The vice presidential debate: With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey

Well that was a torrent of words, wasn’t it?

The vice presidential debate took place at Centre College (Mascot: The Praying Colonel) in Danville, Kentucky (elevation 984 ft.).

Transcript.

If someone grabbed my arm like Biden & Ryan grabbed each other’s arms, it would take everything I had not to squirm and try to get away from them.

COSTCO WAS ALL OUT: Ryan: “We don’t have a status of forces agreement [in Iraq] because they failed to get one.”

Ryan came with a couple of catch-phrases he tried to insert whenever he could: “the unraveling of the Obama policy” and something about Obama saying in 2008 that if you don’t have a good record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from. Or, as the American people recognize it, every election campaign ever.

YOU JUST DON’T HEAR THE WORD MALARKEY NEARLY OFTEN ENOUGH THESE DAYS: Biden on Ryan’s claims about “devastating defence cuts” as “With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.”

Talking about Iran, both are referring to “the ayatollah.”

Ryan says the only reason there are sanctions on Iran is over the opposition of the Obama administration.

I’VE MADE A FORTUNE OFF HIM AT POKER: Biden: “And we’ve made it clear, big nations can’t bluff. This president doesn’t bluff.”

UM, THAT WAS GEORGE ROMNEY: Ryan: “He talks about Detroit. Mitt Romney’s a car guy.”

IF YOU COUNT TAXES AS CHARITY: Ryan on Romney: “This is a man who gave 30 percent of his income to charity.”

OR OUT OF YOUR ASS: Ryan: “And with respect to that quote [the 47%], I think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”

HAS HE EVER MET ANY DEMOCRATS? Ryan: “Let’s not forget that they came in with one-party control. When Barack Obama was elected, his party controlled everything. They had the ability to do everything of their choosing.”

Ryan accuses Biden of giving $90 billion in stimulus money for “green pork.” Do not eat the green pork.

Ryan brings up death panels. Biden says it’s Sarah Palin all over again. Ouch.

Martha Raddatz asks Ryan if he actually knows what tax loopholes he intends to close (by the way, when did health care and mortgage deductions become “loopholes”?). Ryan says “Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. ... We want to work with Congress - we want to work with the Congress on how best to achieve this.” I just realized for the first time that his plan is to try to make the Democrats propose which deductions they’d close to pay for the Republican tax cut. And knowing the Democrats, that’d probably work too.

I KNEW LLOYD BENTSEN... RYAN: Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan. BIDEN: Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy?

I’m not sure “mostly without incident” is how Biden should have referred to all the incidents of Afghan soldiers killing American soldiers.

Ryan explains the concept of “the fighting season” in Afghanistan: “Spring, summer, fall. It’s warm, or it’s not. They’re still fighting us.”

On Syria, Ryan keeps saying he wouldn’t have referred to Assad as a reformer. And that he wouldn’t let the UN or Putin stop us... invading Syria, I guess.

Raddatz presses Ryan on whether he’d ever support an intervention on humanitarian grounds. Ryan runs hard from the word.

Asked about their shared Catholicism, Ryan says “I don’t see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith.” Great, go run for office in a country populated entirely by devout Catholics.

Ah, Biden makes the same point: “Life begins at conception in the church’s judgment. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on equally devout Christians and Muslims and Jews, and I just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here.”

Ryan says he’s pro-life not just because of Jeebus and the pope, “it’s also because of reason and science.”

And he calls his daughter Bean because her fetus was bean-shaped.

He does know that Bean Ryan has to go to school tomorrow, right?

Ryan never seems slighter as a candidate than when he’s reciting the phrases he memorized like: “And then I would say, you have a president who ran for president four years ago promising hope and change, who has now turned his campaign into attack, blame and defame.”

Did you know Paul Ryan “passed two budgets”?

Now Ryan’s accusing Obama of refusing to show us his plan for deficit reduction. Maybe Obama just wants to “work with Congress.”

WOULDN’T IT BE NICE? Ryan: “At a time when we have a jobs crisis in America, wouldn’t it be nice to have a job-creator in the White House?”

Don't see comments? Click on the post title to view or post comments.

What, you got something better to do?

On Fox News Sunday, Paul Ryan refused to explain which tax loopholes he’d close, because it would be very time-consuming, with the time and the math and the counting on his fingers and toes.

Don't see comments? Click on the post title to view or post comments.

Zombie-Eyed Granny Hunting (or, be vewwy, vewwy quiet, I’m hunting interns)

Caption contest:

Don't see comments? Click on the post title to view or post comments.

Paul Ryan’s speech: Mitt Romney will turn his car around

AND A REACH-AROUND: “After four years of getting the run-around, America needs a turnaround, and the man for the job is Governor Mitt Romney.”

I FORGET, WHICH ONE DID BAIN SPECIALIZE IN? Mitt Romney & I know the difference between protecting a program and raiding it.


That’s it, I’ve lost the will to live.

Don't see comments? Click on the post title to view or post comments.

It’s the granny-eyed zombie-starver, or something

My observations on the announcement of Paul Ryan: There’s something deeply weird about a chant of “Mitt Mitt Mitt Mitt.”

That is all.

Don't see comments? Click on the post title to view or post comments.

I think they take their responsibilities very seriously

Obama gave a speech yesterday to the Associated Press Luncheon.

BOY, THAT GUY’LL BE KIND OF FUCKED, WILL HE? HATE TO BE THAT GUY. “Whoever he may be, the next president will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression.”

“TOO MANY,” HE SAYS, BUT HE NEVER TELLS US HOW MANY IS JUST THE RIGHT NUMBER: “Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit.”

AND LET’S FACE IT, WE DON’T MAKE ANYTHING IN THIS COUNTRY ANY MORE: “I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class”.

ALSO, TRYING TO IMPRESS CHICKS: “I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history.”

RUPERT MURDOCH? “Show me a business leader who wouldn’t profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today’s jobs require.”

THE ENTIRE ECONOMY? WHAT ABOUT THE CAR ELEVATOR BUSINESS? “What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.”

He says the “trickle down theory” has been tried and failed, and that Paul Ryan’s budget (he never mentioned Ryan by name) is “so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal.” He notes that Romney (he does invoke the Mittster’s name) called the Ryan budget “marvelous.” He calls it “a Trojan Horse” and “thinly veiled social Darwinism.” So it’s social Darwinism in a wooden horse which is wearing a veil.

OBAMA WANTS TO BE JUST LIKE REAGAN, IF ONLY THE REPUBLICANS WOULD LET HIM: “Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.” The deficit didn’t “get out of control,” Reagan and the Republicans cut taxes drastically on the rich, then pretended to be shocked at the increase in the deficit.

NOTE HOW HE ZOOMS RIGHT IN ON THE IMPORTANT THING ABOUT “SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO ENTITLEMENT”: THE EFFECT ON DEMOCRATS’ POLITICAL INTERESTS. “I’ve got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn’t get a Republican to stand up and say, we’ll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won’t give more tax cuts to people who don’t need them.”

He goes on to point out that all of his current positions are the past positions of Republicans: cap & trade, mandatory insurance, etc.


I DIDN’T LEAVE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY LEFT ME: “So as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it’s important to remember that the positions I’m taking now on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, would have been considered squarely centrist positions. What’s changed is the center of the Republican Party.” Although to be fair I don’t think they’d have liked the idea of a black president back then either.

WILLING? WE ARE TOTALLY SCREWED. “And that’s part of what this election and what this debate will need to be about, is, are we, as a country, willing to get back to common-sense, balanced, fair solutions that encourage our long-term economic growth and stabilize our budget.”

SO TOTALLY, TOTALLY SCREWED: “So I don’t anticipate the Court striking [health care reform] down. I think they take their responsibilities very seriously.”

And I know my American history

Sarah Palin’s national tour somehow took her into an interview on Fox News Sunday (oddly enough, she was in Arizona. That bus sure does get around). Note that the Fox transcript isn’t very good.

SOMEONE TAUGHT HER THE PHRASE “QUANTITATIVE EASING.” IF SOMEONE ASKED HER TO DEFINE “QUANTITATIVE EASING,” YOUTUBE WOULD EXPLODE: “And you add, too, the fact that this quantitative easing, one and two, hasn’t worked and we’re talking about Q.E. 3 already and the devalued dollar is an addition to this problem.”

SO THE UNEMPLOYMENT NUMBERS WERE “SKEWED” BY PEOPLE BEING HIRED? “The month of April was tough, too. There were jobs added to the marketplace, Chris, but remember, that was McDonald’s out there with their big push to hire 50,000-some people. So, I think there were some numbers skewed last month, too.”

THOUGH OBVIOUSLY NOT AS NOBLE AS QUITTING HALFWAY THROUGH YOUR TERM: “And it’s very noble of President Obama to want to stay at the helm and maybe go down with this sinking ship.”

CROWDING OUT? “What President Palin would do is cut the federal budget, making sure that we’re crowding out private sector investment.”

SO THE ONLY THING THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD SPEND ITS INCOME ON IS SERVICING THE DEBT? “We rake in $58 billion a day, our federal government, via payroll taxes and or other revenue sources. If we prioritize and took that $68 billion a day and service our debt, we don’t have to raise that debt ceiling.”

“If I were in Congress, though, I would be a ‘no’ vote to raising that debt ceiling. I would send that message...” By ringing those bells and sending those warning shots, just like Paul Revere. “...that it is failed leadership in the White House and with our elected officials when they have allowed to us to get this breaking point, if you will, that Moody’s is warning about.” Actually, as Chris Wallace explained to you, Sarah, what Moody’s is warning about is Congress doing what you said you would do.

She’s “very frustrated” with the “spin” that Paul Ryan is trying to eliminate Medicare. “Now, what’s going to do away with Medicare is if we keep going down the road that we’re on. But Obama evidently wants us to go down because we will have a bankrupt Medicare system.” She does not explain why Obama wants to bankrupt Medicare.

On Afghanistan, it’s all up to David Petraeus: “Now, I have great faith in Petraeus and he -- his folks with boots on the ground and on the front lines, I trust that Petraeus will know of this timeline that makes most sense for America’s interest to be met in Afghanistan.” Four invocations of Saint David. Who is retiring in September.

TO PERHAPS WANT US THERE: “Take Afghanistan, conditions certainly have changed even in this last week or two when President Karzai comes out and acts like the host nation to perhaps want us there, or NATO. NATO, as we help lead NATO, we are still concerned about civilians and making sure that civilian casualties are not part of any kind of strategy. And yet, that kind of get thrown back in our face...” Don’t you hate it when they throw our killing civilians back in our face? “...and there -- it sounds like a message being sent to America...” Possibly by ringing those bells and sending those warning shots, just like Paul Revere. “...and to NATO today by President Karzai that perhaps we’re not wanted there.” And if there’s one thing Sarah Palin hates, it’s people who go where they’re not wanted.

“Yes, those two factors, Chris, that you mention have got to be considered and revaluated. ‘A,’ the host nation ability to understand what it is that we are trying to do for them and with them in their nation; and the cost of war. Three wars that we’re going engaged in today and our country nearing bankruptcy, we have to rethink everything that we’re doing with foreign aid and with foreign intervention. We have got to make sure that it’s America’s interest first being met in each one of these nations.” So she’s complaining about Afghanistan’s “ability to understand” what we’re trying to do “for them and with them,” which she says is putting America’s interest first. What’s so difficult to understand about that, Afghanistan?

She is not on “some publicity tour,” she says in this umpteenth interview on her non-publicity tour. “I’m publicizing Americana and our foundation and how important it is that we learn about our past and our challenges and victories throughout American history, so that we can successfully proceed forward -- very heady days, rough waters ahead of us, Chris. We need to make sure that we have a strong grasp of our foundational victories so we can move forward.” Prepare to have your grasp of our foundational victories strengthened:

You know what? I didn’t mess up about Paul Revere. Here is what Paul Revere did. He warned the Americans that the British were coming, the British were coming, and they were going to try take our arms and we got to make sure that we were protecting ourselves and shoring up all of ammunitions and our firearms so that they couldn’t take it. But remember that the British had already been there, many soldiers for seven years in that area. And part of Paul Revere’s ride -- and it wasn’t just one ride -- he was a courier, he was a messenger. Part of his ride was to warn the British that we’re already there. That, hey, you’re not going to succeed. You’re not going to take American arms. You are not going to beat our own well-armed persons, individual, private militia that we have. He did warn the British. And in a shout-out, gotcha type of question that was asked of me, I answered candidly. And I know my American history.

And now, so do we all.

(The gotcha type of question in question: “What have you been doing during your visit to Boston?”)

SHE MEANT TO RUN THEM OVER WITH HER BUS: “I apologize if I stepped on any -- any of that PR that Mitt Romney needed or wanted that day. I do sincerely apologize. I didn’t mean to step on anybody’s toes.”

Obama’s deficit speech: More than just numbers on a page

Prepared text.

WHAT THIS DEBATE IS MORE ABOUT THAN JUST: “This debate over budgets and deficits is about more than just numbers on a page, more than just cutting and spending. It’s about the kind of future we want. It’s about the kind of country we believe in.”

FAITH: “From our first days as a nation, we have put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity.” Unless you count the high protective tariffs and, you know, slavery.

RUGGED: HAVING A ROCKY AND UNEVEN SURFACE. “More than citizens of any other country, we are rugged individualists, a self-reliant people with a healthy skepticism of too much government.” Actually, by definition, everyone is against too much government because it’s, you know, too much.


YOU JUST BLEW MY MIND: “But there has always been another thread running throughout our history - a belief that we are all connected”.

WHO THE TEA PARTY WOULD DENOUNCE AS A BIG-GOVERNMENT TRAITOR WHO WAS PROBABLY BORN IN KENYA RATHER THAN A LOG CABIN: “We believe, in the words of our first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln...”

BURNING ATLANTA? “...that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.”

He says we “would not be a great country” without Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and unemployment insurance.

THAT VALUES WHAT NOW? “As a country that values fairness, wealthier individuals have traditionally born a greater share of this burden than the middle class or those less fortunate.”

SPEAK FOR YOURSELF: “This is not because we begrudge those who’ve done well”.

AH, THE GOOD OLD DAYS: “But after Democrats and Republicans committed to fiscal discipline during the 1990s, we lost our way in the decade that followed.”

WHAT SOME OF YOU MIGHT BE WONDERING: “Now, before I get into how we can achieve this goal, some of you might be wondering, ‘Why is this so important? Why does this matter to me?’”


AMERICANS HATE ABSTRACT THINGS: “You see, most Americans tend to dislike government spending in the abstract, but they like the stuff it buys.”

EAGER: “politicians are often eager to feed the impression that solving the problem is just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse -that tackling the deficit issue won’t require tough choices. Or they suggest that we can somehow close our entire deficit by eliminating things like foreign aid, even though foreign aid makes up about 1% of our entire budget.” Phew, that clears up that little misconception, I’m sure.

OH, A SERIOUS PLAN: “So any serious plan to tackle our deficit will require us to put everything on the table, and take on excess spending wherever it exists in the budget.”

He goes on to criticize “one vision” – for some reason he can’t bring himself to use Paul Ryan’s name. (By the way, I think much more attention should be paid to another Wisconsin congresscritter: Rep. Reid Ribble (R). I don’t know anything about him, I just want to hear his name on the news as often as possible: Reid Ribble Reid Ribble Reid Ribble Reid Ribble.)

He says it “would lead to a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history. A 70% cut to clean energy. A 25% cut in education. A 30% cut in transportation. Cuts in college Pell Grants that will grow to more than $1,000 per year.” Have we had “clean energy” and Pell Grants for most of our history? “These are the kind of cuts that tell us we can’t afford the America we believe in.”


RYAN’S A REAL DOWNER, MAN: “And they paint a vision of our future that’s deeply pessimistic.”

He’s nicely tough on Ryan: “ It says instead of guaranteed health care, you will get a voucher. And if that voucher isn’t worth enough to buy insurance, tough luck - you’re on your own. ... This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves. Worst of all, this is a vision that says even though America can’t afford to invest in education or clean energy; even though we can’t afford to care for seniors and poor children, we can somehow afford more than $1 trillion in new tax breaks for the wealthy. ... They want to give people like me a two hundred thousand dollar tax cut that’s paid for by asking thirty three seniors to each pay six thousand dollars more in health costs? ... The fact is, their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America. ... There’s nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. There’s nothing courageous about asking for sacrifice from those who can least afford it and don’t have any clout on Capitol Hill.”

BOY, WOULDN’T YOU LIKE TO LIVE IN THE MYTHICAL AMERICA THAT HE “KNOWS?” “And this is not a vision of the America I know. The America I know is generous and compassionate”.

So he wants a “more balanced approach” and to preserve “core spending.” Oh, and to “win the future.” Phew, for a second there I thought he was going to propose losing the future.


He says he’ll find “additional savings” in the military budget. He doesn’t say what those might be.

And “to further reduce health care spending in our budget. Here, the difference with the House Republican plan could not be clearer: their plan lowers the government’s health care bills by asking seniors and poor families to pay them instead. Our approach lowers the government’s health care bills by reducing the cost of health care itself.” More generic drugs, no “erroneous payments,” incentives to doctors and hospitals to prevent injuries, and “an independent commission of doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.” DEATH PANEL! DEATH PANEL! DEATH PANEL!

He will refuse to renew again the tax cuts to the wealthy that he said he wouldn’t renew in the first place, before he renewed them.

He wants to limit itemized deductions for the wealthy.

He says his approach will cut $2 trillion in spending over 12 years, $1 trillion in interest payments (does that make sense?), and $1 trillion in tax reform (which he calls “reducing spending in the tax code,” just in case you thought he was calling for tax increases).

REALLY? ARE YOU SURE? “Of course, there will be those who disagree with my approach.”


DOES HE ACTUALLY KNOW ANY WEALTHY AMERICANS? “And I believe that most wealthy Americans would agree with me. They want to give back to the country that’s done so much for them. Washington just hasn’t asked them to.” See, and you thought they were all greedy fuckwads, when in fact they were just sitting at home (well, mansion), waiting for an engraved invitation to give back to the country that’s done so much for them, because they’re just polite that way.

HE STILL BELIEVES IN THE BI-PARTISANSHIP FAIRY: “Of course, there are those who will simply say that there’s no way we can come together and agree on a solution to this challenge. They’ll say the politics of this city are just too broken.... But I also know that we’ve come together and met big challenges before. Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill came together to blah blah blah... I believe we can and must come together again.”

HOW MANY ENDS DOES A SPECTRUM HAVE? “I don’t expect the details in any final agreement to look exactly like the approach I laid out today. I’m eager to hear other ideas from all ends of the political spectrum.”

The future is bright

My mistake, the BBC is keeping a tally of Cartoon War deaths. 44 at least so far. In Pakistan, a Christian church was burned down after yet another Hey-didja-hear-some-guy-burned-the-Koran rumor, and the military has been deployed to protect American fast-food restaurants, which is not a phrase you get to use every day.

Today Bush went to a company called Johnson Controls, Inc., after being assured that they would not try to control his johnson. I’m not proud of that joke, but it had to be said. Actually, he went to look at lithium-ion batteries being developed for hybrid cars. He hoped to buy one for the LauraBot 3000.


He began his speech: “Thanks for letting me come by to say ‘hello.’ (Laughter.)” Now, is that derisive laughter or what? He said it was

really neat to see the engineers and the scientists and the Ph.D.s all working hard to apply their God-given talents to help this country remain on the leading edge of technology.

Just had to slip God in there, didn’t you?

As is usual in these things, he brought some congresscritters, Gwen Moore, Mark Green & Paul Ryan, and thanked them for coming, adding, “We have eaten a lot of custard in the past. (Laughter.) I’m still recovering, I want you to know. (Laughter.)” That crowd will just laugh at anything, won’t they? Maybe it’s just the way he tells it. Custard. Whatever.

Later he goes on about ethanol and switch grass again. He explains the science behind this: “we’re coming up with a way to make something out of nothing.” It’s all just magic beans to him.

Or possibly magic radioactive beans, since he also advocates building lots of nuclear power plants. Hey, France is doing it! And China’s doing it! So it must be good! Says they’re completely safe, but to create an incentive to build them, the federal government will provide risk insurance for the next six. But if they’re completely safe, shouldn’t insurance cost, like, nothing? Says nuke plants are “part of our way to make sure that the future is bright”. No laughter this time. Custard, funny, glow-in-the-dark grandkids, not so much, evidently. Must be that comical k sound.


The future is so bright, the scientists told him with suppressed giggles, you’ll need to buy these special glasses. Only $500, Mr. President.

And we’re “going to work with other nations to help them build nuclear power industries,” like a nuclear Johnny Appleseed. “We want people growing in the world.”

He’s also downright visionary about other far-out technologies: “For example, roof makers will one day be able to create a solar roof that protects you from the elements and, at the same time, powers your house.” Wow, we could even call it solar... energy.