Five reasons GOP government shutdown is suicide

By Frank Moraes 

Whenever I read Ramesh Ponnuru, I wonder why it is the conservative movement can't be more like him. After all, it isn't like he is exactly reasonable. I can't usually read more than two paragraphs without being forced to sit through silly Republican talking points. For example, he never misses an opportunity to slam Obamacare as though he wouldn't be firmly on board with the program if it had been enacted by President McCain.

And last Friday, he argued that one of the reasons the recent Republican efforts (to defund Obamacare via government shutdown) will look bad is because the Republicans don't have an alternative for healthcare reform. This is just silly. As I've argued before, Obamacare was the conservative alternative to health-care reform. When they decided that it was a communist conspiracy, they left themselves with nothing. Ponnuru must know that the there is no alternative to Obamacare and thus his suggestion that the Republicans need to have one is just pure conservative propaganda.

But most of the article -- "Drop the Disastrous Plan to Defund Obamacare" -- is quite good. In it, he provided five reasons why the Republican plan to shut down the government or even default on our debt is a bad idea for the Republicans themselves:

1. Republicans are less popular than the Democrats and thus all else equal will lose partisan finger-pointing contests.
2. The executive has natural advantages over a group of legislators in a crisis atmosphere.
3. People will be naturally inclined to assume that the more anti-government party must be responsible.
4. Some Republicans will say that government shutdowns or defaults are just what the country needs, and those quotes will affect the image of all Republicans.
5. The news media will surely side with the Democrats.

I think this can all be boiled down into what I have come to think of as Biden's Law. You may remember in the vice-presidential debate that Paul Ryan was talking about the almost $600 billion taken out of Medicare. He was arguing that the Republicans were the true defenders of Medicare. Joe Biden didn't even counter the specifics; he just said, "Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this?"

Read more »

Chris Christie: The running mate who wasn't

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sorry, Chris, you're a bit too loud, and a bit too obnoxious, and a bit too much of a loose cannon, and not enough of an ideologue to placate hardcore conservatives...

Politico is reporting today that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie was Romney's top choice to be his running mate. This according to "campaign insiders":

Romney switched from Christie to Ryan in a span of about two weeks, according to a detailed inside account provided to POLITICO.

Romney was so close to picking Christie that some top advisers at the campaign's Boston headquarters believed the governor had been offered the job. The campaign made tentative plans to announce a pick in late July, just before Romney headed off on his overseas trip, starting with a stop at the London Olympics.

"Mitt liked him because he saw him as a street fighter," a Romney official said. "It's the kind of political mentality that Romney doesn't have, but admires. He wanted someone who could play the Chicago game [like Obama headquarters] on its own terms."

In fact, Christie was never the final choice. Romney hit "pause" on the possibility shortly before his trip to the Olympics. Then he settled on Ryan the day after returning. Romney formally offered him the job within a week, leaving Christie hanging until shortly before the official announcement a week later.

This isn't surprising at all. Richard and I both thought a) it would be Christie, and b) that Christie was the best pick for Romney (from Romney's perspective -- we obviously would have preferred it if he'd gone with, say, Donald Trump). Consider the title of a post Richard wrote back in June:

"'Husky and Starch': The best GOP ticket and Obama's worst nightmare"

Here was the thinking:

In a sense, it would be both a game changer and a safe call.

We reasoned that Romney should make the announcement the usual time, about a week before the convention. By then the polls will have been so close for so long that conservatives everywhere will be salivating at the thought of beating Obama, so they won't make trouble about the fact that Christie is another Northeastern governor who isn't perfect from a radical right-wing perspective. The base will stay in line and swing voters, particularly white middle-aged guys, will love the choice.

In many ways, Christie is everything Romney is not. He comes across as genuine, a natural performer. He's combative as hell and would be able to do what Romney will never be able to do: act tough. Conservatives want that more than anything.

I'm no great fan of Christie myself, but I do think he would be a formidable running mate and would make things close.

And then the title of a post I wrote in August, just before the pick was announced:

"Romney Veepstakes 2012: Why he will, or at least should, pick Chris Christie as his running mate"

My reasoning:

 

Yes, he's been out of the national spotlight recently, but that just means his re-emergence would be all the more dramatic. (And you know this whole Veepstakes thing is calculated for effect.) And he and Romney genuinely seem to like each other. They're very different, but they seem to have some sort of yin and yang thing going, Romney the privileged rich douchebag, Christie the aggressive, fast-talking bully who does the douchebag's dirty work.

Christie isn't necessarily a right-wing ideologue of the kind desired by conservatives, but he's a fighter who would take the fight directly to President Obama. Conservatives would love that. It would fulfill, at least during the heat of the campaign, their wild fantasies about this anti-American foreign interloper being taken down by force, being given the drubbing/lynching he deserves.

There wouldn't any yawn.

Picture Romney walking out on stage with Christie. Think of Christie's forceful personality. Think of his aggressive speech. Think of Romney standing there like a doofus with an ear-to-ear grin. Think of Republicans everywhere wetting themselves.

Makes perfect sense, no?

It did. As our contributor tmcbpatriot also wrote at the time: "I'm going with Christie still. He was the golden boy early on. Everybody wanted him and now there is less than three months to vet him publicly. He is crass and has no respect for anyone, much less his own body. Republicans love that sort of thing and he balances out Romney's elite factor with his New Jersey trash talk and attitude. Plus, Christie appeals to the moron independents. Ryan is too extreme for them. Honestly, nobody can reach the independents except Christie."

So why wasn't it Christie? Early reports said it was because he refused to step down as governor (and because, in a related matter, this would have blocked large donations from the financial sector to the Romney campaign).

But now we're getting different reasons. From the Politico piece:

--"Some aides around Romney began to sour on Christie when he was late to a couple of events where they were appearing together... The tardiness rankled the by-the-book folks around Romney."

-- "Some Romney loyalists thought he was too much about himself."

-- "Advisers also fretted about the raw emotion that makes Christie so popular on TV and on the trail, fearing it might be a liability in the West Wing."

Apparently "Romney was willing to overlook those reservations," but then "the intense back-and-forth suddenly halted." And then Paul Ryan was picked.

It may well be that Christie said no to stepping down in Trenton, and that would make sense. He must have reasoned that Romney was facing an uphill battle and that victory was a longshot. And Christie is nothing if not devoted to New Jersey. Why give up the top job there to be Romney's sidekick in what could be a losing effort? Even with his sights set on running himself down the road, perhaps in 2016 should Romney lose, what good would it be to him to be out of office for any such run?

As for these new reasons, they seem like complete bullshit to me, though it's certainly true that Christie isn't the sort of person you can easily picture as a #2.

No, I suspect the real reason is that Romney needed to win over conservatives who by that point in the campaign were publicly expressing some serious misgivings about his credentials and demanding that he put a hardcore conservative on the ticket. Names like Marco Rubio were being pushed, but it was Ryan who was the right's dream pick. Here's more from my post from August:

"Romney Faces Pressure From Right to Put Ryan on Ticket," says the Times.

"Why not Paul Ryan?" asks the Journal...

 

Ezra Klein asks why conservatives want Ryan. And looks at why Romney may want him as well -- to take a necessary risk, to run on "big ideas," to pander to the right (as usual), and "to diffuse the blame if he loses.

 

The fact is, with criticism and doubt coming from the Journal and National Review and The Weekly Standard and all throughout the conservative ranks of the Republican Party, Romney needed to give them what they wanted so that they'd be fully behind him the rest of the way. And Christie, with his pragmatism and iconoclasm, just didn't fit the bill. Conservatives like Bill Kristol wanted an ideologue, one of their own kind -- and that meant Paul Ryan above all others.

 

In other words, at perhaps the most critical moment of the campaign (with the possible exception of the first debate), Romney caved in to the right and embraced the extremist ideology that has come to define the conservative movement and pretty much the entirety of the congressional wing of the GOP. Of course he pivoted away from that extremism, at least rhetorically, at that first debate and has since tried to offer himself as the "Moderate Mitt" of old, but that may turn out to have been too little far too late.

 

Consider how the whole shape of the campaign might have been different had he gone with Christie in August and campaigned from then on as an independent-friendly pragmatist. Would he really have lost the right? Hardly. They would have protested a bit, but they would have embraced Christie eventually, not least because what so many conservatives like about the governor is his bullying pugnacity, which would have been on display right away, but also because an earlier shift to the center, with Christie on board, might have meant a rise in the polls long before the first debate -- and conservatives, no doubt, would have put aside their reservations to back such apparent success.

 

Instead it was Ryan, who has been an embarrassment on the campaign trail, rallying the right but also looking utterly unprepared for national office -- consider his deer-in-headlights performance in the VP debate against Biden, as well as his continual refusal to answer questions about his budget plan. I just can't see Christie doing any worse, and indeed I suspect that Christie would have been much better in the debate, showing an understanding of the issues and not just reading his talking points. In addition, where Ryan has been a drag on Romney, as well as a reminder that the Republican Party is indeed an extremist right-wing party, Christie would have allowed Romney more credibly to swing to the center to appeal to independents and undecideds in swing states. Romney and Christie could have campaigned together in earnest, offering a credible alternative to voters, particularly during these final days in Ohio, Florida, and other key states. Instead, Ryan has been a drag on Romney, pulling him back to the right whether he likes it or not.

 

But back to the Politico report: why now? Hard to say.

 

Obviously, Hurricane Sandy would have left its mark regardless. And it would have been interesting to see how Christie as Romney's running mate would have dealt with the situation back in New Jersey, assuming he hadn't resigned. Would he have left the campaign trail to tend to more pressing relief and recovery matters? Would he have embraced President Obama the way he has in the storm's aftermath?

 

Regardless, it does seem as if some in the Romney campaign, anticipating a loss on Tuesday, are already playing the blame game and looking ahead. There will be a lot of blame to go around should Romney lose, and conservatives will no doubt blame Romney for being insuffiently conservative, and for being the wrong nominee and a bad candidate, but perhaps some on the inside are hoping to pin some of the blame on Ryan personally, or on others on the inside for pushing Ryan ahead of Christie, suggesting that if it had been Christie, who is rather popular at the moment, all along, Romney would be on his way to victory. (Or perhaps BooMan's right that "the Romney folks wanted a Politico piece that explained why Gov. Christie wasn't chosen as Romney's running mate" but ended up with a piece that "makes Paul Ryan sound like a reluctant choice.")

 

It's all just speculation, but it does seem to me that Romney would be in much better shape today had he gone with Christie.

 

"Husky and Starch": The best GOP ticket and Obama's worst nightmare -- it was just not to be.

Pre-blogging: Thoughts before the third 2012 presidential debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings, Richard K. Barry, and Mustang Bobby, with tmcbpatriot and Frank Moraes

Stay tuned for our post-debate post, coming up later!

MJWS:
 
So. It's 1-1 and tonight's the rubber match, right? The all-important tiebreaker.

That's the way the media will treat it, and perhaps even a few of those all-important "undecideds" as well, and while it's easy to make fun of a political process treated like a sporting event, that's just the reality we live in. Sad as that is.

Generally, this should be solid terrain for President Obama. He has been strong on national security and foreign policy during his first term -- among other things, rebuilding America's key alliances, taking out Osama bin Laden, ending the Iraq War, supporting the overthrow of Gaddafi, carefully managing the American response to the Arab Spring, imposing tough sanctions on Iran (forcing the Iranians to the negotiating table), addressing the dangers of nuclear arsenals left over from the Cold War, and planning the end of the Afghan War while providing focus and purpose there that was previously lacking.

Meanwhile, Romney has been a simple-minded jingoist (like saber-rattling about Iran, implying that he'd start another war), politicizing crises and tragedies (like the Benghazi attack), showing a complete lack of understanding of diplomacy and international relations (like calling Russia America's #1 enemy and talking with bullying bluster about China, even though he has profited hugely from his various business connections there) and generally being an embarrassment on the national stage (like on his summer trip to England, Poland, and Israel, when he managed even to alientate the British with his stupid comments about the London Olympics). And let us not forget that he said the U.S. shouldn't go after bin Laden and continues to assert that the U.S. should still be in Iraq and that the Afghan War should continue indefinitely.

And it should all be fairly predictable. Romney signalled where he's coming from, and pretty much the entirely of his (lack of) understanding of foreign policy with his widely-panned speech at VMI a couple of weeks ago. Ryan did the same last month. Here's the playbook:

We've lost four of our diplomats. And what is the signal that our government is sending the rest of the world? We're being equivocal on our values, we're being slow to speak up for individual rights, for human rights, for democracy. We're seeing countries stifle freedom in Iran, in Russia, and all these other areas. And we're saying we're going to gut our military -- that projects weakness.

Obama should be able to respond to all this, and much more, with effective answers that project his knowledge and leadership.

But, of course, these things aren't really about substance, as we all know by now, even if, as in the last debate, substance can break through (like when Romney was exposed as an offensive ignoramus on Libya). The media, as usual, will focus on style, and it's hard to know how the debate will play out on those terms. Yes, the president should be able to look and sound like a leader with a solid record and a firm grasp of complex issues, but in foreign policy jingoistic bluster often (usually) trumps knowledge and leadership, and so there's an opening for Romney to keep hammering home his talking points (lies) about Obama apologizing for America, allowing Iran's nuclear program to proceed, alienating Israel, and generally being weak.

That's all the opposite of the truth, of course, but the risk is that he gets away with it, particularly with a format (like the first, not the second) and a moderator (Bob Schieffer, who will play it safe, meaning his style will benefit Romney) that will not just restrict interaction between the two candidates but prevent the truth from emerging from the fray. Like last week, the president needs to call him on his lies and distortions without being overly aggressive (he can't do what Biden did), while making sure he speaks with confidence and determination about his strong record.

Perhaps tonight's debate won't move the needle much at all. It's easy to see this as a draw and the race remaining insanely close. But it's also easy to see this being the deciding factor. If Obama comes out like he did in the first debate, the race may well be over. But if he comes out strong, and it plays out like the second debate, he may just get the boost he needs to bring it home over the final two weeks.

Needless to say, I'm nervous, anxious, worried, terrified. So much can go wrong. But Obama does have what it takes, both in terms of what he has done and who he is, to "win" this thing tonight and thereby to remind voters that the choice between the two candidates is stark: leadership and wisdom and a strong America prepared for the challenges of the 21st century on his side, inexperience and recklessness and warmongering on the other. This is what he needs to project tonight, both in style and substance.

RKB: 

We should run a lottery on how long it will take Romney to say Obama has been going around apologizing for America. I'll go with 15 minutes in. Other guesses? Whatever Romney says to make his point, it will be all about trying to suggest Obama has been week and that America needs to project strength around the world to achieve its foreign policy goals. It's the Clint Eastwood / Chuck Norris / John Wayne school of international relations. It's typically American. It makes no sense at all, but a certain percentage of the electorate, those who live in some movie fantasyland, will eat it up.

Given that there is very little difference between the foreign policy positions of the two candidates, Obama's goal will be to make Romney appear reckless by his silly saber-rattling. America is tired of war and the trap Obama needs to set for Romney is to get him so het up with his own bullshit that he tries to imply he would put boots on the ground in some future bloodbath. Women with sons who might be put in harm's way would, I'm guessing, be particularly unimpressed with that argument.

Whatever one thinks of Obama's drone strategy or military surges or whatever, it's going to be hard to paint him as a sissy liberal. I do believe I heard somewhere that he killed Osama bin Laden. Maybe that will come up too during the debate.

I've said before that Joe Biden did a good job of explaining how complex foreign relations really are, how much work goes into building alliances and how key they are. Paul Ryan proved that he could read a briefing book but not that he really understood what he was saying. Obama will have to do the same thing as Biden did to Ryan. He will have to present himself as what he legitimately is, a guy not only in the room when the decisions were made but the guy making the decisions.

As a series of soundbites, it may be possible to sell American jingoism. Over the course of a 90-minute debate, I'm hoping Obama's understanding and presentation of the real world of international politics will make Romney look like the ass he is.

One other thing is that Obama will have to stand up like he did last week and call Mitt a lying bastard when he needs to. But given how much is riding on this debate, I also hope Obama's natural calm will serve him well, while Romney's tendency to get testy when the pressure is on will trip him up.

The winner will be the one who looks like a leader on the world stage. Simple enough. 

MB:

I don't think this meeting will draw as much attention as the last one. Mr. Obama's performance in Kentucky answered the question as to whether he had the stage presence to respond to Mitt Romney, and for a lot of the electorate, foreign policy is not that big a deal for them. Given a geography quiz, it's problematic that many voters couldn't find Libya or Syria or even China on a map, and to them it's not as important as the economy. To the right-wingers, who cares what a bunch of other-colored pagans and heathens do, anyway? We're Americans; we should be ruling them.

But this could be the debate that really shows us more of who Mitt Romney is, and if Mr. Obama plays his cards right, he could really score some points, even among the know-nothing crowd.

A sitting president always has an advantage in a foreign policy debate. For one thing, he's briefed every day on what's going on around the world, and he's getting that from people who are actually involved with what's going on, as opposed to Fox News or John Bolton, who seems to spend a lot of time with his home version of Armageddon. And this might be the one debate where Mr. Obama's tendency to speak in paragraphs might actually help him. Explaining the details of sanctions against Iran might go over a little better than "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." Serving as a Mormon missionary in France in the 1960s is not the same as actually working in the State Department, no matter what Newt Gingrich might think. That's like saying spending the summer as a camp counselor makes one qualified to be a superintendent of public schools.

If Mr. Romney's first foray into international relations is any guide, the rest of the world has reason to be nervous about a Romney administration, and not a lot of foreign leaders are even ready for such a possibility. Since many of Mr. Romney's advisers are neocons or veterans of the George W. Bush administration, their fears are not unfounded. President Obama has built a good rapport with many leaders abroad — and without apologizing — and restored the trust that is needed to conduct both business and keep an eye on warmongers and terrorists. Given who Mr. Romney has been consulting, that good will could be trashed overnight.

So while tonight's debate may not be the attention-grabber of the last two, it could be the most important one for voters who have concerns about our future relationship with the rest of the world. And if the past is prologue, that is no small thing.

tmcbpatriot:

The final debate! Boy, am I glad. So, what can we expect? Well, if I were advising the 'resident, here is what I would tell him:

Mr. President, tonight is an important one, as were the first two. No sure what happened in debate one, but that's water under the bridge. You "won" the last debate by basically doing what we all expected you to do the first time around. In other words, you're now essentially even. Tonight is really your one and only chance to actually win. Therefore, Mr. President, tonight you must trounce Mitt Romney. Do that and you will get a bump in the polls, keep Ohio in your corner, and maybe even sway a few old people in Florida. Just stay consistent, Mr. President, and you win. Falter, and it's over.

How to do this? Just make Romney look inexperienced and inept. Not that hard to do, right? But here is what you need to remember: We all know that Osama and Gaddafi are dead and we are stoked about it. Remind us about that accomplishment, but then move on. It's old news and Fox News has done a great job making you look like you are gloating. Remember that a lot of people watching tonight actually watch Fox. Also, remember that we are all on board, Dems and Reps, with your getting Osama. It reminds us too that the last guy could not get it done. Just say that and move on. There are far more important things to discuss.

For example, you need to talk about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and how it has not weakened our military as Republicans said it would. They were wrong. Romney said he would not go into Syria to get Osama. He was wrong. Romney thinks Russia is enemy number one and he is wrong. Talk about how, in reality, Iran is enemy number one precisely because of the Republican Party's foreign policy. Talk also about how you have kept us safe nationally. Talk about how our military is strong and how Republicans are trying to scare people into thinking we have a single Naval ship and one propeller plane. It is an old tactic, but one that worked all too well in 2000 for the other side.

Remind voters too how Romney offended our greatest ally with his Olympic gaffe. Also, be sure to mention that he also agrees with you on many issues. For example, unless Romney plans to go to war with Iran, your plan is the correct one. Keep needling him on this. Voters are tired of war and anything but 100% agreement with you means war. Also remind voters that Romney agrees with you on Afghanistan and setting a timeline for getting out. If not, that must mean he wants to stay there indefinitely. Remember, whether your polices are right or wrong is not the issue. It only matter that he agrees with your positions.

Lastly, Romney is going to bring up Libya right from the starting bell. Republicans have primed the pump for this all week. When he picks through your timeline of events, remind him that he went on TV moments after this event unfolded and turned it into a political spectacle before any facts were known. That was irresponsible and he must answer for that.

Be sure to ask Mitt about China next. Ask him how is it that he talks tough even though he helped China create jobs through outsourcing at Bain. Sure, you may have investments in Chinese companies, but Romney helped those companies open their doors to investment while closing businesses here as a result. That's powerful stuff and a great image to present to the viewers at home.

Oh, and when Romney says again that he will call China a "currency manipulator," remind people that he has so much money in offshore accounts that he is a one man currency manipulator!

That's called a zinger, Mr. President. TV watchers love 'em!

It's time to prepare now, Mr. President, and I could go on and on. After all, Romney is an easy one to nail on almost any issue. Bottom line: Stay cool, look Romney in the eyes, and be the boss. Oh, and if Romney begins every answer tonight with how he cares for 100% of voters, nail him again with that 47% remark. It never gets old and people love to hear you say it. I know I do.

But above all else, Mr. President, and I am basing this on the previous debates, the people watching care only about flubs, aggression, laughter, water drinking, disrespect, Big Bird, and how alert you are. Avoid all of these things and you will win.

See? I told you this was easy. Good luck, sir.

Frank Moraes:

I'm not expecting much from the debate tonight. It is on foreign policy, after all. And one of the candidates has no foreign policies. So I suspect that we will hear Romney claim that Obama has totally screwed up because of the Benghazi attack. And he'll go on and on about how tough he's going to get on China. And he'll talk about how he's going to make us energy independent by drilling more and "signing that pipeline!" I doubt we'll hear much more than that. Regardless, he will attack the president on really minor points while not taking any different policy positions.

We certainly won't hear anything about global warming. We won't hear anything globalization, except that free trade agreements rock! Actually, there's so much we won't hear about, it is hardly worth mentioning. The reason we won't get a real debate on foreign policy is that Romney and Obama pretty much agree on everything. The only thing that will be really interesting is exactly what new talking points Romney memorized.

CIA documents say Obama was right on Libya attack

By Richard K. Barry

The Washington Post is reporting that the Romney campaign may have screwed-up in saying that statements by President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice about the Benghazi attacks were not supported by intelligence.

This is according to documents provided by a senior U.S. intelligence official.

The Post writes:

"Talking points" prepared by the CIA on Sept. 15, the same day that Rice taped three television appearances, support her description of the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate as a reaction to Arab anger about an anti-Muslim video prepared in the United States. According to the CIA account, "The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. Consulate and subsequently its annex. There are indications that extremists participated in the violent demonstrations."

And this, I find much to the point:

The Benghazi flap is the sort of situation that intelligence officers dread: when politicians are demanding hard "yes" or "no" answers but evidence is fragmentary and conflicting. The political debate has focused on whether the attack was spontaneous or planned, but the official said there's evidence of both, and that different attackers may have had different motives. There's no dispute, however, that it was "an act of terror," as Obama described it the next day.

The official said the only major change he would make now in the CIA's Sept. 15 talking points would be to drop the word "spontaneous" and substitute "opportunistic."

So, there was a demonstration and some bad buys took advantage of the confusion? Whatever happened, it was an act of terror.

Is this really going to be where Romney hangs his hat on Monday?

One point worth making is that I thought Joe Biden did a very good job at the VP debate of suggesting just how complicated international relations are, especially in the context of violence or potential violence. Romney and Ryan want to throw around a bunch of stupid jingoistic platitudes and call it a foreign policy. As stated above, professionals in the field hate this kind of black and white nonsense that fails to appreciate the reality of complex dynamics.

Romney and Ryan aren't ready for the big time, and this is just one more reason why.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Laugh riot

By Mustang Bobby

I think that one of the reasons the Republicans and the Romney campaign got so upset at Joe Biden's laughing and smiling during the debate last week wasn't that he was doing it in response to Paul Ryan's flights of fancy away from the truth. They don't care about being called liars. What got under their skin was that he was mocking him and making fun of him.

If Mr. Biden had gotten angry and all indignant at Mr. Ryan's serial misstatements and exaggerations, they could have dealt with that. I'm sure they were all ready to punch back at the angry Joe Biden. But bullies and hucksters lose all their advantage when they are openly scorned. Fear and loathing they can deal with; they feed on that kind of reaction. But not being taken seriously completely discombobulates them. They respond by demanding to be taken seriously — "Stop laughing at me!" — and that just brings on more laughter. To quote Robin Williams in Dead Poets Society, "we're not laughing at you; we're laughing near you."

As Mark Twain, Mel Brooks, Groucho Marx, and George Carlin have taught us, laughter is the most corrosive agent there is against the forces of the pompous and the arrogant bullies. It destroys them not by force but by undermining the essence of their very existence: being taken seriously. It doesn't mean they're not still a threat, but when you can laugh at them and mock them, they lose a lot of their power. And they know it.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Behind the Ad: The Romney-Ryan strategy -- thirsting for an answer

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our extensive "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: The Obama-Biden campaign.

Where: Web video.

What's going on: Well, we knew the Obama campaign would make good use of Paul Ryan's pack of lies and evasiveness in the VP debates.

This came out last week, but I somehow missed it. It's lovely. I particularly like Ryan's big sigh when he was asked about protecting women's reproductive rights. Priceless.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New poll: The vice president did just fine

By Richard K. Barry

Best debate picture ever!

In case you missed this, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, Joe Biden came out ahead of Paul Ryan in last Thursday's debate.

The energetic Biden claimed a seven-point victory -- 42 percent to 35 percent -- among registered voters, with a similar margin among independents. Nearly a quarter of registered voters and about a third of independents were unsure who did a better job during the debate at Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.

I'm not suggesting these numbers are momentous or that they will have a significant impact on the final outcome. I would only suggest that the nonsense coming from the right-wing punditocracy that Biden in some way hurt himself or the campaign by calling Ryan out on the lies, and the way Biden did it, is simply not the way people are seeing it.

Others have said, and I would agree, that a Biden "win" only holds the line, allowing the Obama campaign to fight another day, while a Biden "loss" would have been disastrous.

And that, dear reader, is what has pissed off the GOP so much. They felt that Mr. Serious Thinker, a.k.a. Paul Ryan, would blow the VP out of the water, and that just didn't happen. They felt that things could have ended last Thursday.

Final word on Biden's smiles and head shaking as a response to the lies: There is no way to call someone a liar time and time again without looking mean, unless you are smiling, laughing, and interjecting as you do it. Even then, it comes at the price of appearing unserious or even unnecessarily disrespectful. It is a tricky thing and Mr. Biden probably did it as well as anyone could have.

Let's move on to Tuesday to see if Mr. Obama absorbed the lesson.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Laugh about it, shout about it -- VP edition

By Mustang Bobby

That gusty sound you heard across the country last night was the sound of millions of Democrats and progressives letting out a huge sigh of relief after the vice presidential debate.

This was the debate that the Obama campaign should have had last week in Denver between President Obama and Mitt Romney. Per The New York Times:

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Representative Paul D. Ryan fiercely quarreled at the vice-presidential debate here on Thursday night, with Mr. Biden using the cutting attack lines against the Republican ticket that Mr. Obama did not and Mr. Ryan delivering a spirited case for conservative policies that Mr. Romney had soft-pedaled.

The 90-minute debate, which unfolded in rapid tempo, offered a spirited airing of the sharp contrasts over the administration’s handling of the terrorist attack in Libya, the pace of the economic recovery at home and the role of government in addressing the nation's fiscal burdens.

The straight news sources are trying to make it sound like it was an even match with phrases like "Ryan held his own," etc., but if you were watching the body language, you could see it was obvious that Mr. Ryan was uncomfortable, irritated, and at times floundering for an answer. And when he came up with one, it was often a boilerplate campaign talking point, even if it was strangely out of context or had just been called a lie — oops, I mean "malarkey." It was impressive to see how many ways Joe Biden was able to call Mr. Ryan and the Romney campaign liars without actually using the word.

This was a real debate, and kudos to moderator Martha Raddatz for asking tough questions and controlling the floor, not letting either man get away with stock answers and following up. It was not a complete shut-out for Mr. Biden; Mr. Ryan got in a few hits, but it was pretty lopsided. Even when Mr. Ryan was able to get off his "zingers," Mr. Biden was either ready with one of his own or laughed it off. And when he got back one of his own, it didn't sound rehearsed.  He was clearly enjoying it, far more than Mr. Ryan.

Based on the GOP reaction, they know that at the very least Mr. Biden stopped the bleeding and may have gained ground; a lot of them are having "lookit the kitty" moments by knocking Mr. Biden's smiling and laughing. They know they lost a lot of points on the substance and the fact that Mr. Ryan was never able to give specifics about his tax cuts, Medicare, and Social Security. Even Ms. Raddatz called him out on that. So expect a lot of snark from the right wing about Mr. Biden's "manic" and "angry" performance. That means they know they have very little more to go on.

The abortion question was a delicate one, given that you had two men taking on a woman's right to control her own body, wrapped up in religious freedom and the Catholic Church. Mr. Biden gave by far the clearer answer, making it about the right of one faith to impose their will and influence on people of different faiths or no faith at all. And when the crunch was on, Mr. Ryan came out with what many people consider to be a "moderate" answer on abortion, with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. That's going to raise a few hackles with the Todd Akin hardcore baby Jesus base.

If we can get the same kind of sure-footed and spirited performance out of Barack Obama during the next two debates, knowing that Mitt Romney does not take well to being thrown off message — "The program has encountered an error and needs to close" — then the Obama campaign will be back on track.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Give 'em hell, Joe

By Richard K. Barry

(Ed. note: Here's a great clip that captures some of Biden's responses to Ryan's incessant lying. What else are you supposed to do when you're confronted with a geyser of bullshit? Instead of obsessing about style, maybe the thin-skinned Beltway pundits who seem so very hurt by Biden's refusal to let Ryan get away with it should focus on substance for a change. -- MJWS)


It's been fun reading and listening to the reaction to the VP debate last night. Right-wingers are trying to tell us Biden was rude for having the audacity to challenge the usual hogwash that comes out of the Romney-Ryan campaign. Democrats are simply happy for the fact that someone has finally called these guys out on the silly and unsupportable platitudes they've been spouting.

But here's the main point about last night. Obama's campaign team is full of smart people and they knew that Biden's goal had to be to put Ryan off his game. They couldn't allow Ryan to appear to hold a graduate seminar on right-wing economic policy. They couldn't allow Ryan to present himself, as the GOP has tried so hard to do, as a serious thinker with all the answers.

The substance of the debate was almost secondary, as long as voters understood that no one should be allowed to say things that aren't true without being challenged.

Not a few pundits, even some so-called independent journalists, thought Biden was clownish and disrespectful and would be seen as such by voters. They are wrong. In real life, when people know they are being sold a bill of goods, they don't wait until the sales pitch is over to squawk. They react as soon as they understand what is going on.

When Ryan began the same old lying pitch we have been hearing from this ticket, Joe Biden threw up his hands, rolled his eyes, shook his head, and even called it malarkey.

Good for him. You don't owe a thief the courtesy of letting him rob you blind before you object. Any voter still willing to be persuaded will get that.

Good for Joe. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Reality show

By Capt. Fogg

Oh, who cares whether Ryan or Biden "won" this TV spectacle? Vice presidents don't count, unless you think about Cheney, and although Romney is a sock puppet with the strong arm of the radical authoritarians making his lips move, I don't see him being led around by Ryan as another Darth Cheney. Who cares anyway? It's not as though the public has become smarter or has learned from experience. These things are only a game and never, ever does a president resemble in office what he tried to resemble on camera and the platform they sell at the convention is rarely more than a facade.  There's a difference between dealing with the world as it is and dealing with the tableaux, the passion plays, the street theater, the Potemkin Village we take for reality.

So CNN says his supporters think Ryan expressed himself better. I don't know. I have better things to do with my time, but assuming he did, does anyone think that getting the angry rabble to cheer is the indicator of suitability to administrate a democracy -- even a pretend democracy like ours? Obama's haters were quick to syllogize at us in 2008 that he gave good speeches and Hitler gave good speeches, and therefore Obama is another Hitler. Who cares what such people think?

So the Romney-Ryan thing gives rousing speeches, albeit captious and dishonest ones. So the real truth is not quite as rousing, easily summed up to the satisfaction of one's enemies, or blamed on "libtards." Who gives a shit?

I had a conversation with someone last night. An engineer, a very nice guy, a very devout Baptist and fellow radio amateur about the peculiar state of the ionosphere. We're supposed to be near a sunspot peak and yet HF propagation is generally poor, without the summer openings on 10 and 6 meters we've waited years for. I joked about writing my congressman. He quipped about killing all the lawyers because, as he said, "they'll only blame it on global warming and George Bush." He wasn't smiling.

So easily is scientific consensus and massive data dismissed and so easily the destruction of the U.S. economy according to the 30-year experiment with trickle down, debt-doesn't-matter and wars-pay-for-themselves-when-we-cut-taxes agenda as given us by the Republicans. Truth doesn't matter, so how can these "debates" mean anything?

Really -- why should I listen to these things? I already know who has built a three-ring circus around  the argumentum ad captandum argument, learned to enrage the public with lies and profit from the rage they ignited. No, I'm not going to tell you that Romney will exterminate minorities or that Ryan is a Nazi who wants to put Grandma in a camp, but the people who pull their strings have perfected the same rhetoric, the technique and the ability to harness tribal enmity, bigotry, superstition, and self-pity.  They know how to make you passionately believe things that are self-contradictory, follow policies that always and dramatically fail and they know how to get their way. So sure, Romney won and Ryan won, or not, and whether or not they're elected, George W. Bush and global warming have sealed our fate, or at least made it unlikely that anything will ever be the same. 

(Cross-posted at Human Voices.)

Nobody asked me, but...

By Carl 

(Note to The Reaction readers: this is a weekly feature at my own blog, Simply Left Behind, where I whip through stories you might have missed this week. I thought I'd share today, given last night's events.) 

1) Just in case you missed it, IMMORTALITY!

2) I loved Joe Biden's deconstruction of Paul Ryan last night, particularly when he all but called Grover Norquist a traitor to America:

And instead of signing pledges to Grover Norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class we're going to level the playing field; we're going to give you a fair shot again; we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for Wall Street and Main Street, making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the super wealthy.

Subtext? A pledge to Norquist trumps the Pledge of Allegiance. Beatifully done.

3) About all Paul Ryan had to do was to rip his shirt off and start flexing, if he wanted to come off anymore immature and shallow.

4) Your word of the day: Malarkey. When a politician wants to say "bullshit" but the cameras are rolling.

5) If I had been Biden, I would have argued even more forcefully, particularly on tax cuts. For instance, during the Bush years, taxes on the wealthy were at the lowest they've been since Hoover, yet Bush only managed to create 2.3 million new jobs, a figure Obama eclipsed inside of 18 months by passing middle class tax relief (the Social Security suspension), and when "Jack" Kennedy -- something else I would have called Ryan on -- lowered tax rates, the highest marginal rate was 70%, not 38%.

But you'll also note that America's greatest achievements came before Kennedy did that: the interstate highway system, Social Security, rural electrification, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the GI Bill, the Marshall Plan, leaps ahead in public education that benefitted Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden. All of these came about when marginal rates topped out at 90%.

Let me say that again. They occured with taxes reaching as high as 90%. And even under Kennedy, the space program was developed and the moon landed on when taxes were 50%.

America will never lead the world the way it did post-World War II until we recreate those conditions.

6) Just how desperate are our times? The European Union, as a whole, won the Nobel Peace Prize today. 

7) Mitt Romney's timing is impeccably awful, yet again. Even before he shifts focus to China artificially manipulating the yuan to hurt America, the yuan skyrockets on currency markets, improving our economic outlook and bringing more jobs back to America.

8) Note to my L.A. readers: that is not E.T. on Crenshaw.

9) More evidence that water existed on Mars came yesterday. 

10) Finally, apparently you can buy too much toilet paper in New Jersey. Better alert Gov. Christie. I think his quota may be past.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Reaction to last night's debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We'll have a lot more reaction to last night's vice-presidential debate today and in the days to come, but if you missed them make sure to check out our three posts from last night:

-- pre-debate;
-- mid-debate; and
-- post-debate.

Richard and I, along with contributors Frank Moraes and tmcbpatriot, provided extensive commentary throughout the evening.

Quick consensus take: In what was entertaining, interesting, and even edifying theater, Vice President Biden did really, really well and won the debate decisively, even if some in the media are trying to make it all about style and so about Biden's body language (smiling, laughing, and using a variety of facial expressions in response to Congressman Ryan's bullshit), effectively articulating the Obama administration's record and positioning on a range of domestic and foreign issues and exposing not just Ryan's dishonesty and far-right ideology but his ignorance and inexperience as well.

Ryan didn't do anything terribly damaging, perhaps, and obviously a lot of what he said played well to the Republican base, notably his anti-abortion extremism, but it was Biden who came in and got the job done, picking up for Obama's poor performance last week, energizing Democrats (many of whom have been pretty down), and reaching out to the middle class.

That's more than good enough for me.

Post-blogging: Thoughts after the 2012 vice-presidential debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Richard K. Barry, with tmcbpatriot and Frank Moraes

(Image from New York's Daily Intel blog -- check out the great zingers.)

Also see our pre-debate and mid-debate posts from earlier.

MJWS:

First, the Steelers suck. Down 16-13 to one of the worst teams in football, with 3:24 left in the third? Pathetic. Embarrassing. I'm this close, this close, to being done with them this year.

Second, Biden won.

And, it would appear, that's the general consensus. He was feisty, forceful, and clear, showing the sort of experience and determination that one has come to expect from him but that was all the more stark with an extremist neophyte sitting next to him as his challenger.

Particularly on foreign policy, he was strong and wise, contrasting Ryan's combination of vagueness and propagandizing. Ryan kept insisting on these differences yet admitted that on the key issues there is no disagreement with what Obama is doing, whether it's Iran or Syria or Afghanistan, and Biden effectively pointed that out. And where Ryan did disagree, he revealed his abject ignorance, as with respect to the handover to Afghan troops.

And on domestic policy as well, it was refreshing to see Biden pushing back against Ryan's right-wing ideology wrapped up in a package with a nice little bow, noting repeatedly that the facts say otherwise and the numbers don't add up. And when Ryan was lying, it was similarly refreshing to see Biden say enough is enough. 

I'd say Biden's one weakness was his closing statement, where he should have spoken into the camera and directly addressed Ryan's accusation that Obama hasn't done anything. Saving GM? Ordering the mission that killed Osama bin Laden? Providing access to affordable health care to tens of millions of Americans? How about that?

But a lot of the talk is about style, about mannerisms, and specifically about Biden's laughing. As I pointed out in our mid-debate post, that was worrying me. But in the end I think he was able to show just how relentlessly Ryan was a) lying and/or b) expressing far-right positions. There were times when it looked like the smiles could turn into smirks, but he held himself back. And, really, the fact that Republicans are focusing on Biden's smiling and laughing as somehow inappropriate is all the evidence we need that Biden won, and won decisively.

(Okay, the Steelers just scored a TD and are now winning 20-16. But I have no confidence the D can hold. The Steel Curtain is no more. Alas... And, guess what, they're not stopping the Titans. Blah.)

Terrible questions about faith/abortion and unique personal character, by the way. But otherwise it was an outstanding debate overall. (Moderator Martha Raddatz was significantly better than Jim Lehrer despite those last couple of questions and some Republican-oriented phrasing throughout, and she did well to keep the debate moving along while allowing the two candidates to interact in a meaningful way.)

Update: Way too much focus among the pundits on style, but what else is new? It's like they can't see past the body language to address the substance of what the two men said. Which is particularly disappointing in this case given that, again, it was actually a really good debate.

What still strikes me more than anything else, though, aside from Biden's overall strong showing, is just how unprepared and unqualified so obviously is for the vice presidency (let alone the top job). He was way out of his element on foreign policy and started cracking the moment his right-wing budget was challenged, just as he has in recent interviews. It's easy to see how he's such a whippersnapping Republican wunderkind, but beyond the talking points there's just not that much there, and all those talking points amount to is cover for his, and his party's, real agenda of slashing tax rates for the rich and otherwise turning the country completely over to individual and corporate plutocrats at the expense of everyone else.

Anyway, the debate was much better than the Steelers game, which was a disaster. (Is it too early to say it's a lost season and that they'd do better to suck the rest of the way and get higher draft picks?)

But Biden's win was more than enough to make up for it. Sorry, CNN, but it wasn't a draw. Ryan didn't do anything terribly damaging, other than revealing his own ignorance and inexperience, and obviously a lot of what he said played well to the GOP base, notably his anti-abortion extremism, but it was Biden who came in and got the job done, picking up for Obama's poor performance last week, energizing Democrats (many of whom have been pretty down), and reaching out to the middle class. That's more than good enough for me.

(And apparently undecided voters give Biden the win, too. By a lot.) 

RKB:  

I'm very comfortable with Biden's performance. Not sure how the media will see it. In terms of score, they might call a tie. I think it will help to stabilize the Obama campaign somewhat.

Biden's closing could have been stronger, but Ryan speaks in cliches. Anyway, I'm feeling good.

Frank Moraes:

I don't know how this debate is going to be perceived by the Villagers. To me, Biden came off as knowledgeable and wise; Ryan came off as a kid. Here are just some notes since I have to go:

Great Biden line, "These people are my mom and dad... instead of signing pledges with Grover Norquist they should sign a pledge to the American people."

Biden talking directly into the TV to seniors. Very effective.

I've lost my breath. Biden says, "Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad."

Biden explains why vouchers won't keep pace: because that's the only way they save money. Brilliant!

Ryan: "We aren't going to end Medicare." Biden: "You are!" Too bad we didn't get this from Obama.

First part on foreign affairs, Biden did okay but didn't totally dominate. On Afghanistan, he is killing Ryan. You know Ryan is in trouble when he repeats "unraveling" talking point. Ryan just looks ignorant about Afghanistan.

Biden says Romney complains about foreign policy but when pushed would do the same thing as Obama. And when Ryan gets pushed for specifics and he demonstrates this by saying, "Our red line is the same!"

Ryan's "Bean" story died because it is so obviously canned.

"Mitt Romney and I want to earn your support." That's why we won't tell you our plans.

Biden has the human touch. Ryan does not.

I don't think this debate will move much. But it should make Democrats feel a lot better. I know I do!

tmcbpatriot:

Well... That. Was. Awesome! 

Most memorable line: "Now you're Jack Kennedy!" Biden gave the performance of a lifetime.

Before the pundits shape my answer, here goes: Biden is a smart man, around for decades who knows what is going on. He definitely had Ryan on the defensive all night. One pundit actually said it well. He said Ryan spent the night defending Romney while Biden defended Mom and Dad. That really nails it. He was ready and was not about to back down. Sure he had to build Obama back up after last week, but this is what he would have done regardless. He had Ryan right where he wanted him and had every opportunity to nail him and did with aplomb. He got Ryan on stimulus hypocrisy, on the 47% finally, and on foreign policy. It is hilarious, though. Last week Romney's interruptions and smirking was seen as agressive. Joe is already being called possible rude and snarky. Interesting. Liberal media my ass. 

Okay, the "undecideds" just gave it to Biden. Normally I do not want to hear from these no-nothing morons, but tonight they get a pass. Who is undecided at this point? I ask you. 

*****

I am sure Biden won this thing. We will hear some great sound bites in the coming week. Obama now has no choice but to come out and do what Biden did tonight or lose. He needs to put Romney on the defensive all night. We'll see. The moderator did a fine job, though. Charlie Rose on right now. I am afraid to watch. Al Hunt from Bloomberg is smooching Ryan's ass and reminding everyone how poorly Obama did last week. Rich Lowry says Biden was off-putting, obnoxious, and rude. Mark Halperin from Time is basically agreeing with Lowry. The media is going with Biden being rude and his "ticks," whatever the fuck that means. John Heilemann from NY magazine says Republicans will be happy with Ryan's performance. The whole talk is how those moron undecideds will react. Why do we care about people who still have not made up their minds? These people should not be allowed to vote with three weeks left. 

Oh boy, now its Chuck Todd. He is counting how many times each man said the other man's running mate's name. At least he and everyone is saying that Biden ran the table. Gwen Ifill, surely pissed that she was snubbed this year, is talking about tone. It is absolutely amazing how these supposed professional pundits and journalists talk about what we all just saw with such little substance. It is disgusting.

*****

I am annoyed that Biden did not bring up Ayn Rand tonight. I really thought it would happen. But I will take what I can get nevertheless. Nobody on TV talks about the issues at all. The pundits are still taking about Obama's performance and where he will be next week. Will he bring it, etc. No talk of the actual issues and Romney's lies. All they talk about is style and no substance. Sickening.

Next week, according to these pundits, Obama can read a menu next week so long as he says it forcibly and aggressively.

Mid-blogging: Thoughts during the 2012 vice-presidential debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings and Richard K. Barry, with Frank Moraes

Stay tuned for our post-debate post, coming up later!

MJWS:

Okay...

Biden's doing well calling out Ryan on his dishonesty and bullshitting. I worry, though, that the split screen is hurting him. His laughing while Ryan is speaking may be a bit much. I get why he's doing it, but he needs to keep it under control. And while interrupted is fine, again, he needs to do it strategically and only to make key points.

I'd say that the foreign policy part was a wash. Ryan was spouting the usual propaganda, but Biden wasn't entirely effective at addressing it. And the problem with foreign policy is that simplistic points like Ryan's tend to go over well, while nuance -- dealing with reality, as Biden stressed -- falls flat.

But Biden is really doing well on the economy, picking apart the Romney-Ryan plan and addressing voters directly. But he needs to point out more directly that Ryan is talking utter fantasy and show just how Ryan's plan is the imposition of right-wing ideology.

Great point from Biden that Ryan asked for stimulus money.

And Ryan's actually defending his "math"? Wow. An opening for Biden... and he's getting stronger. Can he keep it up?

Frank Moraes:

Biden looks surprisingly good. He has made the decision to go after Romney rather than Ryan. This is very good. However, many lies are getting past. In particular, Ryan's multiple implications that Obama "apologized for America." How? This is not true but hasn't been called. Biden finally landed a major punch noting that the "You didn't meet with Benjamin Netanyahu" line is total bullshit. Now on domestic issues Biden is really taking off.

Also: the split screen is working much better for Biden than it was for Obama.

RKB: 

I think Joe is schooling the young man thus far. He is engaged and good on the facts. The most important thing Biden is doing is fighting. I like the way he is interrupting Ryan. It's working for me. I like the split screen for the way Biden is smiling and shaking his head at Ryan's nonsense. It really doesn't matter what the arguments are as long as Biden's energy is up.

As I wrote earlier, Biden's tone is very real. He knows how to talk to voters.