One of the times he was banging a hooker while spilling state secrets to the Chinese on his bluetooth, but it's all being covered up because he's a Democrat

His teeth cause a deer-in-the-headlights effect to pedestrians, it's not really his fault

More liberal apologists covering up Biden's evil!

All number of misleading headlines and tweets today about an incident involving Vice President Joe Biden's motorcade in New York yesterday.

First, the facts. The car in question was a "route" car driven by a police officer. In large motorcades, "Route" precedes the "command" car and "lead" car by about five minutes. (In Washington, D.C., officers call it the "Five Minute Car.")

Inside the route car were two police officers and two members of Vice President Biden's political advance team. There were no United States Secret Service agents involved. And a cab driver is said to have caused the crash.

Earlier this week, a woman drove her car into a police car that was providing intersection control for a Biden motorcade in Albuquerque, NM. A deputy was injured.

A week ago, two Secret Service employees were driving the Biden motorcade limo and the armored follow-up suburban back from Andrews Air Force Base. One of the cars struck and killed a pedestrian. Biden had already motorcaded back home. These employees were not agents; there were not driving in a motorcade; they were simply rebasing the cars.

What do these three incidents have in common? Well, they are connected through Joe Biden in name only. Motorcades are unusual and confusing even in New York City, and accidents, usually involving police escorts, can happen. Some of them have been fatal.

To blame Joe Biden for any of this -- to suggest that he is guilty of "vehicular homicide" -- is transparently absurd. (The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb tweeted: "Glad Joe Biden has time to do the Daily Show between managing the war in Iraq, the stimulus, and the vehicular homicide."

Ah, the Weekly Standard: a convenient one-stop location for almost everyone with whom I'm ashamed to share a Jewish heritage.

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Despite that bit that dajafi posted, and I think there's something to it as well, I think most of Palin's appeal comes from people who like her because the media elite and political elite don't like her. Maybe the looks get her in the door or something like that, but they stay for the generic conservative sound bites and because they feel like she's been unfairly attacked. Magazine covers like this will only fortify the 1/3 of the country that really likes her in their resolve that the media is out to get their girl.

No doubt. It's enemy-of-my-enemy stuff, spiced with a dash of damsel in distress. I read somewhere today that her approval remains considerably higher among men than women--another data point suggesting she remains more of a sex object than anything like a feminist hero.

Palin’s rated favorably by more men, 48 percent, than women, 39 percent

That's just about the gender gap in exit polls. Kerry and Obama both ran 7% better with women than men. Maybe looking good while scantily clad has a bit to do with it, but the gender gap is more explanatory I think.

Good point that I was about to make. You could also argue it might be gender bias in the opposite direction, with Palin's sex appeal having as much or more of a negative effect on women voters as it has a positive effect on male voters.

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Biden's motorcades/official transport vehicles have been in three separate crashes in the past week, including killing someone in DC.

Really.

I'm sure they were driving cautiously, and it's just an unlucky coincidence.

Google "motorcade accidents", dimwits. It's apparently something that happens more frequently than you'd guess, and has no apparent party bias.

"motorcade accident" yielded 1.1m hits.

"eat toenail" yielded 5.6m hits.

It happens more than you think.

why should I be surprised that you don't even know how to perform a useful google search?

{sigh} ok, here' s how: type "motorcade accidents" in the goog search box, just like that - with the quote marks & everything. That way, you get results featuring that very phrase. What a concept!

total results: 264

why you persist in flaunting your ignorance, I just don't know.

ok, so now you've got the results, take a look at them: within the 1st 5 you've got

1) Biden's crash(s)
2) Death resulting from Bush motorcade outing
3) Death resulting from Clinton motorcade outing

please promise me you won't do this kind of thing to yourself again. It's irrational, I know, but it makes me feel embarrassed for phillie fandom in general.

Liberals pile on Newsweek for Palin cover:

The photo of the lovely, bare-legged Palin is paired with the headline: "How do you solve a problem like Sarah?" For those too young to recognize the reference, it's from a "Sound of Music" song, "How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?" about a young novice who is too cute and flighty to be a nun ("she's a flibbertyjibbit, a will o' the wisp, a clown!"). That's a great way to describe our first GOP vice-presidential nominee. Not sexist at all. (The "how do you solve a problem like" cliché is typically applied to women, although I'm proud of once asking "How do you solve a problem like Joe Lieberman?" who is certainly a clown.) Oh yes, Jon Meacham, your answer is proof-positive that there was no sexism to your imagery. Fail.

A few liberals are trying to suggest that Palin has nothing to whine about since she willingly posed for the picture, but that's silly: What she wore to a Runners' World shoot is different from what she'd wear for Newsweek. I've heard people defend the photo because Palin uses her sexuality as part of her political appeal, and I think that's also unfair. She didn't campaign in daisy dukes and crop-tops; she's a good-looking woman who wore flattering but professional jackets and skirts. Of course her looks are part of her appeal -- I don't think the gulf between men and women who "approve" of Palin (yup, she's more popular with men, go figure!) is about her policy ideas -- but attractive women are damned whatever they do with their looks. And let's be clear -- this wasn't an article about Palin's sex appeal, or the role of her gender in the campaign -- this was an article about her political assets and flaws. The out-of-context photo was, in fact, "sexist and degrading," as Palin says.

That's about all the time I have to spend feeling sympathy for Sarah Palin: I detest her political ideas and her divisive approach to politics. But I call out sexism when I see it. Jon Meacham used a nice pair of women's legs to sell his political magazine this week, reducing a powerful, ambitious woman to her shapely body parts, and that's sexism.

In my opinion, the real problem with Palin is that she claims to be an anti-elite populist, but really offers no actual populist positions. It's a platform based almost entirely on an identity. It's really not clear what she stands for, if anything.

TheBrig wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

dajafi wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Despite that bit that dajafi posted, and I think there's something to it as well, I think most of Palin's appeal comes from people who like her because the media elite and political elite don't like her. Maybe the looks get her in the door or something like that, but they stay for the generic conservative sound bites and because they feel like she's been unfairly attacked. Magazine covers like this will only fortify the 1/3 of the country that really likes her in their resolve that the media is out to get their girl.

No doubt. It's enemy-of-my-enemy stuff, spiced with a dash of damsel in distress. I read somewhere today that her approval remains considerably higher among men than women--another data point suggesting she remains more of a sex object than anything like a feminist hero.

Palin’s rated favorably by more men, 48 percent, than women, 39 percent

That's just about the gender gap in exit polls. Kerry and Obama both ran 7% better with women than men. Maybe looking good while scantily clad has a bit to do with it, but the gender gap is more explanatory I think.

You could also argue it might be gender bias in the opposite direction, with Palin's sex appeal having as much or more of a negative effect on women voters as it has a positive effect on male voters.

Affirmative. I don't think this is arguable though is it? Being honest.

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Biden's motorcades/official transport vehicles have been in three separate crashes in the past week, including killing someone in DC.

Really.

I'm sure they were driving cautiously, and it's just an unlucky coincidence.

Google "motorcade accidents", dimwits. It's apparently something that happens more frequently than you'd guess, and has no apparent party bias.

"motorcade accident" yielded 1.1m hits.

"eat toenail" yielded 5.6m hits.

It happens more than you think.

why should I be surprised that you don't even know how to perform a useful google search?

{sigh} ok, here' s how: type "motorcade accidents" in the goog search box, just like that - with the quote marks & everything. That way, you get results featuring that very phrase. What a concept!

total results: 264

why you persist in flaunting your ignorance, I just don't know.

ok, so now you've got the results, take a look at them: within the 1st 5 you've got

1) Biden's crash(s)
2) Death resulting from Bush motorcade outing
3) Death resulting from Clinton motorcade outing

please promise me you won't do this kind of thing to yourself again. It's irrational, I know, but it makes me feel embarrassed for phillie fandom in general.

Werthless was just channeling his inner Coulter.

TenuredVulture wrote:In my opinion, the real problem with Palin is that she claims to be an anti-elite populist, but really offers no actual populist positions. It's a platform based almost entirely on an identity. It's really not clear what she stands for, if anything.

This is kind of what Hitchens says in one of the Newsweek pieces:

The Palin problem, then, might be that she cynically incites a crowd that she has no real intention of pleasing. If she were ever to get herself to the nation's capital, the teabaggers would be just as much on the outside as they are now, and would simply have been the instruments that helped get her elected. In my own not-all-that-humble opinion, duping the hicks is a degree or two worse than condescending to them. It's also much more dangerous, because it meanwhile involves giving a sort of respectability to ideas that were discredited when William Jennings Bryan was last on the stump. The Weekly Standard (itself not exactly a prairie-based publication) might want to think twice before flirting with popular delusions and resentments that are as impossible to satisfy as the demand for a silver standard or a ban on the teaching of Darwin, and are for that very reason hard to tamp down. Many of Palin's admirers seem to expect that, on receipt of the Republican Party nomination, she would immediately embark on a crusade against Wall Street and the banks. This notion is stupid to much the same degree that it is irresponsible.

I think this actually overstates the notion that her supporters "want" anything as far as a coherent governing philosophy. I think most will grant that it's safe to assume substantial overlap between the Palinphiles and the folks whom Rep. Michelle "Bat Shit" Bachmann summoned to the Capitol a few weeks ago: this is essentially the "keep your gummit outta my Medicare" crowd.

At the risk of sounding like the liberal elitist I am, I don't think they really understand what they're angry about. Maybe what Palin offers is a pretty much unconditional validation of their anger, or at least the culturally based ("I want my country back! It's been eight fucking months since we had a conservative white ostentatious Christian guy in charge!") part of it.

But it would be interesting for someone to ask her, say, what she thinks of TARP and Bush/Obama policy toward the banks. Based on her record in Alaska, which did include some almost (dare I say) socialist lunges, she might say something that would alarm her fans on the WSJ editorial board. Failing that, we'd probably get another fun answer translatable to blank verse, like what she said to Couric about the economy.

allentown wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Joe Biden's motorcades/official transport vehicles have been in three separate crashes in the past week, including killing someone in DC.

Really.

I'm sure they were driving cautiously, and it's just an unlucky coincidence.

Google "motorcade accidents", dimwits. It's apparently something that happens more frequently than you'd guess, and has no apparent party bias.

"motorcade accident" yielded 1.1m hits.

"eat toenail" yielded 5.6m hits.

It happens more than you think.

why should I be surprised that you don't even know how to perform a useful google search?

{sigh} ok, here' s how: type "motorcade accidents" in the goog search box, just like that - with the quote marks & everything. That way, you get results featuring that very phrase. What a concept!

total results: 264

why you persist in flaunting your ignorance, I just don't know.

ok, so now you've got the results, take a look at them: within the 1st 5 you've got

1) Biden's crash(s)
2) Death resulting from Bush motorcade outing
3) Death resulting from Clinton motorcade outing

please promise me you won't do this kind of thing to yourself again. It's irrational, I know, but it makes me feel embarrassed for phillie fandom in general.

Werthless was just channeling his inner Coulter.

It's funny cuz it's true. Quoting google hits is as dumb as saying "google X" to make an argument about frequency. The irony was lost on drsmooth.

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:In my opinion, the real problem with Palin is that she claims to be an anti-elite populist, but really offers no actual populist positions. It's a platform based almost entirely on an identity. It's really not clear what she stands for, if anything.

This is kind of what Hitchens says in one of the Newsweek pieces:

The Palin problem, then, might be that she cynically incites a crowd that she has no real intention of pleasing. If she were ever to get herself to the nation's capital, the teabaggers would be just as much on the outside as they are now, and would simply have been the instruments that helped get her elected. In my own not-all-that-humble opinion, duping the hicks is a degree or two worse than condescending to them. It's also much more dangerous, because it meanwhile involves giving a sort of respectability to ideas that were discredited when William Jennings Bryan was last on the stump. The Weekly Standard (itself not exactly a prairie-based publication) might want to think twice before flirting with popular delusions and resentments that are as impossible to satisfy as the demand for a silver standard or a ban on the teaching of Darwin, and are for that very reason hard to tamp down. Many of Palin's admirers seem to expect that, on receipt of the Republican Party nomination, she would immediately embark on a crusade against Wall Street and the banks. This notion is stupid to much the same degree that it is irresponsible.

I think this actually overstates the notion that her supporters "want" anything as far as a coherent governing philosophy. I think most will grant that it's safe to assume substantial overlap between the Palinphiles and the folks whom Rep. Michelle "Bat $#@!" Bachmann summoned to the Capitol a few weeks ago: this is essentially the "keep your gummit outta my Medicare" crowd.

At the risk of sounding like the liberal elitist I am, I don't think they really understand what they're angry about. Maybe what Palin offers is a pretty much unconditional validation of their anger, or at least the culturally based ("I want my country back! It's been eight $#@! months since we had a conservative white ostentatious Christian guy in charge!") part of it.

But it would be interesting for someone to ask her, say, what she thinks of TARP and Bush/Obama policy toward the banks. Based on her record in Alaska, which did include some almost (dare I say) socialist lunges, she might say something that would alarm her fans on the WSJ editorial board. Failing that, we'd probably get another fun answer translatable to
blank verse, like what she said to Couric about the economy.

Interestingly, what Hitchens says about Palin supporters could be said about at least some Obama supporters.

The other thing--the anger. I wonder how much anger is out there. Only 24% of Americans would like to see Palin run for the Presidency, and I suspect not all of them are angry.

Or look at the wrong track polls--current, 55% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Yet, a year ago, it was more like 80%.

Yeah, you see clips of people yelling on TV.

TenuredVulture wrote:Interestingly, what Hitchens says about Palin supporters could be said about at least some Obama supporters.

I actually started to write this in my post, but foundered on the question of whether or not I myself am in that group. I'm disappointed with Obama, but at the same time I knew he was a pragmatic and incrementalist inside pol--which means on some level I must have known my own hopes for him were unrealistic.

On the anger question, there are also probably some folks--maybe a lot of folks--who are angry but don't want to see Palin run. I can't imagine she's cornered that market, or that anybody can... which is probably a good thing.

Werthless wrote:It's funny cuz it's true. Quoting google hits is as dumb as saying "google X" to make an argument about frequency. The irony was lost on drsmooth.

The point was that motorcade deaths have afflicted the last 3 presidents & their administrations. Sorry to have pointed out that your lame attempt at a gag was, well, lame.

TenuredVulture wrote:

dajafi wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:In my opinion, the real problem with Palin is that she claims to be an anti-elite populist, but really offers no actual populist positions. It's a platform based almost entirely on an identity. It's really not clear what she stands for, if anything.

This is kind of what Hitchens says in one of the Newsweek pieces:

The Palin problem, then, might be that she cynically incites a crowd that she has no real intention of pleasing. If she were ever to get herself to the nation's capital, the teabaggers would be just as much on the outside as they are now, and would simply have been the instruments that helped get her elected. In my own not-all-that-humble opinion, duping the hicks is a degree or two worse than condescending to them. It's also much more dangerous, because it meanwhile involves giving a sort of respectability to ideas that were discredited when William Jennings Bryan was last on the stump. The Weekly Standard (itself not exactly a prairie-based publication) might want to think twice before flirting with popular delusions and resentments that are as impossible to satisfy as the demand for a silver standard or a ban on the teaching of Darwin, and are for that very reason hard to tamp down. Many of Palin's admirers seem to expect that, on receipt of the Republican Party nomination, she would immediately embark on a crusade against Wall Street and the banks. This notion is stupid to much the same degree that it is irresponsible.

I think this actually overstates the notion that her supporters "want" anything as far as a coherent governing philosophy. I think most will grant that it's safe to assume substantial overlap between the Palinphiles and the folks whom Rep. Michelle "Bat $#@!" Bachmann summoned to the Capitol a few weeks ago: this is essentially the "keep your gummit outta my Medicare" crowd.

At the risk of sounding like the liberal elitist I am, I don't think they really understand what they're angry about. Maybe what Palin offers is a pretty much unconditional validation of their anger, or at least the culturally based ("I want my country back! It's been eight $#@! months since we had a conservative white ostentatious Christian guy in charge!") part of it.

But it would be interesting for someone to ask her, say, what she thinks of TARP and Bush/Obama policy toward the banks. Based on her record in Alaska, which did include some almost (dare I say) socialist lunges, she might say something that would alarm her fans on the WSJ editorial board. Failing that, we'd probably get another fun answer translatable to
blank verse, like what she said to Couric about the economy.

Interestingly, what Hitchens says about Palin supporters could be said about at least some Obama supporters.

The other thing--the anger. I wonder how much anger is out there. Only 24% of Americans would like to see Palin run for the Presidency, and I suspect not all of them are angry.

Or look at the wrong track polls--current, 55% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Yet, a year ago, it was more like 80%.

Yeah, you see clips of people yelling on TV.

What is said about Palin supporters could indeed be said about some Obama supporters. The Palin supporters are in some ways more praiseworthy. They have a tenacity and a toughness for the long fight that the comparable Obama supporters lack. I know a lot of these Obama supporters who were all emotional fervor for the Presidential primary and election. This last election, they all took their balls and bats and spitefully went home, mindlessly angered that Obama can't somehow force all 60 Dems in the Senate to vote for their favorite pipedream. These are folks who, PTK style, expected Obama to have already stopped both wars, tried Cheney for war crimes, instituted a single payer healthcare plan that he campaigned against, and brought corporate America to its knees. These are the populists of the left, and like the Palin brigade, it is more important to them to pull down the Temple than to repair it. Restarting the economy and getting health insurance for the uninsured are not what they are interested in, they are just popular justifications for the goal of blood on the floor. They will not be happy until Cheney, Yoo, a lot of Wall Streeters, and insurance executives are jailed, pauperized, or both. They are angry and they want revenge. Like the Palinists they see themselves as victimized and rendered powerless by the undeservedly powerful whom they see as cheating and conspiring against them. These are the Obama supporters who were voting for the first time or voting for a major party candidate for the first time. They are hugely cynical and impatient, and Obama's willingness to compromise and make nice with the politically/philosophically impure in order to govern and keep the nation safe rile them no end. For them, the guillotine was the essential component of the French revolution. This is not a large proportion of the Obama supporters, but not super tiny either.
There are most of the folks on the left who favor peace, healthcare and jobs for all, a cleaner environment including clean energy, and more open government. Then there are those who see all of the above as handy vehicles to destroy corporations and much of capitalism and consumerism and return to what they view as a better simpler time. When I was in college, these were the folks who carried around Mao's little red book and thought Ho Chi Minh was actually a nice guy. The weakminded who actually believed in the communist philosphy and were not so much opposed to the Viet Nam war as they wanted the North Vietnamese to win. I'm separating the truly gullible from the poor little rich boys who were just trying to get laid.

allentown wrote:What is said about Palin supporters could indeed be said about some Obama supporters. The Palin supporters are in some ways more praiseworthy. They have a tenacity and a toughness for the long fight that the comparable Obama supporters lack.

Really? Remember that it was Republicans who were demoralized and stayed home in 2006 and, to a lesser extent, in 2008. I think it's just easier to fire up the troops when you're in opposition and don't have to actually produce good governance than when you're in the driver's seat and having to contend with the messy aspects of representative sorta-democracy.

allentown wrote:Restarting the economy and getting health insurance for the uninsured are not what they are interested in, they are just popular justifications for the goal of blood on the floor. They will not be happy until Cheney, Yoo, a lot of Wall Streeters, and insurance executives are jailed, pauperized, or both. They are angry and they want revenge.

I think you might be conflating two things here. Speaking for myself, I do believe that those who break the law, the rich and powerful and white and nonviolent no less than the crack addict who robs a mini-mart, should be punished for their crimes. But I'm sensitive to the notion that this might not be worth the effort, and I won't be too upset if Cheney or Yoo or Thain or whoever never sees the inside of a cell. What I really want is to make sure that they're discredited to a degree that their poisonous ideas can't be rehabilitated; my disappointment is that the repudiation of Bush/Cheney executive supremacy has been partial and tepid at best, and the Wall Street Masters are perhaps more firmly ensconced than ever.

There's certainly a tension between wanting to see the country move in a progressive direction, and understanding that major change not supported by a durable popular majority is very unlikely to be successful or long-lasting. What I liked about Obama in the nomination contest was that he seemed to have an idealistic sense of where the country should go coupled with a core pragmatic streak that would ensure we didn't get there too frighteningly fast. What's been frustrating for me, but was probably inevitable, is that since taking office the pragmatism seems to have largely eclipsed the idealism. Hanging around with Rahm Emanuel every day probably has that effect.

Most of Obama's supporters don't vote in off-year elections. Well, nobody votes in off-year elections except for the people in this thread. Nothing on a national level of note happened at the beginning of this month other than a civil union approval and a gay marriage vote down.

Random thought on Palin: For belittling community organizers as much as she has in the past, she seems to have become one. Well, organizing for herself, but still.



Has anyone taken notice of the weird spin about the new recommendation for women to start getting tested for breast cancer at 50 instead of 40? This was based on studies and carefully thought out. Seems reasonable that those with no family history or other factors should simply wait longer. However, it's being spun by some talking heads as the beginning of the end in regards to our big march towards shipping old people off to die alone in the forest. Weird how anything can be made political.

So, um, McCain and Graham, two Republican members of the "Gang of 14" voted to filibuster an Obama judicial nominee, perhaps violating the spirit of the agreement that preserved the filibuster way back when. So, um, do the Dems now threaten to remove the filibuster? This can be done with a simple majority vote in the Senate.

TenuredVulture wrote:So, um, McCain and Graham, two Republican members of the "Gang of 14" voted to filibuster an Obama judicial nominee, perhaps violating the spirit of the agreement that preserved the filibuster way back when. So, um, do the Dems now threaten to remove the filibuster? This can be done with a simple majority vote in the Senate.

I think this is about as likely as Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman getting gay-married. In Texas.