I'll tell you, the first thing we all noticed was the intense disrespect and condescention radiating from Joe Biden like a melted-down nuclear reactor. And speaking of nuclear reactors, a lot of it was during serioius discussion of Libya, Syria, and Iran.
A younger member in our group was watching her college friends comments on twitter, etc ... and they were ... serioiusly ... along the lines of, "How can I take Ryan seriously if Biden can't take him seriously?"
To which my response would've been ... "That presumes you take Joe Biden seriously. Why?" To which I imagine their answer would be "nobody's lauging at him". But I'm certain Lindsay's friends' reaction was exactly what he was going for. It's one of Alinski's rules for radicals. Ridicule. But this was the weakest form of ridicule. Simply laughing and sneering while your opponent talks. If that wins arguments, we're in deep trouble.
Sometimes I truly weep for my country. If it weren't for young ladies like Lindsay, I might have to throw in the towel.
Well nobody was laughing at Joe because none of this was any laughing matter.
Some are complaining that Ryan was too deferential. Maybe he was. But I can't complain. I think Romney won by being the obvious adult in the room, and I liked that strategy. And some before the debate were concerned that if Ryan were too aggressive it'd look like a young bully beating up on an old man.
Instead it looked like a rude old coot who thinks way too much of himself interrupting people every 30 seconds and talking over them.
Which is precisely why I don't watch cable news channels for my news. It's never a debate. It's who can keep the other guy from saying what he came to say most effectively.
But what it did do was what the Dems needed it to do, and that was to amp up their base. Most of their base really does think that the loudest person wins ... which is why they're typically the loudest people in an argument. "I stopped you from saying what you were trying to say, therefore I win the argument." The strategy last night was not to change minds, but to increase voter turnout for their side. They may have succeeded. Some. Hopefully not enough.
I'm hoping Biden gets some serious fact-checking done on some of his claims, especially on Libya. And Afghanistan. And the Catholic Church ... which he feels is "on board" with their program.
A couple of key points that got lost behind Joe's bluster ...
- Failing to raise taxes as much as the previous administration would have is not a tax "cut"
- If the Catholic Church is happy with the health care plan situation, why does it keep suing the Obama Administration over it?
In the end, here is the overriding difference in what the two sides are offering:
Dems: "help" the unemployed by taking more money from the people who create jobs and either outright giving it to them, or giving it to companies and industrys it favors to "create" jobs which would not exist without the subsidies -- meaning the government gets to "pick" favorites -- a big step toward central planning. Go pick up any book by Hayek or Sowell for why this is not a good idea.
Republicans: leave money in the hands of those who create jobs so that they can create competitive jobs based upon what the market wants, creating more taxable income and less "need" to redistribute in the first place -- lessening the strain on entitlements, growing the economy, keeping us competetive in the world.
Dems: Alienate our friends, kiss up to our enemies, leaving us with less respect from both.
Republicans: Stand up for our principles, do our enemies no favors, and support our friends.
Dems: Make the Constitution as irrelevant as they already think it is.
Republicans: Well ... they're better, but they need their feet held to the fire all the same. They try too hard to get Democrats to like them rather than change their hearts and minds.