Ryan/Biden Debate

Well, no one can say both candidates didn’t bring it last night. Just a few notes and observations:

“No it’s not!” “No it wasn’t!” are not substantive responses.

Giggle, chuckle, snort, sigh, head shake, sneer, interrupt… is not a debate strategy. It’s just rude.

The debate was definitely more feisty than the Romney/Obama smackdown, but at the same time, it was difficult to understand Ryan’s point when Biden would interrupt him and then complain about how his opponent was getting all the speaking time (blatantly untrue, by the way).

John Lott once said Joe Biden was one of the kindest, most cordial people he knew in the legislature. He certainly wasn’t last night. When the two were discussing tax cuts and spending cuts, and Paul Ryan asserted that it is possible to cut taxes while reducing the deficit, Biden first used the old, trusted strategy of “NO IT’S NOT!” and then proceeded to launch a smarmy attack on Ryan, channelling Lloyd Bentsen.

BIDEN: How’s that?

RYAN: You can — you can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers…

BIDEN: Not mathematically possible.

RYAN: It is mathematically possible. It’s been done before. It’s precisely what we’re proposing.

BIDEN: It has never been done before.

RYAN: It’s been done a couple of times, actually.

BIDEN: It has never been done before.

RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan…

BIDEN: Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy?

Translation: I have no reply to the facts on the table, so I’ll just zing a smarmy retort and hope no one notices that Ryan was actually right. He he he

I got annoyed almost as soon as the debate began. Martha Raddatz clearly interrupted Paul Ryan more than she did the Vice President, despite the fact that Biden’s word count was 12 percent higher than Ryan’s, and a clearly angry and aggressive Biden wouldn’t let Ryan finish a thought.

And yet, through the entire debate, Ryan was poised, calm and polite, while Biden snorted, scoffed, giggled, sneered and interrupted, while snottily referring to Ryan as “my friend,” in a creepy reminder of McCain’s campaign style.

He blamed the intelligence community for the administration changing its story on Benghazi.

He contradicted the State Department and claimed the Administration wasn’t aware of requests for more security in Libya before the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S. mission in Benghazi.

And he wasn’t able to carry his own, so he attacked.

It is precisely those attacks that appear to have given Paul Ryan the victory last night.

According to CNN:

By a 50%-41% margin, debate watchers say that Ryan rather than Biden better expressed himself.

Seven in ten said Biden was seen as spending more time attacking his opponent, and that may be a contributing factor in Ryan’s 53%-43% advantage on being more likable. Ryan also had a slight advantage on being more in touch with the problems of average Americans.

Maybe Biden would have been more likable if he’d worn clown shoes.


7 responses

  1. Thank you for writing this, Nicki. You took a lot of words right out of my mouth.

    Again. ๐Ÿ™‚


    1. Great minds think alike. ๐Ÿ˜‰


  2. Biden gave detailed info on what is going on around the world. Very intelligent. Ryan talks a lot about nothing no
    details. Can we trust insurance companies to tell us how to care for us. Vouchers are a joke. Raising capital gains helps only the rich. Scared to death to have Mitt and Ryan in office.


    1. Really? Detailed info? Let’s see – he claimed he voted against sending troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. A lie. He voted yes on both issues. He claimed the administration knew nothing about the Libyan consulate needing more security – another crock of shit. The insurance companies SUPPORTED this healthcare disaster! Why? Because it mandates that everyone purchase health insurance, and gives them guaranteed customers.

      And stop vilifying the “rich.” It’s nothing but class jealousy nonsense. People who make $200,000 per year are not “rich.” Many of them are small business owners who put that money right into their businesses and help drive the economy forward. And, by the way it will do nothing to boost the economy if you raise it. But it will sure punish those “rich” of whom you’re so damn jealous!


    2. Lynn Pettit,

      I am sure you mean well by calling Mr. Biden intelligent. And honestly, I believe he’s got some smarts, for sure. But let’s think about a couple of things you said here…

      “Biden gave detailed info on what is going on around the world.”

      The detail of the night that stands out, to me, was him claiming they had NO IDEA our Libyan consulate needed security.

      He also admitted his administration’s entire application of our national security apparatus did not know an attack on the anniversary of what is said to be our nation’s worst domestic terrorist attack in history in which our AMBASSADOR and three other AMERICANS were murdered was about anything other than a poorly done film about the muslim guru.

      “Can we trust insurance companies to tell us how to care for us.”

      No. I won’t anyway. I will trust myself first, then if absolutely necessary, my doctor. That is covered in my insurance plan, which costs me over $600 per month whether I go to a doctor or not. I pay that bill because I work. It’s not cheap, but it’s cheaper than the alternative if I actually need extended care.

      “Raising capital gains only helps the rich.”

      Can you show anywhere that Mr. Romney or Mr. Ryan have said they intend to raise capital gains? Let’s start there. Chapter and verse please — source it, share it.

      In any event, I’d like to explain something to you. If you work and save your money, after you pay your taxes, you can have some left over. If you invest that leftover money in something that succeeds, you can create additional money. That is an after-tax gain applied to generate more — all built on YOUR money you saved AFTER TAXES.

      Now, I realize that you’ve never started a company, built it up, worked 16 hours a day for weeks on end, setting aside your personal life to do it and then hired people and through that process actually helped other people make a living, feed their families, get health insurance, etc. So I know this is only conceptual to you. But if you can try to go outside your personal experience and imagine that scenario, maybe you’ll understand why people who’ve already paid a good deal of taxes and worked their butts off to get to a level of success where they actually have money to work with would find your position offensive.

      Mitt Romney paid around $6,200,000 in taxes in the last two years. That is quite a sum. Quite a contribution. (Quite a lot to pay the federal government to know know a murder of our ambassador on 9/11 was a terrorist attack, too.)

      How much did you pay, in taxes, during those same two years? Just a rough estimate. If you paid more, I’d say you’re a more credible critic. But in fairness, I know you didn’t as you’d have a very different perspective on the people in the world who didn’t earn that money saying you owe even more when they paid way less or even paid nothing at all.

      In summary, it strikes me as hypocritial, this position of yours, in the two main points you made. But not knowing you or where you are really coming from, I would only hope you could somehow enlighten me further as to the cause of your beliefs. Specifically, I’d like a response to what I have said, in response to what you have said — sorta like a conversation.


  3. Lynn, this conversation isn’t going very well.

    I believe it is your turn to reply.


    1. I believe you may have skeered it off. ๐Ÿ˜†


%d bloggers like this: