Let Joe Be Joe – See What Happens!

Biden did manage to excite the Democrats who wanted to see more fight out of Obama.  And most Democrats a diluted in to thinking that Biden had the facts on his side.  A good fact check will show that he didn’t especially when it came to Libya, Medicare, Taxes, and stating that he is practicing Catholic (no such thing as practicing Catholic that’s pro-choice. That’s mutually exclusive!). So he rallied the troops. Increased a the voter intensity of the base a bit.

But that’s not the story about this debate that people that people will be talking about at the water cooler today. The story is going to be Biden’s conduct.
But the fact is undecided voters and independents were turned off. Liberal members of the media, even some of the Moon Bats on MSNBC think Biden was over the top. He whined about time to moderator (turns out he spoke longer), He interrupted at last count 82 times. His laughter was over the top and the undecided, the independents, a lot of women, think he acted like a jerk. 
Saturday night live and late night comics are going to have field day with Biden’s performance, posture, and stupid expressions. In other words, he looked and acted just as bad while Ryan was talking as Obama looked when Romney was talking. They did different things, but they were just as bad.
The danger for Obama is that he will try repeat  Biden’s behavior on Tuesday. The problem is Obama is not quick as on his feet when confronted. So there will be gaffes. Oh I’m sure he’ll have some one-liners planned. He’s been practicing them all week on the stump. But let’s remember, for months now the Obama campaign and it’s surrogates have been employing the “Kill Romney” strategy. Romney in his first performance disarmed Obama and now the American people see he’s a likeable guy.

Obama in the meantime has become more and more unlikeable in the public eyes. If he tries to act like Biden, he’s only going drive up his negative image.

Related posts

3 thoughts on “Let Joe Be Joe – See What Happens!

  1. Tom Viveiros

    I find it hard to disagree with any of this with the exception of the Catholic remarks which may be a bit unfair. Biden stated that as a Catholic he accepted the Pro-life position of the church. However as VP he didn’t think it was his place to impose his pro-life position from a religious standpoint. Translation – He is pro-choice by definition, however as a practicing Catholic he is restrained by his faith in his personal life even though he personally disagrees with the church. If he’s telling the truth, then I think that deserves some consideration and I actually admire someone who will separate their religious beliefs from their secular roles in society. Especially in a society that has so many different religious factions all with different value systems.

    As far as foreign policy, I think Biden seemed more authoritative and presented himself as much more knowledgeable in that area. Especially when the subject of Afghan troop withdrawals was raised. Ryan at one point seemed conciliatory and had no comeback for Biden when asked if he would prefer to use US troops as opposed to Afghanistan troops. Now I don’t know if that is factually true or a smoke and mirrors numbers game as politicians so often like to engage, but either way the perception was that Biden owned that topic for the evening.

    On the economy, I don’t think Biden did particularly well, but I don’t think Ryan took charge of that part of the debate in ways that he could have. Notwithstanding the fact that it is a bit of a challenge to distance to make a major distinction between the two candidates, both of whom support, government controlled healthcare, TARP, the Federal Reserve, etc., etc., etc. However in the role of devil’s advocate, if I were Ryan I would have steered the debate away from the similarities and hammered him on results. For example, when Biden continued to point out the inheritance of a faltering economy, Ryan should have pounded all over him by saying that the reason the country hired him was to fix whatever problems that he inherited rather than blame. Anybody can give an excuse as to why something didn’t get accomplished. In my business, I show people like that the door. I want people in my organization who can work with the hand that they were dealt and make something out of it, instead of wining about their luck of the draw. If I were Ryan I would have made that my main focus on any economic debate. Also he could have been better at pointing out the opportunity costs of Biden’s bleeding heart policies, but here again he didn’t do as well as I think he could have. Maybe he’ll learn from this now that he knows what he’s up against. In the meantime however, he shouldn’t have to worry to much about the substance of a debate as long as Biden continues his disrespectful manner in future debates.

  2. John DiMascio

    Thanks for your remarks Tom. With respect to the “Catholic” remark, is was accurate and fair. That’s not a matter of opinion. Catholicism is not a cafeteria. When you dissent from an De Fide teaching of the Church (and that includes the application thereof), one is no longer a “practicing” the faith because one is no longer in full communion with the Church. Catholicism is not pick and choose religion when it comes to De Fide articles of faith. You can’t be 99% practicing Catholic, just like you can’t be 99% pregnant. It’s a binary proposition. You either are your not.

  3. Tom Viveiros

    John, I’ll defer to your position on Catholicism as you are obviously deeply involved in your faith and deeply knowledgeable in your faith as well. Eight years of parochial school, several years of seeking the “truth” as I immersed myself into the bible, several concordances, lexicons, etc. and sought out the guidance of other religions including my own, I’ve come to a different conclusion.

    While I wouldn’t attempt to disagree with your assessment of Catholicism and therefore concede to your stated view, with such being the case it unfortunately creates a conflict of interest between Catholicism and secular politics. In this case they prove to be mutually exclusive and therefore one can not claim to be both an American politician who serves the interests of people of all religions and a “practicing” catholic, carrying out their political agenda based on the views of a single religion. So I guess from that point of view the candidate is left with two options. Either he runs for office and accepts the notion that he can’t be both, or he simply does not run for office at all.

    I should note however that I agree with you wholeheartedly that a true catholic or anyone true to their religious beliefs should not pick and choose which dogma he/she wishes to adhere. What would the point be of having a religion if you could pick and choose only the things to practice that you agreed with. It does place a “practicing” catholic in an awkward position which is to say they must choose between being a “practicing catholic” or a politician that represents people from all religions including people who don’t believe in any religion at all or atheists, etc.

Leave a Comment