Hello, Biden... Bye, Bye ChangeBy Betsy Newmark
High School Government and History Teacher/Blogger
So, this is what the media was in a frenzy about and had to spend the day staking out the houses of all the short-list guys? I hope that all those who signed up for the text message to be the first to know are happy about it, although it seems that the story was leaked hours before the text message could go out. But hey, now they can be text buddies with the Obama campaign so it's not a loss, at least not for the Obama people.
I guess that whole change message is tossed to the wayside.
Instead Obama picked a guy who has spent just about his whole adult life in the Senate, having only worked as a lawyer three years before he was elected in 1972 as one of the youngest guys ever to the Senate.
Obama seems to be throwing in the towel on his argument that his judgment trumps any of the experience or expertise that other candidates might have. And if the point is that Biden provides so much more knowledge because of his experience on the Foreign Relations Committee, what about this 2007 quote from Senator Obama?
First, he said, I'm on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I serve with a number of Senators who are widely regarded as leading experts on foreign policy — and I can tell you that I know as much about foreign policy at this point as most of them.
Perhaps someone could ask Senator Obama if Joe Biden was included in that sweeping bit of arrogance?
Of course, there are all the quotes that everyone has been storing up of what Biden has said previously about both McCain and Obama. Check out Jim Geraghty's handy list that includes some of these quotes that the McCain team is already putting into ads.
- Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: "The only guy on the other side who's qualified is John McCain."
- Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: "John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who..."
- Also from that Observer interview: "But — and the 'but' was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect 'a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,' and added: 'I don't recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.'"
- September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, "Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden's critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq.
Are all these statements part of that vaunted experience and wisdom that Obama is looking for in his pick?
And you can add in all his statements in 2002 about the need to go to war to take out Saddam Hussein's WMD.
- Biden on "Meet the Press" in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: "He's a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security... "We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world."
- Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: "Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power."
- Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein's WMDs: "Well, the point is, it turned out they didn't, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued."
He was against the sort of pull out from Iraq that the Democrats were pushing before the 2006 elections.
- Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: "We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake."
But then, as he was running for president, he was against the surge and was as convinced as Obama that that would be a mistake. So they both got that one wrong.
On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: "If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he's going to, into Baghdad, it'll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there's no way to say, 'Mr. President, stop.'"
And then Mickey Kaus reminds us of this prize Biden moment from 1987 when he made five boasts about his academic record. And four of them were totally, disprovably false.
He then went on to say that he "went to law school on a full academic scholarship - the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship," Mr. Biden said. He also said that he "ended up in the top half" of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. In college, Mr. Biden said in the appearance, he was "the outstanding student in the political science department" and "graduated with three degrees from college."
The moot court thing seems to check out. The other boasts - not so much. He was 76th in a class of 85.
But the real kicker is what he told the guy who seemed to be asking a rather mild question:
The tape, which was made available by C-SPAN in response to a reporter's request, showed a testy exchange in response to a question about his law school record from a man identified only as "Frank." Mr. Biden looked at his questioner and said: "I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do."
So now the Democrats have two guys who think they're smarter than other people and who like to talk a lot. They're the all arrogant, all talk ticket. Perhaps the McCain people can find that C-Span tape and run clips of the friendly Joe Biden telling some guy he meets in a campaign event that he thinks he has a much higher I.Q. That will go over big.
Joe's excuse for all the prevarications in that exchange?
'I exaggerate when I'm angry," Mr. Biden said, "but I've never gone around telling people things that aren't true about me."
Well, except for the four statements that weren't true.
Sure, McCain graduated near the bottom of his class at the Naval Academy, but at least he has never pretended otherwise.
Michael Crowley at the New Republic had this profile of Biden back in 2001. Biden was convinced that the man and the moment had arrived. He had the expertise from the Judiciary Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee that would be necessary after 9/11. He had been warning about terrorism back in the 1990s after the Oklahoma bombing. All that is good. And sure, as Crowley points out, the guy goes on and on and on when he talks, but people like him.
Then there is this one anecdote.
At the Tuesday-morning meeting with committee staffers, Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a 'How do ya like that?' look on his face.
The staffers sit in silence. Finally somebody ventures a response: "I think they'd send it back." Then another aide speaks up delicately: "The thing I would worry about is that it would almost look like a publicity stunt." Still another reminds Biden that an Iranian delegation is in Moscow that very day to discuss a $300 million arms deal with Vladimir Putin that the United States has strongly condemned. But Joe Biden is barely listening anymore. He's already moved on to something else.
Besides the ludicrousness of the idea of giving a couple of hundred million to Iran, who had never shown any inclination that they were favorably disposed to the United States, doesn't this vaunted expert on foreign policy realize that the Iranians are not Arabs and so giving them money out of the blue wouldn't do anything to make Arabs feel better about the U.S.?
With this pick, a fun and fascinating political campaign just got a whole lot more fun. The big story for the next few two and a half months will be whether or not Biden can keep from making any more fun gaffes.– Perhaps, he does have that sort of will power, but he's never demonstrated it yet.
He's also going to have to start explaining how Obama didn't have the experience to be commander in chief a year ago, but having spent a year on the campaign trail, now he's gained it. Yeah, that will be believable. And if he truly believes that going around in the campaign bubble for a year and a half prepares someone to be the president, then why should we be impressed with Biden's 35 and a half years in the Senate?
Well, at least Obama-Biden does have a sort of a nice rhythm and ring to it.
Source - http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/23/hello-biden-bye-bye-change/ (http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/08/23/hello-biden-bye-bye-change/)
hmmmm! husain and husain, ladin and biden,osama and oboma: why does it all have a middle eastern ring to it? or at least a muslim ring to it? i feel that when he dont win it will be known as a racist election. get set for more white guilt. more laws reducing equality.
the scriptures say to be sure your sin will find you out. i dont beleive such liars will be elected! if they do,we must remember what the scripture says about a double minded man, he is unstable in all his ways.
both osama and biden seem to have a mind as a serpents tongue, split! hmmmm! change, no its the same ole mess!
CHANGE
Thats exactly what we'll have... still scraping by on pennies, dimes and nickels.
Wow. From this, it sounds like you're a bit racist yourself. Who cares if someone's name has a "middle eastern ring" to it? I have a friend whose last name is Brown but she's white. Uhoh! Misleading, huh?
I guess if we elect Obama then, there'll be a whole mess of feminist rallies!
Quote from: yosemite on August 26, 2008, 06:29:58 PM
hmmmm! husain and husain, ladin and biden,osama and oboma: why does it all have a middle eastern ring to it? or at least a muslim ring to it? i feel that when he dont win it will be known as a racist election. get set for more white guilt. more laws reducing equality.
the scriptures say to be sure your sin will find you out. i dont beleive such liars will be elected! if they do,we must remember what the scripture says about a double minded man, he is unstable in all his ways.
both osama and biden seem to have a mind as a serpents tongue, split! hmmmm! change, no its the same ole mess!
Not racist. It's just that most Christians or athiests don't name their kids MUSLIM names. Not middle eastern, but it is connected to a religion. A religion that has attacked the USA. A religion that hates us and our lifestyles. A religiion that hates Christians.... they call us dogs and they call Jews monkeys.
I can understand that a person, having a religious-based name from a religion that hates everything about us, might not be trusted. He insists he's not muslim but he's wearing the name. *Shrug*
So we're going to judge him/them because some of them judge us?
From what I've heard, he changed his name TO Obama, so would it make everyone feel better if he changed it again? Maybe Smith would be a nice fit.
I'm just saying that it's very stereotypical to say that, since his last name SOUNDS like the name of a person who hates America, that he actually does hate America. Not every Muslim hates Americans and not every American hates Muslims.
Not giving my opinion, just sayine why some people don't trust him because of his name. Most people won't name their kid that name unless they're connected to that religion. *Shrug*
So his parents were/are. Does that mean he is? My dad's Baptist so that would mean that I am too.
I'm just saying don't judge someone solely on their name. Hear ALL the issues at hand before casting judgment or even future blame.
(Not entirely directed to you, of course, Sis ;) )
Quote from: apostolic_girl04 on September 17, 2008, 08:52:44 PM
So his parents were/are. Does that mean he is? My dad's Baptist so that would mean that I am too.
I'm just saying don't judge someone solely on their name. Hear ALL the issues at hand before casting judgment or even future blame.
(Not entirely directed to you, of course, Sis ;) )
Generally no, but when a person's freedom is going to depend on the person running for president, some people would rather not take chances.
All because of a name? I just think that's taking it too far.
Trust me, it's not because of a name. I wouldn't have voted Democrat, regardless who the candidate was this election cycle. Actually, in my lifetime, there hasn't been a single Democratic candidate that I have voted for.
She was saying that, because his name is Muslim, a lot of people won't vote for him or trust him...so it is because of a name.
If you don't agree with what Democrats vote toward, then that's your choice. I agree with both parties on different issues. I'm not voting for the party, but for the issues.
Barak Hussein Obama........
Quote from: apostolic_girl04 on September 18, 2008, 05:47:36 PM
She was saying that, because his name is Muslim, a lot of people won't vote for him or trust him...so it is because of a name.
If you don't agree with what Democrats vote toward, then that's your choice. I agree with both parties on different issues. I'm not voting for the party, but for the issues.
I said they might not trust him, didn't say anything about not voting for him.
Who would vote for someone they don't trust though? *shrug*
So, my last post is everything minus the vote part.
Sis,
Contrary to the daily dose of right-wing propaganda, it really is not the religion that has attacked America. The attacks themselves have always been political and military in nature: almost solely as retaliation for the U.S. government's hegemony in their home nations and/or their part of the world. That has always been what motivates them; the religion is simply used by them to further strengthen and support that already existing motivation.
Quite simply, they are angry: not at our "lifestyle", not at our "religion", not at our "freedoms", or any other such propaganda nonsense - they are angry at the U.S. government, for its political and economic interference, its arrogance, its military actions, and its overall general hegemony throughout the Middle East.
Any politician (or media source) that tries to tell you differently is lying - knowingly and deliberately.
I am not trying to excuse acts of terrorism. But unfortunately, another lie that is commonly propagated is that it is somehow wrong to merely listen to and consider the list of grievances that have been consistently (without any variation) given by these people for a good 6 decades now. However, as Christians we should already have a pretty clear understanding that in principle there is absolutely nothing at all wrong with listening to the grievances of another, and thoughtfully considering that maybe, just maybe, on some of those grievances (or perhaps even on many of them) they may just have a pretty valid point.
Hmmmmm, Bin Laden mad at us? He wasn't too mad to except our help to beat the Russians when they invaded Afghanastan... Oh, I forgot, that was before the 911 terrorist attack. We spent milllions helping Osama whip the Russians.
Lets face it --- the help that the middle east is so mad at us about is the fact that it includes the protection of Israel. Instead of the middle eastern people being mad, they should thank us for stopping Israel from descimating them years ago!
And why is it not about religion? The source of the trouble in this world comes exactly from bible prophesy ---- the Middle East.. They hate Israel and anyone who helps them.
People can say they are mad at the USA if they want, land a plane anywhere in the world (destination USA), CHARGE $1000 a ticket, and it will fill up in an hour. This did not come from me --- it came from a person of another country.
Let me add one more thing, the Left wingers are just as guilty - terriorism has been going on for over 30 years, blowing up Embassy's, ships, world trade centers e.t.c.