Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joe Biden. Show all posts

Saturday, September 21, 2019

When Donald Trump lays a trap, and the lefty media outlets warn "It's a Trap!"


Remember folks... Donald Trump doesn't play by the swamp's rules. He plays by his own and so far he is undefeated.
Despite the outrage that greeted reports of the president’s actions, Biden’s immediate response was no simple matter. His son Hunter Biden’s lucrative contracts with Ukraine — at the same time the vice president was in charge of U.S. policy toward the country raised — raised the prospect of fueling a narrative with downside political risk for Biden
“This puts him on the ropes over having to talk about this,” said Patrick Murray, a pollster with Monmouth University. “He certainly doesn’t want to talk about this, his family.” 
Murray suggested the ethical dimensions of the controversy — and the implications of Trump’s actions for impeachment, which Biden at present does not support — made any extended discussion of the story potentially perilous for Biden.

Politico, NYT: "This New Trump Scandal Is Also An Old Biden Scandal, You Know"

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/09/21/politico-nyt-new-trump-scandal-also-old-biden-scandal-know/

Wednesday, November 6, 2013

This just in: VEEP Joe Biden is obviously a redneck bammer

 

Not photoshopped. Seriously. Check out the awesomely awesome Mullet do.

image

The only question is whether he thinks Nick Saban really would consider leaving Alabama to take over the Texas Longhorns.

My bet: he thinks it’s a “Big [bleeping] Deal,” but he’ll also say that if you like your head football coach, you can keep him. “Period.”

Helmet tap to Allahpundit at the HotAir.com Greenroom. AP was the inspiration for the “exit question” I always include on my lengthy, wonky analyses (that I concede have really dropped off).

Monday, October 18, 2010

Angry, scared, bitter and frustrated

President Obama, speaking from the stump in Massachusetts:


"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared, and the country's scared.

“The biggest mistake we can make right now is to – is out of hurt and confusion, the worst thing we could do is to go back to the very same policies that caused this mess in the first place.”


Former President Bill Clinton, stumping for embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:


"The only reason this is a tough race is because its a tough time. People are having a tough time and they're frightened and confused and they're mad. Its hard to think."

"People are saying I'm mad and just mad and want to throw people out. I'm old enough to say if you make a decision when you are mad, there is an 80 percent chance you are going to make a mistake."


Vice President Joe Biden:


"Folks, people are angry -- they're angry, I'm angry.  I am truly angry as I go around the country watching…people absolutely, fundamentally blown away by the greed and the policies of the last eight years, of the last administration.”
[errm, Ok]

Note: Biden also said that the Democrats weren’t running on their legislative accomplishments because they’re “too hard to explain.”


All of the above, in remarkable three part harmony:

“AND BUSH!”

The Weekly Standard’s Jay Cost sums this up nicely by calling it “Obama’s Dime Store Sociology.”

It’s arrogant, condescending and elitist.  It’s saying: “We are about to get our asses kicked not because we governed against your will, but because you are too stupid, too un-nuanced and too simple to appreciate the grandiosity of our great works.  You peasants just don’t get it, so you’re angry.  You’re scared.  You’re bitter.  You’re frustrated.”

At the same time, it demonstrates a childish unwillingness to accept responsibility for their own actions.  The voice of the people must be heard, and it must be heeded as well.  To ignore national sentiment in so many breathtakingly ambitious ways, and then to blame the very people expressing the sentiment for their coming butt whooping is like a spoiled brat blaming his parents for spanking his incorrigible little kiester.

I don’t see a lot of bitterness, fear or frustration in this cycle.  I see motivation, enthusiasm and optimism that real hope and change are about to wash over the Beltway.  Anger?  Oh, yes.  There’s plenty of that, but it’s channeled and it’s focused. The anger comes from having been lied to.  It comes from having been sold a bill of goods that were never delivered.  False hope. Impossible promises. Dishonest portrayal of oneself as a centrist. A moderate. A post-partisan, post-racial political messiah who turned out to be “just another tax-and-spend Democrat.”

Friday, October 15, 2010

Why are Obama and Biden campaigning for Chris Coons?

Don’t the polls show that Chris Coons, the Democrat for Delaware’s Senate seat, leads the race over Republican Christine O’Donnell by anywhere from 11 points (Rasmussen) to 20 points (Monmouth)?  If these polls are accurate, then why are the Democrats’ #1 and #2 dogs going to bat for Coons?


President Barack Obama’s efforts to stave off Democratic losses in the Nov. 2 congressional elections take him today to Delaware, where the party’s chances of holding a Senate seat have risen.

Obama will be joined by Vice President Joe Biden at a fundraiser for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Chris Coons at the Grand Opera House in Wilmington, the state’s largest city.

A recent poll in the state gives Coons, 47, county executive of New Castle County, Delaware’s largest county, a 19- point lead over Republican Christine O’Donnell, 41, a marketing consultant.

White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said Obama was making the campaign stop because the contest is “important” and the political climate this year is volatile.

“We leave no stone unturned in this unpredictable electoral environment,” Pfeiffer said.


Coons is supposedly leading by double digits, after Columbus Day, and despite a decent showing by O’Donnell during their recent debate.  This race is all but over.  Isn’t it?

Color me suspicious, but this isn’t about leaving no stone unturned, as Pfeiffer puts it.  This is either about avoiding the embarrassment of losing the seat long held by Joe Biden, meaning that the regime thinks face-saving is more important than winning close races (Nevada, California, Pennsylvania); or the regime has some data that shows this isn’t a double-digit race at all.

OR IT’S BOTH.

O’Donnell has been running a pretty decent campaign.  Her “image” ads are good stuff.  She also has the support of nearly all conservative opinion movers and she has been a fundraising animal since the primary victory over Mike Castle. Perhaps the regime has caught whiff of an ill wind in Delaware, and are rushing in to shore up Coons in the hopes that November 2 isn’t a complete debacle for the White House.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Joe Biden: Dems aren’t running on Obamacare because “it’s just too hard to explain.”

Mark Knoller, CBS Radio White House Correspondent, provides the money quote in the following Tweet:

image

Do you remember the Healthcare Summit, held between the White House and Congresscritters from both parties? 

Representative Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, found it all quite easy to explain.  The damned thing is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors accounting.  It doesn’t reduce deficits and instead adds to them.  It creates a new entitlement system in an environment where the entitlement programs we already have can’t be paid for.  It treats Medicare like a piggy bank in a fiscal shell game that doesn’t improve the program’s solvency but instead, threatens it.

But most importantly, as Ryan points out, it puts government in control of one-sixth of the national economy.  And we think the people should be in control.

Video of Ryan sticking it to Obama – Biden:



Here’s the full text of Mr. Ryan’s comments during the Summit. 

RYAN: Thank you. Look, we agree on the problem here. And the problem is health inflation is driving us off of a fiscal cliff.

Mr. President, you said health care reform is budget reform. You're right. We agree with that. Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. That's $38 trillion in empty promises to my parents' generation, our generation, our kids' generation. Medicaid's growing at 21 percent each year. It's suffocating states' budgets. It's adding trillions in obligations that we have no means to pay for it.

Now, you're right to frame the debate on cost and health inflation. And in September, when you spoke to us in the well of the House, you basically said - - and I totally agree with this - - I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future.

Since the Congressional Budget Office can't score your bill, because it doesn't have sufficient detail, but it tracks very similar to the Senate bill, I want to unpack the Senate score a little bit.

And if you take a look at the CBO analysis, analysis from your chief actuary, I think it's very revealing. This bill does not control costs. This bill does not reduce deficits. Instead, this bill adds a new health care entitlement at a time when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.

Now, let me go through why I say that. The majority leader said the bill scores as reducing the deficit $131 billion over the next 10 years. First, a little bit about CBO. I work with them every single day - - very good people, great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is full of gimmicks and smoke-and-mirrors. Now, what do I mean when I say that?

Well, first off, the bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending.

Now, what's the true 10-year cost of this bill in 10 years? That's $2.3 trillion.

It does couple of other things. It takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.

It takes $72 billion and claims money from the CLASS Act. That's the long-term care insurance program. It takes the money from premiums that are designed for that benefit and instead counts them as offsets.

The Senate Budget Committee chairman said that this is a Ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.

Now, when you take a look at the Medicare cuts, what this bill essentially does - - it treats Medicare like a piggy bank. It raids a half a trillion dollars out of Medicare, not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.

Now, when you take a look at what this does, is, according to the chief actuary of Medicare, he's saying as much as 20 percent of Medicare's providers will either go out of business or will have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries. Millions of seniors who are on - - who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage that they now enjoy.

You can't say that you're using this money to either extend Medicare solvency and also offset the cost of this new program. That's double counting.

And so when you take a look at all of this; when you strip out the double-counting and what I would call these gimmicks, the full 10- year cost of the bill has a $460 billion deficit. The second 10-year cost of this bill has a $1.4 trillion deficit.

And I think, probably, the most cynical gimmick in this bill is something that we all probably agree on. We don't think we should cut doctors 21 percent next year. We've stopped those cuts from occurring every year for the last seven years. We all call this, here in Washington, the doc fix. Well, the doc fix, according to your numbers, costs $371 billion. It was in the first iteration of all of these bills, but because it was a big price tag and it made the score look bad, made it look like a deficit, that bill was - - that provision was taken out, and it's been going on in stand-alone legislation. But ignoring these costs does not remove them from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending does not reduce spending. And so when you take a look at all of this, it just doesn't add up.

And so let's just - - I'll finish with the cost curve. Are we bending the cost curve down or are we bending the cost curve up?

Well, if you look at your own chief actuary at Medicare, we're bending it up. He's claiming that we're going up $222 billion, adding more to the unsustainable fiscal situation we have.

And so, when you take a look at this, it's really deeper than the deficits or the budget gimmicks or the actuarial analysis. There really is a difference between us.

And we've been talking about how much we agree on different issues, but there really is a difference between us. And it's basically this. We don't think the government should be in control of all of this. We want people to be in control. And that, at the end of the day, is the big difference.

Now, we've offered lots of ideas all last year, all this year. Because we agree the status quo is unsustainable. It's got to get fixed. It's bankrupting families. It's bankrupting our government. It's hurting families with pre-existing conditions. We all want to fix this.
But we don't think that this is the answer to the solution. And all of the analysis we get proves that point.

Now, I'll just simply say this. And I respectfully disagree with the vice president about what the American people are or are not saying or whether we're qualified to speak on their behalf. So...
(LAUGHTER)
... we are all representatives of the American people. We all do town hall meetings. We all talk to our constituents. And I've got to tell you, the American people are engaged. And if you think they want a government takeover of health care, I would respectfully submit you're not listening to them.

So what we simply want to do is start over, work on a clean-sheeted paper, move through these issues, step by step, and fix them, and bring down health care costs and not raise them. And that's basically the point.

Friday, July 23, 2010

The Joe Biden Drinking Game!

Here, ladies and gentlemen, are the proposed rules for the Joe Biden Drinking Game.  Your comments and suggestions are welcomed.

RULES:

A person is picked to be the "F-er" at the beginning of the game.  A special hat, preferably one adorned with plugs, must be worn by the "F-er."

Whenever Joe drops the F-Bomb, every body chugs, but the F-er gets to choose a person who has to buy the next round by pointing to them and saying, “stand up, Chuck.  Let’em see ya!”

Whenever Joe laments the passing of a dignitary’s living parent, everybody with a living parent chugs.

Whenever Joe mentions “7-11” or “Dunkin Donuts,” everyone says “big f-in deal!” with a slight Indian accent, and chugs.

Whenever Joe misspells a word, everyone stands up and says: “J-O-B-S is a three letter word!”  Then, every third person must chug.

Whenever Joe says “successful dump!” everyone chugs and a new f-er is chosen.  The new f-er must chug a second drink, then point to someone else and say: “_________ would probably have been a better choice.”

Whenever Joe mentions a site on the Internet, everyone chugs, then turns to the person on the right and says, “do you know the website number?”

Whenever Joe mistakes the name of a dignitary (like a Supreme Court Justice), every one says “give me a f-in’ break!” and chugs.

Whenever Joe says, “look folks,” everyone punches the f-er in the arm and chugs.

Whenever Joe says, “my friend,” everyone says “BARACK AMERICA!” and chugs.

Whenever Joe mentions 9/11, the f-er stands up and says, “a noun, a verb and Amen!”

When Joe  mentions African Americans, the f-er then gets to choose a “mainstream African American,” or MAA.  The MAA then has to say something articulate, or he chugs.

Have fun!

Gimme some feedback in the comments.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Times-Picayune: Red tape keeps prized oil-fighting skimmers from Gulf

Welcome to the Gulf Coast, Mr. Vice President. You're visiting Pomes Seafood tomorrow in one of the seafood capitals of the world.  This lunch is on us, if you can give us some oil skimmers.

We've already seen legitimate questions about why promising technologies haven't been deployed in the Gulf of Mexico.  In tomorrow's New Orleans Times-Picayune comes a bombshell of a revelation:


Just weeks after the oil spill crisis began to unfold in the Gulf of Mexico, the French  foreign minister volunteered a fleet of oil skimming boats from a French company,  Ecoceane. A month later, in early June, Ecoceane Chief Executive Eric Vial met with BP and Coast Guard officials to present the idea.
But after that meeting, weeks went by with little contact as oil continued gushing into the Gulf. A frustrated Vial was able to get around the bureacracy last week only when his company sold nine of the oil collection boats to a private contractor in Florida, who could then put the boats to work.
Oil giant Shell was in negotiations to let BP use the Nanuq, a 300-foot oil recovery boat sitting idle in Seward, Alaska. But in recent weeks, BP declined to bring it to the Gulf.
...
But federal response officials have been pressed for more than a week to streamline U.S. maritime restrictions that would allow more foreign skimming vessels to be put to work on the spill. And the Coast Guard and BP have been taken to task for not bringing more available U.S. skimmers to the Gulf spill.
According to the latest numbers from BP, 433 vessles are collecting oil in, the Gulf, but less than a third of those are specialized boats designed specifically for oil skimming.
On the Senate floor last week, Sen. George LeMieux, R-Fla., pointed to a Coast Guard map detailing more than 850 skimmers available in the southeastern United States -- and more than 1,600 available in the continental United States.


The question begs asking: Why are these vessels not already in the Gulf of Mexico, collecting oil before it washes ashore, destroying fisheries and wrecking tourism?  Will someone risk being called a smart-ass, and ask the Vice President why we can't get a few state-of-the-art skimmers down here?

Gimme some feedback in the comments.