting chief executive. Like most Senators, including, regrettably, McCain, Biden has never managed or been a responsible executive of anything.
Sarah Palin has, and is. She should drive that home with fierce determination. Biden is less qualified to be President than Palin simply on the basis that he has no executive experience. None.
If Palin's handlers recognize this, they will facilitate her scoring a clear victory over Biden in tomorrow night's debate.
By responding to 'the usual issues' in Washington as a thoughtful, intelligent outsider, while reminding everyone that she has executive experience, while Biden has none, Sarah Palin can win that debate simply by being herself.
For her to be otherwise will be to play the Washington insider game, and, thus, invite disaster.
Simply put, one cannot be what one is not. Sarah Palin cannot, and should not, attempt to become a policy wonk for tomorrow evening's debate in Saint Louis.
Ferraro all but chastised Palin for having no grasp of the 'big issues,' the 'Federal issues' with which she must grapple, both in the debate and in the office of President, should she rise to that. Then Ferraro laughably argued that Lying Joe Biden has 'experience' as a long-serving Senator.
I disagree. Emphatically.
What Sarah Palin brings to the table is an intelligent, well-educated American's view of many important issues confronting our government and nation. This isn't somehow wiped out simply because she is running for VP on McCain's ticket.
Ferraro's comments displayed her typical politician's disdain for the lower class whom she represented. Those silly voters who just don't know anything, until Geraldine would tell them how to think.
Palin is from the opposite end of the spectrum. Unlike Ferraro, the product of Democratic machine politics in New York City, Palin ran against and toppled Alaska's corrupt state government and the GOP leaders who fostered the corruption.
Sarah Palin is the quintessential citizen governor and representative.
Thus, to me, it seems simple. Palin ought not try to train in only a few weeks to sound like a Senator. Instead, she should simply become acquainted with what the issues are. From there, any intelligent, educated American can form reasonably cogent views in a matter of days. Usually, Washington politicians make these things out to be far more difficult and intractable than they really are.
What Sarah Palin should emphasize, to Biden's disadvantage, is her real and formidable experience as a sitting chief executive. Like most Senators, including, regrettably, McCain, Biden has never managed or been a responsible executive of anything.
Sarah Palin has, and is. She should drive that home with fierce determination. Biden is less qualified to be President than Palin simply on the basis that he has no executive experience. None.
If Palin's handlers recognize this, they will facilitate her scoring a clear victory over Biden in tomorrow night's debate.
By responding to 'the usual issues' in Washington as a thoughtful, intelligent outsider, while reminding everyone that she has executive experience, while Biden has none, Sarah Palin can win that debate simply by being herself.
For her to be otherwise will be to play the Washington insider game, and, thus, invite disaster.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Biden's History of Wrong Foreign Policy Positions
Much has been made by Democrats of "Lying Joe" Biden's alleged experience on foreign policy.
A recent Wall Street Journal piece sets the record straight. Among the choice observations provided by the author, Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, and current senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, are,
"Mrs. Palin's lack of mastery of national security issues is often contrasted with Mr. Obama's vice presidential pick, Joseph Biden Jr. Mr. Biden has served in the Senate since 1973, is currently chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and is often described as a "statesman."
In fact, decade after decade and on important issue after important issue, Mr. Biden's judgment has been deeply flawed.
In the 1970s, Mr. Biden opposed giving aid to the South Vietnamese government in its war against the North. Congress's cut-off of funds contributed to the fall of an American ally, helped communism advance, and led to mass death throughout the region. Mr. Biden also advocated defense cuts so massive that both Edmund Muskie and Walter Mondale, both leading liberal Democrats at the time, opposed them.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. was engaged in a debate over funding the Contras, a group of Nicaraguan freedom fighters attempting to overthrow the Communist regime of Daniel Ortega. Mr. Biden was a leading opponent of President Ronald Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras.
Throughout his career, Mr. Biden has consistently opposed modernization of our strategic nuclear forces. He was a fierce opponent of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Mr. Biden voted against funding SDI, saying, "The president's continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft." Mr. Biden has remained a consistent critic of missile defense and even opposed the U.S. dropping out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the co-signatory to the ABM Treaty) and the end of the Cold War.
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and, we later learned, was much closer to attaining a nuclear weapon than we had believed. President George H.W. Bush sought war authorization from Congress. Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"
In 2006, after having voted three years earlier to authorize President George W. Bush's war to liberate Iraq, Mr. Biden argued for the partition of Iraq, which would have led to its crack-up. Then in 2007, Mr. Biden opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, calling it a "tragic mistake." It turned out to be quite the opposite. Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever.
On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.
There are few members of Congress whose record on national security matters can be judged, with the benefit of hindsight, to be as consistently bad as Joseph Biden's."
It's difficult to add to Mr. Wehner's own piece, so powerful and complete is it in cataloging Joe Biden's misguided votes, words and deeds in the US foreign policy arena.
When this do-nothing windbag from Delaware has expressed any opinions on foreign affairs, he has uniformly been wrong.
And this is the rookie Illinois Senator's new bulwark and resource for foreign policy on the Democratic Presidential ticket?
Lord, save us if these clowns win in November.
A recent Wall Street Journal piece sets the record straight. Among the choice observations provided by the author, Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, and current senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, are,
"Mrs. Palin's lack of mastery of national security issues is often contrasted with Mr. Obama's vice presidential pick, Joseph Biden Jr. Mr. Biden has served in the Senate since 1973, is currently chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and is often described as a "statesman."
In fact, decade after decade and on important issue after important issue, Mr. Biden's judgment has been deeply flawed.
In the 1970s, Mr. Biden opposed giving aid to the South Vietnamese government in its war against the North. Congress's cut-off of funds contributed to the fall of an American ally, helped communism advance, and led to mass death throughout the region. Mr. Biden also advocated defense cuts so massive that both Edmund Muskie and Walter Mondale, both leading liberal Democrats at the time, opposed them.
In the early 1980s, the U.S. was engaged in a debate over funding the Contras, a group of Nicaraguan freedom fighters attempting to overthrow the Communist regime of Daniel Ortega. Mr. Biden was a leading opponent of President Ronald Reagan's efforts to fund the Contras.
Throughout his career, Mr. Biden has consistently opposed modernization of our strategic nuclear forces. He was a fierce opponent of Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative. Mr. Biden voted against funding SDI, saying, "The president's continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft." Mr. Biden has remained a consistent critic of missile defense and even opposed the U.S. dropping out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the co-signatory to the ABM Treaty) and the end of the Cold War.
In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait and, we later learned, was much closer to attaining a nuclear weapon than we had believed. President George H.W. Bush sought war authorization from Congress. Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: "What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?"
In 2006, after having voted three years earlier to authorize President George W. Bush's war to liberate Iraq, Mr. Biden argued for the partition of Iraq, which would have led to its crack-up. Then in 2007, Mr. Biden opposed President Bush's troop surge in Iraq, calling it a "tragic mistake." It turned out to be quite the opposite. Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever.
On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.
There are few members of Congress whose record on national security matters can be judged, with the benefit of hindsight, to be as consistently bad as Joseph Biden's."
It's difficult to add to Mr. Wehner's own piece, so powerful and complete is it in cataloging Joe Biden's misguided votes, words and deeds in the US foreign policy arena.
When this do-nothing windbag from Delaware has expressed any opinions on foreign affairs, he has uniformly been wrong.
And this is the rookie Illinois Senator's new bulwark and resource for foreign policy on the Democratic Presidential ticket?
Lord, save us if these clowns win in November.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
It's Official- The Plagiarist Is A VP Candidate
As I conjectured in this recent post, it's now official- "Lying" Joe Biden is the Democratic party's VP candidate, joining the Illinois freshman Senator on their hilariously ill-prepared ticket.
Being from the midwest, I think choosing Evan Bayh would have been a better bet for the Democrats. While on the left, Bayh and his family have a pretty solid history of being effective, common sense Democrats, although that is admittedly an oxymoron.
Bayh has a conventional pedigree for higher office- mayor of his state's major city, governor, and, now, Senator. Personally, I'd have been okay with him on the lower half of the rookie Illinois Senator's ticket, because Bayh comes from such classically middle-of-the-road roots. Much moreso than Illinois, which has the chronically-troubled Chicago tilting state finances, policies and politics in its direction, Indiana is more uniformly rural or lightly urban in its composition.
With Biden, however, the Dems offer the country another empty suit. Aside from his notable credentials as a plagiarist and failed presidential candidate, what has Biden ever done of import?
Nothing.
Now we have three Senators in the race for the White House. It's a good bet McCain will choose a Republican governor- past or present. Maybe that difference alone will be the edge that the ex-Navy flyer needs.
Let's see- Johnson and Nixon were our last Presidents who were Senators. That's not a record you'd want to emulate, is it? And they were experienced pols. Especially Johnson.
I suppose the best you can hope for this time is that McCain gets the nod because he's seen as more, and better-experienced, as well as less of a liar than either of the Democrats on their ticket.
Being from the midwest, I think choosing Evan Bayh would have been a better bet for the Democrats. While on the left, Bayh and his family have a pretty solid history of being effective, common sense Democrats, although that is admittedly an oxymoron.
Bayh has a conventional pedigree for higher office- mayor of his state's major city, governor, and, now, Senator. Personally, I'd have been okay with him on the lower half of the rookie Illinois Senator's ticket, because Bayh comes from such classically middle-of-the-road roots. Much moreso than Illinois, which has the chronically-troubled Chicago tilting state finances, policies and politics in its direction, Indiana is more uniformly rural or lightly urban in its composition.
With Biden, however, the Dems offer the country another empty suit. Aside from his notable credentials as a plagiarist and failed presidential candidate, what has Biden ever done of import?
Nothing.
Now we have three Senators in the race for the White House. It's a good bet McCain will choose a Republican governor- past or present. Maybe that difference alone will be the edge that the ex-Navy flyer needs.
Let's see- Johnson and Nixon were our last Presidents who were Senators. That's not a record you'd want to emulate, is it? And they were experienced pols. Especially Johnson.
I suppose the best you can hope for this time is that McCain gets the nod because he's seen as more, and better-experienced, as well as less of a liar than either of the Democrats on their ticket.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Biden As VP?
My worst fear is coming true. Word has it that Delaware's- and perhaps the world's- greatest plagiarist, Joe Biden, is the leading candidate to be the junior Illinois Senator's pick for VP.
What has the world come to? A totally inexperienced, empty-suited Democratic candidate for President and a confirmed plagiarist and general idiot as his running mate?
I knew Peggy Noonan had finally gone around the bend when I read her approval of Biden as VP in her Wall Street Journal editorial this past weekend. She actually thinks he has 'foreign policy experience.' Really?
How so? Sitting on a Senate committee means little. Look at Biden's prospective boss, Obama. He's chair of a Senate foreign policy committee and hasn't even held a hearing. He's been too busy climbing the political ladder before the magic dust wears off of voters and they see him for the fraud that he is.
Perhaps, though, Biden as candidate for VP on the Democratic ticket is actually a good thing. Maybe with him on the lower half of the ticket, voters will see the Democrats as clearly offering inexperience, lies and bad ideas for the White House and our country.
As long as McCain doesn't pick a complete bozo, he's probably got the edge.
I mean, between barely-intelligible sound bites from Biden, and his rich and acknowledged history of stealing other peoples' words, how can he possibly be an asset to any ticket?
What has the world come to? A totally inexperienced, empty-suited Democratic candidate for President and a confirmed plagiarist and general idiot as his running mate?
I knew Peggy Noonan had finally gone around the bend when I read her approval of Biden as VP in her Wall Street Journal editorial this past weekend. She actually thinks he has 'foreign policy experience.' Really?
How so? Sitting on a Senate committee means little. Look at Biden's prospective boss, Obama. He's chair of a Senate foreign policy committee and hasn't even held a hearing. He's been too busy climbing the political ladder before the magic dust wears off of voters and they see him for the fraud that he is.
Perhaps, though, Biden as candidate for VP on the Democratic ticket is actually a good thing. Maybe with him on the lower half of the ticket, voters will see the Democrats as clearly offering inexperience, lies and bad ideas for the White House and our country.
As long as McCain doesn't pick a complete bozo, he's probably got the edge.
I mean, between barely-intelligible sound bites from Biden, and his rich and acknowledged history of stealing other peoples' words, how can he possibly be an asset to any ticket?
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Recent Lieberman & Biden Editorials in the WSJ
On Wednesday of last week, Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman wrote a fantastic editorial in the Wall Street Journal supporting John McCain's approach to foreign policy, while bemoaning the dovishness of his own notional party, as epitomized by the Democratic Presidential nomination leader, rookie Senator Obama of Illinois.
In reply, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and, regrettably, current chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, wrote this piece a few days later. Ever the copycat, Biden couldn't even come up with his own title, using Lieberman's instead, but replacing "Democrat" with "Republican."
Biden, it should be noted, is a famous plagiarist, ranked second among political plagiarists on a website devoted to outing those who practice this offensive behavior. His article in the Journal was so badly written I actually had to stop after a few paragraphs when I first tried to read it.
Perhaps the paper published this piece of Biden's because, being so poorly constructed, they knew he didn't steal this one from somebody else.
In reply, Senator Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware, and, regrettably, current chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, wrote this piece a few days later. Ever the copycat, Biden couldn't even come up with his own title, using Lieberman's instead, but replacing "Democrat" with "Republican."
Biden, it should be noted, is a famous plagiarist, ranked second among political plagiarists on a website devoted to outing those who practice this offensive behavior. His article in the Journal was so badly written I actually had to stop after a few paragraphs when I first tried to read it.
Perhaps the paper published this piece of Biden's because, being so poorly constructed, they knew he didn't steal this one from somebody else.
Lieberman's piece is straightforward, honest and clear. He marks the progression of the Democratic party from Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson to today's complete dovishness in the face of any external threat. The Senator finishes his piece by observing,
"Far too many Democratic leaders have kowtowed to these opinions rather than challenging them. That unfortunately includes Barack Obama, who, contrary to his rhetorical invocations of bipartisan change, has not been willing to stand up to his party's left wing on a single significant national security or international economic issue in this campaign.
In this, Sen. Obama stands in stark contrast to John McCain, who has shown the political courage throughout his career to do what he thinks is right – regardless of its popularity in his party or outside it.
John also understands something else that too many Democrats seem to have become confused about lately – the difference between America's friends and America's enemies.
There are of course times when it makes sense to engage in tough diplomacy with hostile governments. Yet what Mr. Obama has proposed is not selective engagement, but a blanket policy of meeting personally as president, without preconditions, in his first year in office, with the leaders of the most vicious, anti-American regimes on the planet.
Mr. Obama has said that in proposing this, he is following in the footsteps of Reagan and JFK. But Kennedy never met with Castro, and Reagan never met with Khomeini. And can anyone imagine Presidents Kennedy or Reagan sitting down unconditionally with Ahmadinejad or Chavez? I certainly cannot.
If a president ever embraced our worst enemies in this way, he would strengthen them and undermine our most steadfast allies.
A great Democratic secretary of state, Dean Acheson, once warned "no people in history have ever survived, who thought they could protect their freedom by making themselves inoffensive to their enemies." This is a lesson that today's Democratic Party leaders need to relearn."
In contrast to Lieberman's well-reasoned and factually-supported editorial, we then saw Biden publish his mess of a reply.
Right away, Biden loses focus on the actual topic, external enemies of America and the need to confront them, and goes all soft and gooey, writing,
"At the heart of this failure is an obsession with the "war on terrorism" that ignores larger forces shaping the world: the emergence of China, India, Russia and Europe; the spread of lethal weapons and dangerous diseases; uncertain supplies of energy, food and water; the persistence of poverty; ethnic animosities and state failures; a rapidly warming planet; the challenge to nation states from above and below."
Biden is one of those Democrats who prefers a wounded America on a pristine, harmonious planet to a strong America confronting its enemies first, and less-lethal issues second.
He continues in his diatribe,
"Terrorism is a means, not an end, and very different groups and countries are using it toward very different goals. Messrs. Bush and McCain lump together, as a single threat, extremist groups and states more at odds with each other than with us: Sunnis and Shiites, Persians and Arabs, Iraq and Iran, al Qaeda and Shiite militias. If they can't identify the enemy or describe the war we're fighting, it's difficult to see how we will win.
The results speak for themselves.
On George Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom, has been on the march: Iran is much closer to the bomb; its influence in Iraq is expanding; its terrorist proxy Hezbollah is ascendant in Lebanon and that country is on the brink of civil war."
As is so typical of Biden, he's either wrong or misrepresenting the facts. For example, terrorism is not simply a means to an end in the way that diplomacy is. Currently, several organized non-states employ it as their mode of warfare. Biden doesn't understand this, and, thus, sloughs it off as trivial.
Then he materially misstates- or lies- about Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon capability. The country stopped work on this program thanks to the Bush-led removal of Saddam and liberation of Iraq. The only reason they are resuming work now is that they believe Obama might become President, and, even if not, a Democratic Congress and supine UN will never stop them.
Wrong again, Joe.
Biden then mischaracterizes the choices available to the next US President in dealing with Iran,
"Last week, John McCain was very clear. He ruled out talking to Iran. He said that Barack Obama was "naïve and inexperienced" for advocating engagement; "What is it he wants to talk about?" he asked.
Well, for a start, Iran's nuclear program, its support for Shiite militias in Iraq, and its patronage of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.
Beyond bluster, how would Mr. McCain actually deal with these dangers? You either talk, you maintain the status quo, or you go to war. If Mr. McCain has ruled out talking, we're stuck with an ineffectual policy or military strikes that could quickly spiral out of control."
All Biden can come up with is either plead with these terrorists and terrorist states to talk with us, or go to war, and he thinks that's all anyone else can, too.
In truth, there are more options. Diplomatic pressure, whether uni- or multi-lateral, is available, as is economic pressure. Plus trade and other multinational actions to isolate Iran for its rogue behavior toward other nation states.
Poor Obama, if Biden, writing on his behalf, is any indication of how he's approaching foreign policy.
When Biden writes,
"President Nixon didn't demand that China end military support to the Vietnamese killing Americans before meeting with Mao. President Reagan didn't insist that the Soviets freeze their nuclear arsenal before sitting down with Mikhail Gorbachev. Even George W. Bush – whose initial disengagement allowed dangers to proliferate – didn't demand that Libya relinquish its nuclear program, that North Korea give up its plutonium, or even that Iran stop aiding those attacking our soldiers in Iraq before authorizing talks,"
he, as usual, misses an important distinction. China was working through another nation, not a terrorist group outside of a state. So, too, was Russia an established state. Libya and North Korea are, as well.
When Biden runs out of ideas, which is pretty quickly, he resorts to two other tricks.
The first is to constantly use the term "Bush-McCain," as if to take for granted something very untrue. McCain is certainly no George W. Bush. No, a McCain Presidency will not be like a third Bush term.
The other trick is to punt on what to do with Iran and allege,
"It also requires a much more sophisticated understanding than Mr. Bush or Mr. McCain seem to possess that by publicly engaging Iran – including through direct talks – we can exploit cracks within the ruling elite, and between Iran's rulers and its people, who are struggling economically and stifled politically."
Meaning, Joe wants to just wait for a hoped-for uprising in this terrorist state. Until then, however, US actions are, in his view, all wrong.
I guess the silver lining in Biden's editorial is that, if a sufficient number of people read and understand it, they won't vote for Obama, because Biden's thought process, twisting of facts and overall stupidity are so egregious. Since Biden defends the junior Illinois Senator in the editorial, it's reasonable that readers may identify Obama with this appallingly bad treatise on foreign policy and vote for McCain.
Now if we could just remove Biden from the chairmanship of that Senate committee, and get a clear-thinking replacement.
Friday, March 9, 2007
Liberal Democrats & School Choice
The Wall Street Journal recently printed an editorial by Clint Bolick, president of the Alliance for School Choice. In it, Bolick discussed a now-familiar phenomenon- Democratic Senators, Vice Presidents and/or Presidents who have opposed school vouchers/choice, but send their own children to expensive private schools in the District of Columbia.
The list reads like a Who's Who of Democratic Presidential contenders: the Clintons, of course, John Edwards, Al Gore (himself educated in private school by his own Senator father), and, potentially, Obama Bin Baden. The last is somewhat of a mystery, in that his children attend private Chicago school, but he hasn't yet had the opportunity to oppose a voucher bill in Congress.
Ironically, former Presidential candidate Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa, sent his children to public schools, and supported school choice legislation in his state. And, unbelievably, at least to me, Joe Biden of Delaware sends his children to private school, but supported school choice for the general public.
It continues to amaze me how prevalent this Democratic behavior is. It seems to me to be near the height of arrogance, for so-called populists to stiff arm their constituents on getting to choose a quality education for their children, but then removing their own precious children from the D.C., or home state/city public school system, and safely enrolling them in an expensive private institution.
If memory serves, when Mary Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, was accosted by a constituent who asked her why she also did this, Landrieu responded with something like, 'because you might get confused and make a bad choice for your own child.'
If you're going to try to rebuild the social welfare state, at least look like you feel it's good enough for your own family to participate. But sending your children to private school while opposing any choice whatsoever for the poor, allegedly downtrodden voters you claim to champion seems awfully curious.
Let's hope that in the next election cycle, this serious hypocrisy comes home to roost with all the relevant, guilty liberal Democratic candidates, for Senate or the White House.
The list reads like a Who's Who of Democratic Presidential contenders: the Clintons, of course, John Edwards, Al Gore (himself educated in private school by his own Senator father), and, potentially, Obama Bin Baden. The last is somewhat of a mystery, in that his children attend private Chicago school, but he hasn't yet had the opportunity to oppose a voucher bill in Congress.
Ironically, former Presidential candidate Tom Vilsack, governor of Iowa, sent his children to public schools, and supported school choice legislation in his state. And, unbelievably, at least to me, Joe Biden of Delaware sends his children to private school, but supported school choice for the general public.
It continues to amaze me how prevalent this Democratic behavior is. It seems to me to be near the height of arrogance, for so-called populists to stiff arm their constituents on getting to choose a quality education for their children, but then removing their own precious children from the D.C., or home state/city public school system, and safely enrolling them in an expensive private institution.
If memory serves, when Mary Landrieu, Democratic Senator from Louisiana, was accosted by a constituent who asked her why she also did this, Landrieu responded with something like, 'because you might get confused and make a bad choice for your own child.'
If you're going to try to rebuild the social welfare state, at least look like you feel it's good enough for your own family to participate. But sending your children to private school while opposing any choice whatsoever for the poor, allegedly downtrodden voters you claim to champion seems awfully curious.
Let's hope that in the next election cycle, this serious hypocrisy comes home to roost with all the relevant, guilty liberal Democratic candidates, for Senate or the White House.
Friday, February 9, 2007
Campaign Embezzlement and Candidate Judgment
Thursday's WSJ featured an article on candidates who have had their treasurers embezzle their campaign chests. Two names which caught my attention were Joe Biden and John Boehner.
The story opens with the tale of the Florida candidate who ultimately lost her race for a House seat, because, in part, opponents played-up her appallingly lax choice of a treasurer with a history of mental illness. He absconded with her entire campaign account on the eve of the election registration date, and, ultimately, became an issue in her campaign for the US House seat formerly held by Catherine Harris.
The article mentions that some candidates never publicize the occurrences of this sort of crime, and don't even bring charges. They rightly feel it reflects on their judgment in choice of personnel, etc.
You bet it does! You want Biden running the government, knowing his campaign treasurer took him for $400,000 in 2004? Boehner's treasurer gambled away $600,000 that same year. It turns out that the treasurers in these two cases went to prison. Still, this was the first I'd ever heard to the campaign fund thefts.
It's an incredible tale, regarding Biden's snafu. I hope this comes up more prominently in his race for the White House.
On a related note, I was in error when I mentioned recently (February 1st post) that Chris Dodd is risking financial ruin by running for President. This week, I learned that Dodd is apparently running second only to Hillary, among Democrats, in fundraising.
Imagine that! It must be the Connecticut hedge-fund connection. All those financial billionaires want to be sure to be treated kindly, just in case doddering Dodd makes it through the primaries. Or retains the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee.
Will wonders never cease?
The story opens with the tale of the Florida candidate who ultimately lost her race for a House seat, because, in part, opponents played-up her appallingly lax choice of a treasurer with a history of mental illness. He absconded with her entire campaign account on the eve of the election registration date, and, ultimately, became an issue in her campaign for the US House seat formerly held by Catherine Harris.
The article mentions that some candidates never publicize the occurrences of this sort of crime, and don't even bring charges. They rightly feel it reflects on their judgment in choice of personnel, etc.
You bet it does! You want Biden running the government, knowing his campaign treasurer took him for $400,000 in 2004? Boehner's treasurer gambled away $600,000 that same year. It turns out that the treasurers in these two cases went to prison. Still, this was the first I'd ever heard to the campaign fund thefts.
It's an incredible tale, regarding Biden's snafu. I hope this comes up more prominently in his race for the White House.
On a related note, I was in error when I mentioned recently (February 1st post) that Chris Dodd is risking financial ruin by running for President. This week, I learned that Dodd is apparently running second only to Hillary, among Democrats, in fundraising.
Imagine that! It must be the Connecticut hedge-fund connection. All those financial billionaires want to be sure to be treated kindly, just in case doddering Dodd makes it through the primaries. Or retains the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee.
Will wonders never cease?
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Are We All "Clean" Now, Joe?
Biden's recent remark on Baracka Obama Bin Baden's being young and 'clean' is the latest in what is already proving to be a Presidential season of stunningly hilarious proportions.
Mind you, Biden is an already-failed candidate from some years back. I believe that was the year he was discovered to be, and acknowledged being, a plagarist.
Now, the narrow-minded Senator from Delaware is trying his hand at racial slurs. This YouTube clip, here, captures Biden slurring Indians, 7-11 and Dunkin' Donuts. It's hysterical.
I found it while searching for the Obama clip. I have yet to locate the latter, but will post a link when I find it. I'm curious as to exactly what the context was.
As I mentioned with Chris Dodd, I don't really fully understand why Biden is doing this again. Doesn't he remember John Glenn nearly declaring personal bankruptcy over his campaign debts in either 1976 or 1980? This is expensive, serious stuff. How can Dodd and Biden possibly hope to compete financially with the likes of Giuliani, Clinton and McCain?
So, we have Hillary and Biden off on the wrong foot within weeks of beginning their campaigns. You just have to love American Presidential politics, don't you?
Mind you, Biden is an already-failed candidate from some years back. I believe that was the year he was discovered to be, and acknowledged being, a plagarist.
Now, the narrow-minded Senator from Delaware is trying his hand at racial slurs. This YouTube clip, here, captures Biden slurring Indians, 7-11 and Dunkin' Donuts. It's hysterical.
I found it while searching for the Obama clip. I have yet to locate the latter, but will post a link when I find it. I'm curious as to exactly what the context was.
As I mentioned with Chris Dodd, I don't really fully understand why Biden is doing this again. Doesn't he remember John Glenn nearly declaring personal bankruptcy over his campaign debts in either 1976 or 1980? This is expensive, serious stuff. How can Dodd and Biden possibly hope to compete financially with the likes of Giuliani, Clinton and McCain?
So, we have Hillary and Biden off on the wrong foot within weeks of beginning their campaigns. You just have to love American Presidential politics, don't you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
