Aa
GOP tries to portray Biden as governing liability
http://news.yahoo.com/gop-tries-portray-biden-governing-liability-121911707--election.html
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Republicans have a new rhetorical punching bag: Vice President Joe Biden.
With relentless attacks aimed at portraying President Barack Obama's running mate as a governing liability, Republicans hope to raise the stature of GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, who will debate Biden next month, and score points in closely contested states such as Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire.
"Paul's a close friend, a great family man, and he's got a reformer's heart," Ohio Sen. Rob Portman said at last week's Republican convention in Tampa, Fla. "Contrast this to Joe Biden. Vice President Biden has told people out of work to 'just hang in there' — so much for 'hope and change.'"
As Democrats prepare for their convention in Charlotte, N.C., the GOP is casting the 69-year-old former Delaware senator as a gaffe-prone crazy uncle who's hung around the political scene too long. The strategy tries to undermine the Obama campaign's chief surrogate and liaison to white, working-class voters and seniors, influential groups courted aggressively by both parties. At the same time, Republicans hopes that sullying Biden's image will help confirm Ryan, the 42-year-old Wisconsin congressman, as a deep thinker destined to take on many of the nation's most pressing challenges.
In an opinion piece published this past week by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson noted that Biden had said the economy felt like "a depression" and he accused the vice president of straying from "the Obama campaign talking points."
At the GOP convention, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who joined Obama, Biden and House Speaker John Boehner for a round of golf last year, recalled Biden telling him he was a "good golfer. And I played golf with Joe Biden, and I can tell you that is not true, as well as all of other things that he says."
Even unscripted moments have included knocks at Biden.
Actor Clint Eastwood's convention monologue, beside an empty chair, included a swipe at Biden.
"You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as bad as Biden," Eastwood cracked in his made-up conversation with Obama. "Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic Party. Kind of a grin with a body behind it."
Biden himself has given as good as he gets.
He often is the loudest voice in the campaign's criticism against the Republican presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Biden led the charge against Romney in a series of speeches in battleground states last spring. He routinely bashes Romney and Ryan's assertions of promoting a "bold" plan on taxes and the Medicare.
"There is nothing gutsy about giving another trillion dollars in tax cuts to millionaires. There is nothing bold about turning Medicare into a voucher system," Biden said in Lordstown, Ohio, on Friday.
Another favorite topic of Biden's has been the administration's rescue of General Motors and Chrysler. Turning to Lordstown's sprawling GM plant, which has rebounded with the production of the compact Chevy Cruze, Biden took Ryan to task for blaming Obama for the closing of his hometown Janesville, Wis., GM plant, and he highlighted Romney's opposition to a taxpayer rescue of the U.S. car companies. The Janesville plant closed in 2008, before Obama was sworn into office.
"What they didn't acknowledge is Gov. Romney's position was 'Let Detroit go bankrupt,'" Biden said, referring to the headline on a Romney opinion piece in The New York Times in November 2008.
Democrats say the extra attention serves notice of Biden's abilities as a campaigner, along with his penchant for forming bonds with blue-collar workers through stories about growing up in hardscrabble Scranton, Pa.
He can move an audience with stories about watching his proud yet unemployed father forced to move to Delaware to find work or the death of his first wife and daughter in a car accident shortly after he was elected to the Senate in 1972. Such personal stories make a direct connection with union workers in Ohio or grandmothers in Florida.
"It's an attempt to undermine what they believe is a potent political weapon in the Obama campaign's arsenal," said Democratic strategist Mike Feldman, a former aide to Vice President Al Gore. "If they were ignoring him that would tell you that they're not that concerned."
Of course, Biden can be prone to commit an unforced error from the podium, handing Republicans an opening.
Most recently, Biden told a Virginia crowd that included hundreds of African-Americans that Romney's plans for Wall Street would put them "back in chains."
In May, Biden said on a Sunday talk show that he was "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex married couples having the same rights as heterosexual married couples. That essentially forced Obama to move forward with his support of same-sex marriage. Biden later apologized to the president for going off-script.
Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who managed GOP nominee John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, said Biden was a "formidable politician" and an "effective campaigner" who could garner support among voters prized by both campaigns, including blue-collar workers and Catholics in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Schmidt warned that the hits on Biden actually could have an unintended consequence heading into to the vice presidential debate set for Oct. 11 in Danville, Ky.
"When you ridicule someone, you're lowering expectations to a point that makes it a lot harder for Paul Ryan to score points," Schmidt said. "There's a downside in that."
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) — Republicans have a new rhetorical punching bag: Vice President Joe Biden.
With relentless attacks aimed at portraying President Barack Obama's running mate as a governing liability, Republicans hope to raise the stature of GOP vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, who will debate Biden next month, and score points in closely contested states such as Ohio, Florida and New Hampshire.
"Paul's a close friend, a great family man, and he's got a reformer's heart," Ohio Sen. Rob Portman said at last week's Republican convention in Tampa, Fla. "Contrast this to Joe Biden. Vice President Biden has told people out of work to 'just hang in there' — so much for 'hope and change.'"
As Democrats prepare for their convention in Charlotte, N.C., the GOP is casting the 69-year-old former Delaware senator as a gaffe-prone crazy uncle who's hung around the political scene too long. The strategy tries to undermine the Obama campaign's chief surrogate and liaison to white, working-class voters and seniors, influential groups courted aggressively by both parties. At the same time, Republicans hopes that sullying Biden's image will help confirm Ryan, the 42-year-old Wisconsin congressman, as a deep thinker destined to take on many of the nation's most pressing challenges.
In an opinion piece published this past week by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson noted that Biden had said the economy felt like "a depression" and he accused the vice president of straying from "the Obama campaign talking points."
At the GOP convention, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who joined Obama, Biden and House Speaker John Boehner for a round of golf last year, recalled Biden telling him he was a "good golfer. And I played golf with Joe Biden, and I can tell you that is not true, as well as all of other things that he says."
Even unscripted moments have included knocks at Biden.
Actor Clint Eastwood's convention monologue, beside an empty chair, included a swipe at Biden.
"You're crazy, you're absolutely crazy. You're getting as bad as Biden," Eastwood cracked in his made-up conversation with Obama. "Of course we all know Biden is the intellect of the Democratic Party. Kind of a grin with a body behind it."
Biden himself has given as good as he gets.
He often is the loudest voice in the campaign's criticism against the Republican presidential nominee, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Biden led the charge against Romney in a series of speeches in battleground states last spring. He routinely bashes Romney and Ryan's assertions of promoting a "bold" plan on taxes and the Medicare.
"There is nothing gutsy about giving another trillion dollars in tax cuts to millionaires. There is nothing bold about turning Medicare into a voucher system," Biden said in Lordstown, Ohio, on Friday.
Another favorite topic of Biden's has been the administration's rescue of General Motors and Chrysler. Turning to Lordstown's sprawling GM plant, which has rebounded with the production of the compact Chevy Cruze, Biden took Ryan to task for blaming Obama for the closing of his hometown Janesville, Wis., GM plant, and he highlighted Romney's opposition to a taxpayer rescue of the U.S. car companies. The Janesville plant closed in 2008, before Obama was sworn into office.
"What they didn't acknowledge is Gov. Romney's position was 'Let Detroit go bankrupt,'" Biden said, referring to the headline on a Romney opinion piece in The New York Times in November 2008.
Democrats say the extra attention serves notice of Biden's abilities as a campaigner, along with his penchant for forming bonds with blue-collar workers through stories about growing up in hardscrabble Scranton, Pa.
He can move an audience with stories about watching his proud yet unemployed father forced to move to Delaware to find work or the death of his first wife and daughter in a car accident shortly after he was elected to the Senate in 1972. Such personal stories make a direct connection with union workers in Ohio or grandmothers in Florida.
"It's an attempt to undermine what they believe is a potent political weapon in the Obama campaign's arsenal," said Democratic strategist Mike Feldman, a former aide to Vice President Al Gore. "If they were ignoring him that would tell you that they're not that concerned."
Of course, Biden can be prone to commit an unforced error from the podium, handing Republicans an opening.
Most recently, Biden told a Virginia crowd that included hundreds of African-Americans that Romney's plans for Wall Street would put them "back in chains."
In May, Biden said on a Sunday talk show that he was "absolutely comfortable" with same-sex married couples having the same rights as heterosexual married couples. That essentially forced Obama to move forward with his support of same-sex marriage. Biden later apologized to the president for going off-script.
Republican strategist Steve Schmidt, who managed GOP nominee John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign, said Biden was a "formidable politician" and an "effective campaigner" who could garner support among voters prized by both campaigns, including blue-collar workers and Catholics in states such as Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Schmidt warned that the hits on Biden actually could have an unintended consequence heading into to the vice presidential debate set for Oct. 11 in Danville, Ky.
"When you ridicule someone, you're lowering expectations to a point that makes it a lot harder for Paul Ryan to score points," Schmidt said. "There's a downside in that."
Biden is to Obama and Quayle was to Bush.
Irrelevant and a distinct liability. I know that President Obama feels & has loyalty to Biden, but I think he would have been better of dropping him and going with someone a little more relevant.
Irrelevant and a distinct liability. I know that President Obama feels & has loyalty to Biden, but I think he would have been better of dropping him and going with someone a little more relevant.
Why is it so radical to believe that life/creation begins at conception?
Probably if I wasn't the religion that I am (and Ryan is as well), I'd maybe see him as more extreme than I do. I'll concede that.
I get the anti-abortion crowd too. I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about imbuing person-hood status to zygotes - one celled zygotes!
And I think that is radical. It leads to insane consequences because zygotes simply aren't people. To imbue them with the rights of people is crazy.
And I think that is radical. It leads to insane consequences because zygotes simply aren't people. To imbue them with the rights of people is crazy.
Abortion is one of those issues that people go by what is in their heart. I know my idea of what was and wasn't a baby changed dramatically once I became pregnant. I'd be hard pressed now to not believe that those growing cells (be it one or more) are a baby.
Respect for all on any side of an issue is important. We can talk science to dissuade someone from their heart felt belief but it never really works. Thanks for all that other food for thought to make the idea that those early cells are future babies seem silly. But I still can't get past what I felt when carrying my children.
And while it seems to bother people a great deal---- a lot of folks do believe as Ryan does.
Ps: I'm still pro choice overall . . . don't get me wrong. But I 'get' the anti abortion crowd.
"Radical" is certainly an appropriate adjective to describe Ryan's position. This guys goes way beyond anti-abortion. He wants to afford full human rights and person-hood status to one cell zygotes.
That is insanely radical. A zygote is a person????????????
Animals
In animal development, the term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula.[2]
In mammalian reproduction, after fertilization has taken place the zygote travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form more cells[3] without the zygote actually increasing in size. This cell division is mitotic, and is known as cleavage.[4] All mammals go through the zygote stage of life. Mammalian zygotes eventually develop into a blastocyst, after which they are more generally termed an embryo, and then a fetus.
A human zygote exists for about four days, and becomes a blastocyst on the fifth day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
Should Zygotes be Considered People?
Posted by Mike LaBossiere on November 18, 2011
In the United States certain Republicans have been proposing legislation that would define a zygote as a legal person. The most recent instance occurred in Mississippi when voters were given the chance to approve or reject the following: “the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” The voters rejected this, but there are other similar attempts planned or actually in the works. There are, as far as I know, no serious attempts to push person hood back before fertilization (that is, to establish eggs and sperm as being persons).
Since this is a matter of law, whether or not a zygote is a legal person or not depends on whether such a law is passed and then passes legal muster. Given that corporations are legally persons, it does not seem all that odd to have zygotes as legal people. Or whales. Or forests. There is, after all, no requirement that legal personhood be established by considered philosophical argumentation.
From a philosophical perspective, I would be inclined to stick with what seems to be the general view: zygotes are not persons. I do accept the obvious: a zygote is alive (as is an amoeba or any cell in my body), a zygote has full human DNA (as does almost any cell in my body), and a zygote has the potential to be an important part of a causal chain that leads to a human being (as does any cell in my body that could be used in cloning). However, these qualities of a zygote do not seem to be sufficient to establish it as a person. After all, the relevant qualities of the zygote seem to be duplicated by some of the cells in our bodies and it would be absurd to regard each of us as a collective of persons.
But, as I noted, the legal matter is quite distinct from the philosophical-after all, zygotes (or anything) could become legal persons with the appropriate legislation. This leads to a point well worth considering, namely the consequences of such a law.
The most obvious would be that abortion and certain forms of birth control (such as IUDs and the “morning after” pill) would certainly seem to be legally murder. After all, they would involve the intentional (and possibly pre-meditated) murder of a legal person. This is, of course, one of the main intended consequences of such attempts. However, there would seem to be other consequences as well.
One rather odd consequence would be in regards to occupancy laws and regulations. These tend to be set by the number of persons present and unless laws are written to allow exemptions for zygotes, etc. then this would be a point of legal concern. This seems absurd, which is, of course, the point.
Another potential consequence is the matter of deductions for dependents. If a zygote is a person, then a frozen zygote is still a person and presumably the child of the parent(s). This would, unless specific laws are written to prevent this, seem to allow people to claim frozen zygotes as dependent children and thus take a tax deduction for each one. While the cost of creating and freezing zygotes would be a factor, the tax deductions would seem to be well worth it. Perhaps this is the secret agenda behind such legislation: people could avoid taxes by having enough zygotes in the freezer.
Of course a “zygotes are people” law might also entail that it would be illegal to freeze zygotes on the grounds that they would be confined or imprisoned without consent or due process. Naturally, laws would need to be written for this and they would also need to be worded so as to avoid making “imprisoning” a zygote in the womb a crime. There is also the matter of in vitro fertilization and whether or not certain processes would thus be outlawed by the “zygotes are people” law. After all, some of the zygotes created do not survive. If these zygotes are people, IVF could be regarded as involving, if not murder, at least some sort homicide or zygoteslaughter. Of course, outlawing such practices seems to be one of the intended consequences of these proposed laws.
Another point of concern is the matter of death certificates. After all, the death of a person requires a certificate and the usual legal proceedings. If a zygote were to be a legal person, then it would seem to follow that if a zygote died, then the death would need to be properly recorded and perhaps investigated to determine if a crime were committed. Naturally, specific laws could be written regarding various circumstances (for example, should women have to report every zygote that fails to implant-thus resulting in the death of a person). Perhaps the state would need to set up womb cameras or some other detector to monitor the creation of these new people so as to ensure that no death of a person goes unreported.
One rather interesting consequence is that such a law might set the precedent that any cell that could be cloned would count as a person (after all, as argued above, it would seem to share the relevant qualities of a zygote and the law in question mentioned cloning or any functional equivalent). This would have some rather bizarre consequences.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3579
That is insanely radical. A zygote is a person????????????
Animals
In animal development, the term zygote is also used more loosely to refer to the group of cells formed by the first few cell divisions, although this is properly referred to as a morula.[2]
In mammalian reproduction, after fertilization has taken place the zygote travels down the fallopian tube, while dividing to form more cells[3] without the zygote actually increasing in size. This cell division is mitotic, and is known as cleavage.[4] All mammals go through the zygote stage of life. Mammalian zygotes eventually develop into a blastocyst, after which they are more generally termed an embryo, and then a fetus.
A human zygote exists for about four days, and becomes a blastocyst on the fifth day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
Should Zygotes be Considered People?
Posted by Mike LaBossiere on November 18, 2011
In the United States certain Republicans have been proposing legislation that would define a zygote as a legal person. The most recent instance occurred in Mississippi when voters were given the chance to approve or reject the following: “the term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning, or the functional equivalent thereof.” The voters rejected this, but there are other similar attempts planned or actually in the works. There are, as far as I know, no serious attempts to push person hood back before fertilization (that is, to establish eggs and sperm as being persons).
Since this is a matter of law, whether or not a zygote is a legal person or not depends on whether such a law is passed and then passes legal muster. Given that corporations are legally persons, it does not seem all that odd to have zygotes as legal people. Or whales. Or forests. There is, after all, no requirement that legal personhood be established by considered philosophical argumentation.
From a philosophical perspective, I would be inclined to stick with what seems to be the general view: zygotes are not persons. I do accept the obvious: a zygote is alive (as is an amoeba or any cell in my body), a zygote has full human DNA (as does almost any cell in my body), and a zygote has the potential to be an important part of a causal chain that leads to a human being (as does any cell in my body that could be used in cloning). However, these qualities of a zygote do not seem to be sufficient to establish it as a person. After all, the relevant qualities of the zygote seem to be duplicated by some of the cells in our bodies and it would be absurd to regard each of us as a collective of persons.
But, as I noted, the legal matter is quite distinct from the philosophical-after all, zygotes (or anything) could become legal persons with the appropriate legislation. This leads to a point well worth considering, namely the consequences of such a law.
The most obvious would be that abortion and certain forms of birth control (such as IUDs and the “morning after” pill) would certainly seem to be legally murder. After all, they would involve the intentional (and possibly pre-meditated) murder of a legal person. This is, of course, one of the main intended consequences of such attempts. However, there would seem to be other consequences as well.
One rather odd consequence would be in regards to occupancy laws and regulations. These tend to be set by the number of persons present and unless laws are written to allow exemptions for zygotes, etc. then this would be a point of legal concern. This seems absurd, which is, of course, the point.
Another potential consequence is the matter of deductions for dependents. If a zygote is a person, then a frozen zygote is still a person and presumably the child of the parent(s). This would, unless specific laws are written to prevent this, seem to allow people to claim frozen zygotes as dependent children and thus take a tax deduction for each one. While the cost of creating and freezing zygotes would be a factor, the tax deductions would seem to be well worth it. Perhaps this is the secret agenda behind such legislation: people could avoid taxes by having enough zygotes in the freezer.
Of course a “zygotes are people” law might also entail that it would be illegal to freeze zygotes on the grounds that they would be confined or imprisoned without consent or due process. Naturally, laws would need to be written for this and they would also need to be worded so as to avoid making “imprisoning” a zygote in the womb a crime. There is also the matter of in vitro fertilization and whether or not certain processes would thus be outlawed by the “zygotes are people” law. After all, some of the zygotes created do not survive. If these zygotes are people, IVF could be regarded as involving, if not murder, at least some sort homicide or zygoteslaughter. Of course, outlawing such practices seems to be one of the intended consequences of these proposed laws.
Another point of concern is the matter of death certificates. After all, the death of a person requires a certificate and the usual legal proceedings. If a zygote were to be a legal person, then it would seem to follow that if a zygote died, then the death would need to be properly recorded and perhaps investigated to determine if a crime were committed. Naturally, specific laws could be written regarding various circumstances (for example, should women have to report every zygote that fails to implant-thus resulting in the death of a person). Perhaps the state would need to set up womb cameras or some other detector to monitor the creation of these new people so as to ensure that no death of a person goes unreported.
One rather interesting consequence is that such a law might set the precedent that any cell that could be cloned would count as a person (after all, as argued above, it would seem to share the relevant qualities of a zygote and the law in question mentioned cloning or any functional equivalent). This would have some rather bizarre consequences.
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=3579
It could go that way, and I think you'd agree that that label is completely ridiculous. Most issues just aren't black and white, but we do spend a lot of time making things seem that way.
I'm not sure of a way around that. Take the old saying, "you're either with us or against us". That simply isn't true.... some feel a lot stronger about some issues than others, but you cannot classify that person. As with you and abortion, it's just not "your" issue. There are things that are more important to you and you are weighing through those things to find a political hopeful.
You either will or will not find a person with whom you agree on the majority of the issues.....
I just think it's too much or going too far to label someone 'anti-women' because of their stance on abortion. From there, it gets dragged down the dusty road of being a "women's health" issue (which it is or can be) but idealistically, the man has a strong stance on abortion alone... not overall women's health.
Muddying the waters.... anything to keep the masses guessing.
I'm not sure of a way around that. Take the old saying, "you're either with us or against us". That simply isn't true.... some feel a lot stronger about some issues than others, but you cannot classify that person. As with you and abortion, it's just not "your" issue. There are things that are more important to you and you are weighing through those things to find a political hopeful.
You either will or will not find a person with whom you agree on the majority of the issues.....
I just think it's too much or going too far to label someone 'anti-women' because of their stance on abortion. From there, it gets dragged down the dusty road of being a "women's health" issue (which it is or can be) but idealistically, the man has a strong stance on abortion alone... not overall women's health.
Muddying the waters.... anything to keep the masses guessing.
Maybe "radical" is not the proper terminology!!??
I agree. There are a lot of people that Ryan's conservative beliefs appeal to and they are regular citizens like the rest of us. They just don't believe abortion is right or should be legal. That's not radical or new news in my opinion.
Lots of people ---- and I mean a LOT of people---- feel abortion should not be legal. That isn't anti woman in my opinion as a lot of women beleive this way as well and feel they are protecting unborn children (males and females).
Abortion isn't my issue----- but is something that certainly garners a lot of strong emotions either way. It is just as bad to someone that is anti abortion to have a candidate that is pro choice as it is for pro choice people to accept a candidate who is anti abortion.
We could call pro choice people anti baby people I guess.
Lots of people ---- and I mean a LOT of people---- feel abortion should not be legal. That isn't anti woman in my opinion as a lot of women beleive this way as well and feel they are protecting unborn children (males and females).
Abortion isn't my issue----- but is something that certainly garners a lot of strong emotions either way. It is just as bad to someone that is anti abortion to have a candidate that is pro choice as it is for pro choice people to accept a candidate who is anti abortion.
We could call pro choice people anti baby people I guess.
I believe that I am right in the middle, but I am doing all I can to get over the labeling thing. Ryan's stand on abortion is nothing that I'd ever buy into, so does that make him the radical or does that make me the radical? I'd guess that most folks that agree that abortions should be legal feel far less radical than those in opposition.
(I'm no fan for Ryan, by the way.... not even close. I just don't see him as radical.) If he were to say that anyone who considers an abortion should be put to death??? Yeah, that would be radical.
Another label being thrown about a lot these days is "anti-women". In a stretch, I can almost get how Ryan's stand on abortion could be seen as detrimental to women's health. But, the guy is married to a woman. Obviously he cares about his wife's health. He is just plain and simple, anti-abortion, not "anti-woman". Calling him "anti-woman" is a bit radical.
I don't know.... Whatever happens in this election, I don't think we will see a bunch of change either direction. I think the system is set to be stuck where we find ourselves these days....
(I'm no fan for Ryan, by the way.... not even close. I just don't see him as radical.) If he were to say that anyone who considers an abortion should be put to death??? Yeah, that would be radical.
Another label being thrown about a lot these days is "anti-women". In a stretch, I can almost get how Ryan's stand on abortion could be seen as detrimental to women's health. But, the guy is married to a woman. Obviously he cares about his wife's health. He is just plain and simple, anti-abortion, not "anti-woman". Calling him "anti-woman" is a bit radical.
I don't know.... Whatever happens in this election, I don't think we will see a bunch of change either direction. I think the system is set to be stuck where we find ourselves these days....
I stand pretty much in the middle, which may be why I tend to see Ryan as more radical than, possibly, others will see him; my opinion is based, a lot on social issues, particularly, his stance on abortion.
There are a lot of people who like him.
There are a lot of people who like him.
I don't know if I see Ryan as a radical. Ultra-conservative perhaps, but radical? His beliefs aren't much of a swing for most conservatives and I think they would have to be to be classified as a radical. Mildly conservative republicans will have no problem voting for Ryan in most cases. He'd have to be far more radical to scare some of those standing in the middle.
I used to get a kick out of everyone calling Palin a "radical" before they starting calling her a "dip-$hit". The only thing radical about Palin was her swing from the liberal situation we were in, the one being proposed, and to where she wanted to take things. (No doubt she cost McCain a lot of votes.)
I used to get a kick out of everyone calling Palin a "radical" before they starting calling her a "dip-$hit". The only thing radical about Palin was her swing from the liberal situation we were in, the one being proposed, and to where she wanted to take things. (No doubt she cost McCain a lot of votes.)
I agree that Ryan is "radical", but I'm beginning to realize that seems to be what a lot of people are looking for. Kinda scary.
LOL, You may get your wish, I read that Ron Paul is thinking of running on a third ticket. Yikes!
No doubt about it that Biden does open mouth and insert foot alot. I see him as much more harmless than the rep running mate tho.
As for Romney, I think he is just a path to get who they really want and that is Ryan.
There is always a chance that a VP could end up being president and I feel like this is what cost McCain the presidency.
Personally if I have to choose, its Biden over Ryan. Surprise!!!
Ryan is radical and dangerous imo
No doubt about it that Biden does open mouth and insert foot alot. I see him as much more harmless than the rep running mate tho.
As for Romney, I think he is just a path to get who they really want and that is Ryan.
There is always a chance that a VP could end up being president and I feel like this is what cost McCain the presidency.
Personally if I have to choose, its Biden over Ryan. Surprise!!!
Ryan is radical and dangerous imo
I'm with R Glass on this. I see Biden as a Quayle. He just doesn't come off as too bright and has the ability to jam a foot in his yapper.
There was an analogy of Biden in something I read not too long ago that kind of made me laugh. They likened him to that one uncle that most of us has that gets drunk at family get togethers and eventually ends up offending everyone in the room, just by talking.
When it comes to Ryan.... sheesh. I am having a hard time even getting through Romney to get a good look at Ryan.
I think I am looking for an "option C" by the time Novemeber comes around.
There was an analogy of Biden in something I read not too long ago that kind of made me laugh. They likened him to that one uncle that most of us has that gets drunk at family get togethers and eventually ends up offending everyone in the room, just by talking.
When it comes to Ryan.... sheesh. I am having a hard time even getting through Romney to get a good look at Ryan.
I think I am looking for an "option C" by the time Novemeber comes around.
No VP is harmless, because there's always the chance that they could become President.
From what I've read, Biden has been called to task more than one because of his diarrhea of the mouth.
Personally, I think both of the VP candidates leave a lot to be desired. I'm not thrilled with the Presidential candidates and even less so, with the running mates.
From what I've read, Biden has been called to task more than one because of his diarrhea of the mouth.
Personally, I think both of the VP candidates leave a lot to be desired. I'm not thrilled with the Presidential candidates and even less so, with the running mates.
I sort of see Biden as silly. Not sure if I would go so far as to say liability, but I don't really see him as an asset. He's harmless, but not sure how confident I would feel with regards to him running the most powerful country in the world. Of course, I find Ryan downright terrifying, so Biden is for sure a step up imo.
All and all, I think it was a balanced article. If I had to choose which better describes Biden concerning Obama’s campaign, “a potent political weapon in the Obama campaign's arsenal," or Liability, I would have to choose Liability. I look at him like Bush’s, Dan Quayle.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
