"'Well-placed conservative voice' says Paul Ryan in line to replace Boehner."

Out with the old. In with the new.

Meade says: "It's time for some hope and change."

It's back to the House for Paul Ryan.

He ran for and won his House seat.

And what else? Do you see him as the frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016?

Oh! I don't want to talk about 2016 yet. It's time for a respite from campaign talk... isn't it?

"Let me give you a quote that he said just four years ago: ‘If you don’t have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare people'..."

"... If you don’t have a record to run on, paint your opponent as someone people should run from. Make a big election about small things... That’s what Barack Obama said when he was running for president in 2008. That’s exactly what Barack Obama has become now that he is president in 2012, and we’re going to change it."

Said Paul Ryan, last night, in Daytona Beach, Florida. I think that's a bit unfair. What about Big Bird? Big Bird isn't little. It goes without saying: Big Bird is big.

Hey, remember that great old Neil Young song about Big Bird?

Blue, blue windows behind the stars, yellow moon on the rise
Big Bird flying across the sky, throwing shadows on our eyes
Leave us helpless, helpless, helpless

The chains are locked and tied across the door... put y'all back in chains....

Why Biden acted the way he did at the VP debate.

Something just came into focus for me this morning. You know that I didn't think Obama was that bad in the first debate and that I watched the debate a second time and still didn't think Obama was that bad. I heard something on the radio this morning that hit me as a revelation. It was NPR's Morning Edition, and I can't find the specific quote that jogged my thinking, but someone said the reason Obama made such a bad impression was that looking down and taking notes, he seemed as though he was agreeing with what Romney was saying.



I never thought about it that way, perhaps because, as a lawprof, I'm used to seeing people looking down and taking notes on what I'm saying and it never occurs to me that this behavior signifies that the note-takers agree with me. When I saw Obama looking down and writing, even when he nodded his head and smiled, I thought he was taking account of Romney's points for the purpose of refuting them when it was his turn to speak. I thought his casual attitude expressed confidence that he did in fact have answers to whatever it was Romney was saying.

But I'll assume most people don't read that behavior as I do. They took it to mean Obama was agreeing with Romney. If that's the basis for the opinion that Obama was terrible at the first debate, it would explain the advice worked out for Joe Biden: Whenever Paul Ryan is speaking, remember you are on camera and you need to manifest that you disagree with him. Don't allow yourself to look as though he's making some worthy points and reasonable people might agree with. Don't dutifully wait for your turn to refute those points. Show that you object constantly.

It was a ridiculous display, but I can understand how people who thought hard and tried to be analytical arrived at the notion that it was a good idea.

ADDED: Like me, Obama taught law school classes. Perhaps he shares my interpretation of the meaning of silent note-taking.

Take this patriotism test.

First, watch this ad:



Now, here's the question:

At what point did you get chills?
	Within 4 seconds -- the sight of the flag.
	At 7 seconds -- "America is an idea."
	Around 12 seconds -- "Liberty! Freedom!"
	Around 15 seconds -- "Free enterprise!"
	Around 18 seconds, when the flag faded and the boy looked worried.
	Toward the end, on seeing "Romney/Ryan."
	Never.
pollcode.com free polls

Shameful, lowly race-baiting... but who's doing it?

So somebody got a picture of the back of a man — no face, no name — in a T-shirt that says — on the back — "Put the White Back in the White House." BuzzFeed posts the photo with the information that it's a "Getty Images" photo. So we don't even get the name of the photographer. We're told "The Getty Images photo was taken at a Romney/Ryan campaign event in Lancaster, Ohio on Friday." We can't see much of the context. Who's around this guy?

Why put this picture up? Well, obviously, it gets hits for BuzzFeed, which doesn't need any more motivation than that. It does need the utter lack of ethics and decency it takes to throw something this unfair into the public debate. The BuzzFeed staffer who did this post is Andrew Kaczynski, whom we've seen before. (He was behind "Paul Ryan Gets Testy and Walks Out of Interview.") Presumably, he's doing his job of attracting links, and I'm exacerbating the dynamic by linking. But I'm doing this because I have recently criticized Romney supporters for injecting race into presidential politics.

I said it was a mistake for Rush Limbaugh and others to play that Obamaphone lady over and over. Even with no mention of race, I thought the recording was used — with deniability — to stir up racial feelings. My post — "Just How Racist Is the 'Obama Phone' Video?" — got very strong pushback from commenters. People did not want to acknowledge that race had been injected at all. I participated in the comments at first. For example:

Look, those of you who don't see the racial problem are already probably going to vote for Romney. For Romney to win, he has to influence people in the middle who are sensitive to this kind of racial ugliness. You may say my sensitivity is set to[o] high, but I'm saying that I believe the people with my level of sensitivity are much more likely to determine the outcome of the election.

But my commenters fought on, passionately, which showed, I think, how deeply they — like me —  object to racial material. The objection took different forms. I was saying don't use powerful material when it will feel racial to some people, and they were resisting seeing it as racial. Within our disagreement, there was an intense agreement: We object to racial material.

Back to that T-shirt. Who should be condemned here? There's that bald-headed, no name guy. I assume he is a Romney opponent. The reasons for that assumption are oozingly obvious. (Here, Robert Stacy McCain spells them out for you.) He deserves condemnation, whether he's for or against Romney. The photographer deserves condemnation if he has thrown this crap into the public space without giving us a name, a shot of the man's face, or even a broader shot of the people around him. We are deprived of the context we need to think about whether other people at the rally saw it, approved, laughed, shunned him, confronted him.

But Buzzfeed and all the Romney opponents who chose to link to Buzzfeed should be ashamed. They lowered themselves. They saw an opportunity go racial and they took it. Here's Caroline Bankoff at New York Magazine:

This photo of the not-so-subtle look, taken at Friday's campaign rally in Lancaster, Ohio, doesn't really require further description. 

It sure as hell does require further description! Who was that bald man? How long was that shirt-back displayed? Is this a false-flag effort to smear Romney? And why don't you care? Just go ahead and stir up racial fears and ugliness, Caroline Bankoff. Shame on you and everyone else who slavered at the opportunity to serve up this racial obscenity.

SNL does the VP debate.

Photos, quotes, and video here.

Biden, played by long-time SNL veteran Jason Sudeikis, called one of Taran Killam’s statements a ‘bunch of malarkey.’ When Ryan explained that it was an Irish expression, Sudeikis responded: ‘No, Irish is I come over there and smack that dumb look off your face.’

ADDED: This bit would have been much funnier if it had stuck with the first joke — Biden's laughing and interrupting — and upped it to higher and higher heights of absurdity. Instead, they switched over to different ideas and the energy flagged. Using Usain Bolt excited the studio audience, but from the home-viewer perspective, it was dull. Paul Ryan's water drinking was a funny enough second theme, and it was upped in stages, but should have had more of a payoff. At one point, the actor playing Biden drinks water too. Did the actor just get thirsty?

What really happened at the Biden-Ryan debate.

"On no account will a Commie ever drink water, and not without good reason."

Best answer to the question why Paul Ryan — and not Biden (or Obama or Romney) — drank water during the debate. I had 5 suggested answers in my poll:



But the commenters — both in my post here and over at the poll site — came up with some funny answers:

"Hey — you think you're the only one playing a drinking-game during that debate!?"

"Drinking water helped him keep his cool and avoid beating the shit out of that smug asshole Biden."

"Heat generated by combination of Biden's gusty pizza cheese-smelling sighs and the dazzling white-hot glare from Biden's fake chompers led to increased need for hydration."

"Possibly he had come across Enoch Powell's 'Full Bladder technique.' Powell was a British politician of fifty years ago, famous, inter alia, for being a brilliant public speaker. He always made his speeches on a full bladder, on the theory that it helped concentrate the mind."

"Actually, it was a specially devised clear liquid CHEAT SHEET full of rethuglican LIES!!!"

And thanks as well to those who said things like:

Thanks for posting this, Ann. I've long felt that Instapundit was a bit too heavy on links to relevant and/or interesting content.

Wow. That's some hard hitting insightful analysis there, Ann.

I say thanks because it's helpful to me to remember that there's a segment of the population that doesn't get fun. I assume my readers are fun-loving, but there are some people who are essentially fun deaf, and things like this are as annoying as Joe Biden guffawing while Paul Ryan is talking about nuclear war in the Middle East.

Perhaps for some people, the sorrows and travails of this world are so weighty that we ought to demand a somber demeanor at all times — not just from ourselves, but from others. I can imagine a religion that requires grim facial and verbal expression at all times and for everyone, forever. An eternal funeral. After all: People are dying, dying at the rate of one per second. Wipe that smile off your face. Permanently.

Okay. I just wanted to acknowledge that you of the Religion of Grim are out there. And now, why don't you just take it easy, and please make me a drink of grain alcohol and rainwater, and help yourself to whatever you'd like?

Joe Biden at the debate reminded me of Steve Carrell in "The Office.

Here's something I wrote yesterday under the heading "How would you have reacted to Joe Biden?"

In real life, [t]here are different reactions, depending on how much of a friendship you have and... sometimes you're in a situation where you must maintain your demeanor, despite the other guy's antagonism. For example, in a job interview or a discussion with your boss or maybe when you were a kid and your father was exerting his authority. The VP debate is also, obviously, one of those situations. Imagine if Ryan had given Biden the finger? Ryan is a young man, he had to have been thinking of the various reactions that you'd use in an ordinary social situation, even as he rejected each one and told himself that he had to keep acting as if Biden were not behaving inappropriately.

A discussion with your boss.... It's like on "The Office." The employees are continually repressing their reaction to the boss — Steve Carrel's character Michael Scott. Example:



The boss is having a grand time, and he thinks he's a great guy, and socially, it's utterly dysfunctional, because he gets no proper feedback, because he's the boss. "The Office" has been so extraordinarily popular, I think, because viewers identify so strongly with the employees. Personally, I have difficulty watching the show. I understand the humor, but the identification with the oppressed employees is so strong that it's painful, and since it's the situation of this situation comedy, the pain is chronic.

Here's another "Office" clip:



Key line: "Have you ever been to Scranton Jan?" Scranton! Scranton is Joe Biden's home town!

"My name is Joe Biden and as strange as it sounds, everything important in my life that I’ve learned here in Scranton, I’m serious.... You are the grit, the sinew and the soul of what freedom is all about, sounds corny, but you really are, you are a special group of people, this is a special place and this soul is thick with pride and loyalty."

Picture Michael Scott pestering his employees with a morale-building speech when they just want to get back to work. Back to work... in Scranton... where unemployment is 10%.

Why did Paul Ryan drink so much water?

People are asking. Did you not notice that he frequently sipped water? I never noticed Biden drinking water, and at the first debate, I never noticed Romney or Obama drinking water.

What's the best explanation?
	Ryan was nervous, and his throat dried out and needed moisturizing.
	Less experienced with debates, Ryan hasn't learned to resist the normal instinct to drink water.
	Biden, Obama, and Romney have lost normal human instincts.
	Ryan is an athlete and the athlete's body requires consistent hydration.
	The older men restrict water intake to stave off the urge to urinate.
pollcode.com free polls

Clips from the debate: the montage of Biden laughing at one serious thing after another.

I'm sure many, many people who watched the debate said — as I did — somebody needs to clip together all of Biden's laughing while Ryan was saying something that wasn't funny. The RNC got its montage — a web ad — out before the night was over:



There's the debate, watched in real time, and the effect it has on people's minds. CNN did a poll about that:

Forty-eight percent of voters who watched the vice presidential debate think that Rep. Paul Ryan won the showdown, according to a CNN/ORC International nationwide poll conducted right after Thursday night's faceoff. Forty-four percent say that Vice President Joe Biden was victorious....

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.

Post-debate, we get people reacting to the reactions. (If everyone's saying X won, that makes some people feel like being for X, the winner.) And we get the quotes from the transcript, analyzed. (See my previous post.) And, perhaps most important, we get the video clips, with each side using what's usable. As Peggy Noonan writes in her column about the debate:

Because the debate was so rich in charge and countercharge, and because it covered so much ground, both parties will be able to mine the videotape for their purposes. On the attack in Benghazi, the question that opened the debate, Mr. Biden was on the defensive and full of spin. He pivoted quickly to talking points, a move that was at once too smooth and too clumsy. He was weak on requests for added security before the consulate was overrun and the ambassador killed. "We will get to the bottom of this." Oh. Good.

I look forward to more mining of the videotape. But this first one, from the RNC, is powerful. It's obvious — didn't we all think of doing this? — but they did it quickly, gave us just what we said out loud in our living rooms somebody should do, and they did it well.

VP debate substance: "Biden contradicts State Department on Benghazi security."

Josh Rogin at Foreign Policy:

"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there," Biden said.

In fact, two security officials who worked for the State Department in Libya at the time testified Thursday that they repeatedly requested more security and two State Department officials admitted they had denied those requests.

"All of us at post were in sync that we wanted these resources," the top regional security officer in Libya over the summer, Eric Nordstrom, testified. "In those conversations, I was specifically told [by Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Charlene Lamb] ‘You cannot request an SST extension.' I determined I was told that because there would be too much political cost. We went ahead and requested it anyway."

Nordstrom was so critical of the State Department's reluctance to respond to his calls for more security that he said, "For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

"We felt great frustration that those requests were ignored or just never met," testified Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, a Utah National Guardsman who was leading a security team in Libya until August.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) released the unclassified cables containing those requests.

Was Biden ignorant of all this, was he lying at the debate, or did he mean to assert that the State Department officials were lying?

The Libya question opened the debate. Let's look at the transcript:

RADDATZ: I would like to begin with Libya. On a rather somber note, one month ago tonight, on the anniversary of 9/11, Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other brave Americans were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi. The State Department has now made clear, there were no protesters there. It was a pre-planned assault by heavily armed men. Wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, Vice President Biden?

BIDEN: What is was, it was a tragedy, Martha. It -- Chris Stevens was one of our best. We lost three other brave Americans. I can make absolutely two commitments to you and all the American people tonight. One, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. And secondly, we will get to the bottom of it, and whatever — wherever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the American public, because whatever mistakes were made will not be made again....

Biden avoids the question. On a question that he could have predicted and should have prepared for, he makes the lame move of labeling what happened "a tragedy," which really translates to: We don't want any responsibility. Something just happened. Who could have predicted? But we'll investigate and "get to the bottom" of it. If there were any mistakes — whatever mistakes — we won't make them again. I guess there's an implicit denial that there was an "intelligence failure," which is what Raddatz asked about. If his point was it was all a big surprise — who could have known?/next time we'll do better — then what explains all the talk about the video and the (nonexistent) protests, about which Obama, et al. talked as if they had information. It's not enough to say we will get to the bottom of it when you were acting — as long as you could get away with it — as if you had gotten to the bottom of it.

Biden proceeds to run out his 2 minute clock by talking generically about national security — did you know it's the President's "most important responsibility"? — and specifically — though it's beyond the scope of the question — about Iraq and Afghanistan, about the killing of bin Laden, and the President's "steady hand and clear vision."

It's Ryan's turn, and after "We mourn the loss of these four Americans who were murdered," he focuses on the video-protests story that — based on the State Department reports — we now know is completely wrong:

RYAN: When you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent the U.N. ambassador out to say that this was because of a protest and a YouTube video. It took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack.

He went to the U.N. and in his speech at the U.N. he said six times — he talked about the YouTube video.

Look, if we’re hit by terrorists we’re going to call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. Our ambassador in Paris has a Marine detachment guarding him. Shouldn’t we have a Marine detachment guarding our ambassador in Benghazi, a place where we knew that there was an Al Qaida cell with arms?

This is becoming more troubling by the day. They first blamed the YouTube video. Now they’re trying to blame the Romney-Ryan ticket for making this an issue.

He then uses some of his time to respond to the nonresponsive material Biden threw in (about Iraq and Afghanistan), but he ties it back to Libya by ending with:

RYAN: This Benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it’s indicative of a broader problem. And that is what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy, which is making the (inaudible) more chaotic us less safe.

Raddatz follows up with Ryan, prodding him with what was the Obama administration's main talking point immediately after the attack:

RADDATZ: I just want to you about right in the middle of the crisis [sic]. Governor Romney, and you’re talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness; talked about apologies from the Obama administration. Was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis?

RYAN: On that same day, the Obama administration had the exact same position. Let’s recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put out earlier in the day in Cairo. So we had the same position, but we will — it’s never too early to speak out for our values.

"Our values" seems to be one of his planned big themes, and he shifts away from that one thing Romney said to broader issues:

We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting; when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people. We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights.

And we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we’re cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak. It projects weakness. And when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us. They’re more brazen in their attacks, and are allies are less willing to…

(CROSSTALK)

BIDEN: With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.

That was Biden's first interruption (and first euphemism for "bullshit"). Raddatz rewards the interruption, presumably started to do what she said at the outset she'd do: "encourage a discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions." Better to encourage the crosstalk then to let the candidates get by plugging in prepared speeches.

RADDATZ: And why is that so?

BIDEN: Because not a single thing he said is accurate. First of all…

Not a single thing? Even the part where he accused you guys of lying about the video?

RADDATZ: Be specific.

BIDEN: I will be very specific. Number one, the — this lecture on embassy security — the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece.

No, not "so much." All you've done is accuse Ryan of hypocrisy, for budget cutting. That does not address the failure to provide more security in Libya where it was most needed.

Number two, Governor Romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. And this talk about this — this weakness. I — I don’t understand what my friend’s talking about here.

Ryan defended Romney's making the statement, and Biden responds that it wasn't a good idea. That doesn't establish that something's "inaccurate." The factual deficiency is Biden's, and Biden is trying to distract us from that by disagreeing with opinions of Ryan's and portraying those differences of opinion as lies.

BIDEN: We — this is a president who’s gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. This is a guy who’s repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating — most devastating — the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop (inaudible). Look, I — I just — I mean, these guys bet against America all the time.

Raddatz directs the conversation "back to Libya" and the issue she raised at the outset that Biden has been avoiding:

RADDATZ: What were you first told about the attack? Why — why were people talking about protests? When people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protesters. Why did that go on (inaudible)?

Great intervention by Raddatz!

BIDEN: Because that was exactly what we were told by the intelligence community. The intelligence community told us that. 

That is, he denies that the administration made up the video story. He blames the intelligence community. How did the intelligence community make up something so bizarre? Public protests that didn't take place?

BIDEN: As they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. 

But why would they make an assessment that included the report of vivid public events that didn't happen? That's unbelievable on its face. Malarkey!

BIDEN:  That’s why there’s also an investigation headed by Tom Pickering, a leading diplomat from the Reagan years, who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there are any lapses, what the lapses were, so that they will never happen again.

RADDATZ: And they wanted more security there.

Another great Raddatz intervention, this one calling attention to the very point highlighted by Foreign Policy.

BIDEN: Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view.

And that is the lie of the evening! How can that not be a lie?

BIDEN: That’s why I said we will get to the bottom of this. You know, usually when there’s a crisis, we pull together. We pull together as a nation. 

He's begging us not to look any further into the lie he just told. Don't fault us for the egregious fault we just committed.

BIDEN: But as I said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference — was holding a press conference. That’s not presidential leadership.

Please, he's begging us, look at that one thing Romney said. He criticized us, at a time when there should be no criticizing. Raddatz — really nicely! — picks up the theme of Romney's remark, which was about how the United States should not apologize:

RADDATZ: Mr. Ryan, I want to ask you about — the Romney campaign talks a lot about no apologies. He has a book called called “No Apologies.” Should the U.S. have apologized for Americans burning Korans in Afghanistan? Should the U.S. apologize for U.S. Marines urinating on Taliban corpses?

RYAN: Oh, gosh, yes. Urinating on Taliban corpses? What we should not apologize for…

RADDATZ: Burning Korans, immediately?

RYAN: What — what we should not be apologizing for are standing up for our values. 

See? "Our values" — that's a planned theme.

RYAN: What we should not be doing is saying to the Egyptian people, while Mubarak is cracking down on them, that he’s a good guy and, in the next week, say he ought to go.

What we should not be doing is rejecting claims for — for calls for more security in our barracks, in our Marine — we need Marines in Benghazi when the commander on the ground says we need more forces for security. There were requests for extra security; those requests were not honored.

Ryan should have hit Biden hard on his denial that there were requests for more security. Biden just lied, and he's already accused you of lying. 

RYAN: Look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. It was Libya, a country we knew we had Al Qaida cells there, as we know Al Qaida and its affiliates are on the rise in Northern Africa. And we did not give our ambassador in Benghazi a Marine detachment?

Of course there’s an investigation, so we can make sure that this never happens again, but when it comes to speaking up for our values, we should not apologize for those.

"Our values...." I think he's made a strategic decision to be positive, to resonate with the people's desire for optimism. He's not going to stoop to you're a liar/no, you're a liar ugliness. He'll keep calling us to a higher ground.

Here’s the problem. Look at all the various issues out there, and it’s unraveling before our eyes. The vice president talks about sanctions on Iran. They got — we’ve had four…

At that, Raddatz declares an end to the Libya segment. Ryan didn't take advantage of many openings he had. Biden provided the material Ryan could have used to crush him. He chose not to. And Biden, who was thrown horribly off balance by a very damaging opening question by the moderator, stayed on his feet to fight the next round. And boy, was he itching to fight.

UPDATE: A White House spokesman attempts to clear things up.

Live-blogging the big VP debate.

6:45 Central Time: Get ready!

7:18: "Paul Ryan's very attractive to a lot of women," opines David Gergen on the CNN pre-show. I have the DVR set to play the debate on CNN, but I'm thinking of changing because they're going to display focus group reactions on screen — colored lines — through the whole thing. I want to form my own opinion!

7:47: CNN commentators are finding a hundred different ways to say that the debate will be affected by having the candidates sitting and physically close together. Somehow, it will be harder to fight, at least in a personal way.

8:03: Game on. First question is about Libya and the absence of protests. Biden goes first, not focusing on the question asked, the massive failure of intelligence. Ryan takes notes.

8:06: Biden talks about tracking down terrorists to the "gates of Hell," as Ryan smiles. Ryan immediately attacks the President for blaming the YouTube video. We should have had a Marine detachment protecting Chris Stevens. We've been "projecting weakness abroad." We're witnessing "the unraveling of Obama foreign policy."

8:09: Biden is being rude, laughing and mouthing words.  And Ryan is talking about serious national security matters. Biden mutters an interruption. When Biden is given a turn, he calls what Ryan said "malarky." Biden stutters and falters and has to say "uh" about 5 times before he can come up with the word "Iran."

8:12: "We weren't told they wanted more security," Biden says, and now it's Ryan who laughs — a little scoff.

8:13: Should the U.S. apologize? Ryan says "yes" re urinating on Korans — which the moderator (Raddatz) mentioned — but not "for standing up for our values."

8:15: Ryan is speaking earnestly about preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, and Biden is chuckling toothily, his body shaking like Santa Claus. Biden says if Republicans had had control of the sanctions, the rest of the world wouldn't have followed us. These were "the most crippling sanctions." Biden goes on and on assuring us that Iran is far from being able to deliver a nuclear bomb. He accuses the Republicans of "loose talk."

8:19: Biden talks to "Bibi" all the time and so does Obama. What Ryan says is "a bunch of stuff." When Ryan speaks, Biden is laughing clownishly again. It looks just awful. Ryan isn't rattled by it. I think he knows Biden looks foolish.

8:23: Biden is acting as though he cannot physically tolerate Ryan having a turn to speak!

8:25: Economics. Biden grabs the opportunity to push the 47% theme. He's "had it up to here," he says, with wealthy people not paying their fair share.  He sounds really cranky and angry. Ryan: "Joe and I are from similar towns." And in Janesville, his home town, unemployment has gone from 8.5% to 10%. Biden busts out another big grin.

8:29: "The Vice President very well knows that the words don't always come out the right way," Ryan says, getting a laugh, defending Romney from the 47% charge. Instead of taking this graciously, Biden mutters something about how he believes everything he says. Ryan tells some stories about Romney's charity toward the unfortunate, which includes someone that was in a car accident, and Biden takes the opportunity to remind us that his own wife died in a car crash, which is sad, but oddly misplaced.

8:33: Ryan talks about "green pork" in the stimulus, and Biden gets all cranked up about how Ryan sought stimulus money for his district. Biden continually interrupts Ryan in a way I find incredibly annoying.

8:36: While Ryan is talking about Medicare helping his mother and grandmother, Biden sighs long and loud. Sighing! Remember when Gore got in no end of trouble for sighing? How can Biden not know that?!

8:39: "They got caught with their hands in the cookie jar, turning Medicare into a piggy bank for Obamacare," says Ryan. Biden interrupts. Ryan says: "Mr. Vice President, I know you're under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think everyone will be better served if we don't keep interrupting each other." I love the politeness of "if we don't keep" — we — when Biden has been an interruption machine and Ryan has barely interrupted and only occasionally has talked over to keep from losing his turn. The moderator, Martha Raddatz has done nothing at all to control Biden, who is, I think, hurting himself. Biden says: "Well, don't take all 4 minutes then." He should have said, "All right" or something reasonably conciliatory.

8:51: The stress level is rising. Biden is so angry. Why is he yelling? Ryan needs nerves of steel not to lose his cool. I'm impressed that Ryan, when he gets his turn, is able to speak in an even, natural voice. It's hard to concentrate on the policy itself, because the emotional static is so strong.

9:11: Biden has been yelling at Martha Raddatz for the last 15 minutes (as the subject is war). It's so inappropriate!

9:21: They're asked to talk about how their Catholicism has informed their position on abortion. Ryan isn't pro-life "simply because of" his Catholicism. It's also about science and reason. He talks of seeing his bean-shaped unborn child on a sonogram. Biden says "My religion informs who I am." He accepts the Catholic position on abortion that life begins at conception, but he refuses to impose that on others.

9:27: The last question is about negative campaigning. Biden rambles. Paul Ryan attributes the negativity to Obama's failures: he has nothing to run on.

9:34: Wait. That wasn't the last question. There's a question about character: What do you bring as a man? Nothing particularly interesting was extracted by that question.

9:35: Now, closing statements.

9:48: That debate was so annoying! Some of the CNN commentators are talking about how Biden did what he came to do, to fire up the Democrats. "This was not for the independents," says Van Jones. Okay, well, but independents were watching, and Biden was horribly rude. He created this disturbing atmosphere of anxiety.

CNN tried to extract a colorful quote about debate prep from Paul Ryan

Interviewed about his debate prep, Ryan said "I do a lot of reading, that's what I've always done -- briefings and reading," which CNN duly quotes. Then it's on to hunting. How does he prepare for deer hunting? The interviewer has background info from a friend of Ryan's:

The friend said that before Ryan goes hunting he washes his clothes in unscented detergent, takes a shower with unscented soap and sprays unscented material on his boots -- all steps that hunters are known to take generally, but Ryan takes it to a completely different level.

"If you're into archery and bow hunting, that's the way to do it and be successful. I like the strategy of bow hunting and it takes a lot of preparation and I do take it seriously because I am much more successful if I do things properly and prepare the right way," Ryan said.

"I have always just believed that if you're going to do something, do it well."

He's invited to connect this to debate prep (presumably with the hope that he'll say something more colorful than I read a lot):

"This stage is kind of new for me and I'm taking it very seriously," he replied. "I'm just doing my homework and studying the issues and I'll know he'll come and attack us. The problem he has is he has Barack Obama's record to run on."

I think he just mostly said I read a lot again. Nice try CNN. Maybe go interview a friend of Ryan's about Ryan's pre-Biden shower routine. Any relevant aromatherapy? Any "material" sprayed on his shoes? Unscented... scented... Maybe Ryan could stink it up and thereby trick his prey into screwing his face into a disgusted sneer of some kind. We the viewers have television — not the once-dreamed-of smellovision — so the ruse would go undetected. Suddenly, Biden's nice-guy image erodes.

Actually, some of us are still dreaming:



"In the future we will be picking our political leaders at least partially based on their smell," says Weird Al.

Biden "will surely take it to Ryan on... his statement yesterday that inner-city kids need to be taught 'good discipline' and 'character.'"

Writes John Cassidy, in The New Yorker, observing that tonight's VP debate is high stakes.

Cassidy doesn't link to the Ryan statement, which — I found on my own — is part of the video that made the rounds the other day, the one that supposedly showed Ryan being "testy." (We talked about it here.) Anyway, let me put the "good discipline" and "character" remark in context. Ryan was asked the question "Does the country have a gun problem?" Ryan took the position that the problem is crime, not guns, and that we already have enough "good, strong gun laws," which we ought to enforce better.

But the best thing to help prevent violent crime in the inner cities is to bring opportunity to the inner cities, is to help people get out of poverty in the inner cities, is to help teach people good discipline, good character. That is civil society, that's what charities and civic groups and churches do to help one another, make sure they realize the value in one another.

Let's try to understand why people like Cassidy think that's outrageous (as opposed to platitudinous).  Here's Tommy Christopher at Mediaite:

What you don’t often hear spoken (out loud, anyway) is that the real problem with gun violence in America is the “character” and “discipline” of people in the “inner cities,” a very specific delineation from other city folk...

Apparently, crime in our cities has nothing to do with poverty, and systemic failures, fueled by generations of institutionalized racism, but with the character of those people. So says Paul Ryan, and so says Mitt Romney. If you’re poor, it’s because your culture is inferior.

Ryan’s assessment of “inner city” people is of a piece with the not-at-all subtle (and even out-and-proud overt) attitudes of the leading lights in the Republican Party, best exemplified by racism decoder-ring Newt Gingrich, who helpfully singled out black people as the Food Stamp-satisfied people we already knew they were talking about, and who echoed Ryan’s chatter about the low character of the inner city denizens who “have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

We already knew who the “those people” Romney and Ryan were talking about were, but thanks for the hint, all the same.

In this frame of mind, Ryan was talking down to black people — to use a phrase once aimed at Barack Obama himself. And let's take another look at Obama's 2007 speech to a predominately black audience:

We can’t expect them to have all the skills they need to work. They may need help with basic skills, how to shop, how to show up for work on time, how to wear the right clothes, how to act appropriately in an office. We have to help them get there.

Unlike Ryan, who looked to "civil society... what charities and civic groups and churches do to help one another," Obama thought there should be federal government programs to teach poor (black?) people to "act appropriately." The difference between conservatives and liberals is about how to solve what they are perceiving as a problem. Pointing out that there's a problem is a sensitive matter, so sensitive it might be better not to point it out at all, as Jesse Jackson's famous open-mike pushback showed.

Will Biden "surely take it to Ryan" on this issue? He might, but it's treacherous. Ryan should be prepared with something elegant to say, but I predict it won't come up because Biden's the one who's gaffe prone, and you don't want to make a gaffe about race.

Only 39% have a favorable opinion of Joe Biden, while 51% have an unfavorable opinion.

Meanwhile, 44% of voters have a favorable opinion of Paul Ryan, with only 40% unfavorable. This is a Pew survey of "1,511 adults, including 1,201 registered voters," taken conducted October 4-7, released today, the day before the VP debate.

The survey just before the 2008 VP debate had Biden at 53% favorable, 31% unfavorable. Sarah Palin had 51% favorable — much more than Paul Ryan, interestingly — and 40% unfavorable — exactly the same as Paul Ryan. That is, the "don't know" group is bigger for Ryan — 15%, compared to Palin's 9% — which means the VP debate is a big opportunity to reach open minds.

Oddly, 10% of respondents "don't know" what they think of Joe Biden. What's that about? How long must a guy hang around before people know what they think of him? (Maybe it's: everyone seems to think he's nice, but I don't know what he wants do.)

Let's judge Paul Ryan.

Buzzfeed's Andrew Kaczynski put this up yesterday with the title: "Paul Ryan Gets Testy and Walks Out of Interview."



Buzzfeed has now changed the title to "Paul Ryan Gets Testy And Ends Interview," because he obviously doesn't walk out, and they've also put this up now:

The reporter knew he was already well over the allotted time for the interview when he decided to ask a weird question relating gun violence to tax cuts. Ryan responded as anyone would in such a strange situation. When you do nearly 200 interviews in a couple months, eventually you’re going to see a local reporter embarrass himself.

So... not only doesn't he walk out, he doesn't end the interview.

Maybe Kaczynski is straining to win back lefty friends after he called "handkerchief" on the Romney "cheat sheet" conspiracy theory.

Anyway, let's focus on "testy." Did Ryan get testy? Ryan speaks eloquently about guns and crime and a need to restore "civil society" to the inner cities, which prompts the reporter to ask "And you can do all that by cutting taxes? By — with a big tax cut?" It's not a terrible question, really, but it does reveal the reporter's liberal mentality. Ryan's civil society — the basis for individual "discipline" and "good character" — is "what charities and civic groups and churches do." That's standard conservative ideology, but the reporter, presumably thinking in terms of government finding ways to rebuild individual good character, leaps to the issue of tax cuts. He can't envision the private groups — charities and civic groups and churches — building civil society. He's got the "you didn't build that" attitude.

So he asks a tax question and Ryan responds as if the reporter had made the assertion implied in the question and says "Those are your words, not mine." That's abrupt. He could have said your question shows that you don't understand what civil society is and explained the deep ideological difference between conservatives and liberals, but the reporter isn't his ideological opponent. He's a reporter, supposedly asking neutral questions, and the implied argument about the role of government would need to be spelled out before it could be refuted.

It's late in the interview, and the off-camera voice says, "Thank you very much." Ryan, yanking out his microphone, says "That was kind of strange," as if the question were a complete non sequitur. And then: "Trying to stuff words in my mouth," as if it were not a question. I read this as a dominating tactic, and the reporter goes beta: "I don't know if it's strange." Ryan mellows slightly: "No, but it sounds as though you're trying to answer my question for me. That's a little odd." And the reporter meekly agrees.

Ryan could have been a bit nicer, but I liked this display of dominance in managing the reporters who are looking to get their sound bites out of him. I'm sure this reporter would have loved to show Ryan stymied by contradictory aspirations about fixing the inner cities and cutting taxes. The reporter tried to get on top and got schooled. I'm okay with that.

Paul Ryan's sparring partner, playing Joe Biden at the debate practice sessions, revealed.

Ted Olson!

Perfect. Ryan should be honed to a sharp edge.

Now, who's playing Ryan for Biden? Chris Van Hollen. Here's Van Hollen's DNC speech in case you have trouble picturing that.

Let's talk about the upcoming VP debate: Joe Biden v. Paul Ryan.

Here, the PBS Newshour interviewed Mark Shields and David Brooks doddering through an effort to say something intelligent on the subject:



Surely, you can do better than that! Or do they deserve more credit for working hard to come up with something other than the obvious: that Paul Ryan will crush — to use the word Paul Ryan used to describe what Romney did to Obama — Joe Biden?

How could Paul Ryan do anything other than win decisively? By seeming too strong and making us feel sorry for Biden? Look at how Brooks and Shields devolve into blabbing about what a nice person Biden is and how much they like the guy. Shields goes on about Biden's first wife dying, Biden commuting by train between Washington and Wilmington, Delaware to take care of his kids, and Biden giving a Christmas party every year for the Amtrak workers. And then Brooks effuses about a photo he has of his son getting chased around by Biden with a super-soaker water cannon... tee hee hee hee. "So he's a nice, relaxed guy. I'm not sure Paul Ryan... maybe bow hunting on the lawn there" tee hee hee hee "It would be more perilous." And then Shields says "Is bow hunting covered by the Second Amendment?" and Brooks looks at Shields and laughs and laughs.