Should Barry Dump Joe?

[Gob]

If I recall correctly...

You do. He wasn't a bad man, nor a bad politician, but as the 80's were the start of personality politics, where the medium was as important as the message, him, with a fucking comb-over ffs, was onto a loser.

[Scooter]

There were a number of incidents that occurred that painted a portrait of questionable honesty and of someone who was none too bright, of which the Kinnock thing was just one. Afterwards he repeatedly overstated his academic credentials, like stating he had three degrees when he really only had one degree with a double major, claiming that he went to law school on full scholarship when it was only partial, and based primarily on financial need, not academic accomplishment, and saying he finished law school in the top half of his class when he ranked near the bottom.

Also in the wake of the Kinnock thing, his speechwriter, unknown to Biden, used uncredited bits of speeches from Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy. And so, while he had previously credited Kinnock numerous times when using that turn of phrase, it became part of a larger portrait that he was going to find difficult to shake.

Not that it mattered, because in a few months he would suffer a brain aneurysm and that would have put an end to his candidacy anyway.

[Lord Jim]

You do. He wasn't a bad man, nor a bad politician, but as the 80's were the start of personality politics, where the medium was as important as the message, him, with a fucking comb-over ffs, was onto a loser.

I know what you mean...

After John Major, the Tories went through a right series of stiffs...

William Hague, (who is now serving as Foreign Secretary) was an affable enough chap, but as old FU would say, "no bottom"...

What then followed was a parade of cadaverous odious characters, each one looking more like an undertaker than the one before...

The Conservatives moved through a series of leaders from the merely uncharismatic Mr. Hague, to the flesh crawlingly repulsive Ian Duncan-Smith...

I remarked at the time that if one looked at the progression of Tory Leaders from Thatcher, to Major, to Hague, down to Ian Duncan-Smith, it was a very good argument against positive Darwinism...

I also asked the question, pretty much in despair, (you may recall this from the CSB) "Is there NO ONE in this party with a full head of hair? "

Well, finally we found somebody....

[Lord Jim]

When you have a broadly popular PM...

(Like Mrs. Thacher or Mr. Blair)

It only stands to reason that The Party Opposite is not going to come up with their "A Team" until that strong, iconic figure has exhausted their appeal....

If you happen to have the misfortune of leading the opposition party into a general election while that person is still riding a wave, you're going to get trounced...

(And also of course, people with genuine talent and ambition hold back from going for leadership when they see that on the cards, and let the dorks take the pie in the face...)

[Lord Jim]

There were a number of incidents that occurred that painted a portrait of questionable honesty and of someone who was none too bright, of which the Kinnock thing was just one. Afterwards he repeatedly overstated his academic credentials, like stating he had three degrees when he really only had one degree with a double major, claiming that he went to law school on full scholarship when it was only partial, and based primarily on financial need, not academic accomplishment, and saying he finished law school in the top half of his class when he ranked near the bottom.

Also in the wake of the Kinnock thing, his speechwriter, unknown to Biden, used uncredited bits of speeches from Hubert Humphrey and Robert Kennedy. And so, while he had previously credited Kinnock numerous times when using that turn of phrase, it became part of a larger portrait that he was going to find difficult to shake.

Thank you Scooter...

I had forgotten the whole context of the history involved with this basically being "the straw that broke the camel's back" in terms of the way this played into the narrative of Biden at the time as a person who had some problems with being entirely honest....

Also if remember correctly this last straw Kinnock thing happened shortly after Gary Hart's "Go ahead and follow me" meltdown, so the radar for the press and the public was very attuned to candidate dishonesty....

[Scooter]

And in this case, it was dishonesty that was aimed at dispelling an image that he wasn't the sharpest tack in the drawer, an image that appeared to be reinforced by all of these revelations coming one after the other.

It was like, yeah sure it was spelled "potatoe" on the card that Dan Quayle had in his hand, but it got traction anyway because he was already known as being prone to say stupid things.

[BoSoxGal]

Or is this going to fall into the "I can't be bothered to answer that kind of question" category?

For some time now I have suspected that I would someday find myself your scapegoat du jour, but I'm sad to see you stoop to this level.

I've never run away from responding to specific points - such is not my MO here, at CSB or in life. On exactly one occasion I've made the mistake of engaging you when I should not have, and I chose the option of bowing out in total when you went into bully mode.

Scooter beat me to the answer, as I've been busy working from lunch when I previously posted until now.

FYI, the 1988 election was the first I followed very closely, as I was 17. I've been a student of politics since I watched the Watergate trials from my mother's lap, but 1988 was the first time I really followed nuances of the process and I remember it very well - including the candidate I most hoped to see go the distance, a certain Senator from TN. Maybe because I thought he was kinda cute.

[MajGenl.Meade]

the 1988 election was the first I followed very closely, as I was 17

Sorry for the digression but, oh dear, is there no minimum age limit to post here?

[Lord Jim]

For some time now I have suspected that I would someday find myself your scapegoat du jour, but I'm sad to see you stoop to this level.

You really are completely oblivious to your own behavior, aren't you?

Ever since the day you made yourself look incredibly foolish by picking a fight with me and then trying to blame me for starting it, (anyone who could read could see that wasn't the case ) and then openly admitting that you characterized and criticized things I had said without bothering to read them, you have been following me around making snarky, condescending follow ups.

It's as obvious as a bull in a china shop, but you don't even see it, do you? You apparently are one of those folks, ( I've met a few of them over the years) who is just constitutionally incapable of seeing their own bad conduct, and always sees themselves as the victim.

BTW, I can only think only one other poster who actually openly admitted that they criticized what other people said without bothering to read what they said....

Ironically, it was your old buddy editec....

In fact there used to be a running gag about how editec couldn't bother to read what he responded to because it just slowed him down...(on a couple of occasions, he, candidly admitted to this...Frankly, if I ever criticized what someone said without reading it, I would be too embarrassed to admit it...I would know how ridiculous that would make me look.)

[Big RR]

BSG--if you were 17 in 1988, you were only 2 (maybe 3) during the Watergate hearings in 1973-74. You sure you weren't watching reruns of them at a later date? If you compreheneded much of them at such a young age, I'm impressed.

[dgs49]

Getting back to my original point in this thread, as the election draws nearer, people are going to be listening more and more to what Biden says, and he has what Dave Barry described as "Blitherer's Disease."

Despite my attempts to avoid it, I regularly hear soundbites from his constant political speeches in which he grossly mischaracterizes the actions and positions of not only the Republicans but his own (fucking) party. Usually, these are ignored because, after all, he is an idiot and a political hack, but he remains a heartbeat away from the Presidency.

The President's political team would be foolish not to at least consider dumping this walking gaffe machine. He could do some real harm in the coming months.

Personally, I hope gets as much air time as possible.

[BoSoxGal]

Yes, I do have clear recollection of things that early in my life, Big RR. I'm also blessed (or cursed) with a near photographic memory of detail.

LJ, I've responded at most a half dozen times to posts of yours since that Sunday exchange - specifically since I wanted to avoid this bullshit.

If you go back and review that thread, you'll see that I did not state I'd never read what you wrote, but rather the gist was that I wasn't going to take the time to rehash it all as it wasn't going to change my opinion, which relies upon reading your posts and knowing your political positions without wanting to waste that much of my free time going back and re-reading them. I just don't find them that compelling to deserve a second review.

Since you're the type to obsessively research and hold onto these 'feuds' like a dog on a bone, feel free to research each response to any post of yours I've made since that interaction and prove to the board how I'm now stalking you to snark at you.

Seems to me it's fairly clear that in this thread at least, I simply provided the evidence to discount the false accusation you made against Biden; as a once and future academic, I take accusations of plagiarism very seriously and don't believe they should stand unchallenged when unsubstantiated. I'd have responded the same to anybody making it. Biden's not perfect, but he's no plagiarist.

eta: in hopes that you'll let this go, I'll just say I don't care what you want to believe about my motivations and I now refuse to interact with you at all, because I'd like to see fewer conflicts being instigated on this board, not more. I did 'snarkily' point out where you'd attacked rubato in a thread he'd not even posted in; I suppose you can interpret that as stalking, except the record is clear that I've consistently expressed a desire that you and Gob and others should quit bad mouthing him as it just creates nastiness & conflict on the board. I am however coming to realize that certain personalities can't be happy here without dredging some conflict up at all times.

As for us, I'm putting you on ignore so as of now I am NOT reading your posts and will never respond and make you feel 'stalked' again. I trust that will satisfy you and end my turn as your target du jour. If you feel the obsessive urge to keep haranguing, why don't you do it by PM to save posting more nastiness?

[Lord Jim]

Like I said Dave, I think Team Obama sees Biden as a real asset for firing up the base...

Those folks don't care if he mischaracterizes or misstates, or how many strawmen he constructs to knock down...

They just love to hear the rhetoric....

I believe the game plan is that down the stretch when Obama himself will have to abandon the "Workingman's Hero" schtick to try and lasso as many of those 6% independent persuables as possible, they're going to count on Biden to keep shrieking about the evil "rich guys" to help keep the base motivated to turn out to vote.

I think they believe the independents will pretty much ignore Biden, while the base will love it....

[Big RR]

So Bidne is like a democratic Agnew? You might be right.

[Sue U]

I think they believe the independents will pretty much ignore Biden, while the base will love it....

That worked out so well for John McCain and Sarah Whozits.

ETA:

So Bidne is like a democratic Agnew?

With less alliteration.

[Lord Jim]

That worked out so well for John McCain and Sarah Whozits.

Well, the reason the erstwhile Alaskan Governor got so much attention is because no one had ever heard of her before, and this was her introduction to both the public and the press.....(Let's just say there have introductions that went better...)

Biden however is a very know quantity; I think for most voters his spouting off has become just a part of the background...white noise...(literally.... )

[Crackpot]

Biden does make some coherant and convincing arguments from time to time. If the guy didn't stick his foot in his mouth every alternate step he would probably make a good President.

But that is not the case and because of that he wouldn't

[Gob]

That worked out so well for John McCain and Sarah Whozits.

Well, the reason the erstwhile Alaskan Governor got so much attention is because she's a raving lunatic.

Fixed.

[dgs49]

Not to get into a lot of side issues here, but aside from Biden's harmless mis-statements (like vehemently denying that the Vice President - President of the Senate, don't you know - had any role in the legislative branch), he is also a constant practitioner of the odious practice of buttressing his "arguments" with "facts" that he knows to be false.

Indeed, most of what he says on the campaign trail these days is pure prevarication. "Republicans are trying to take away your birth control," "Romney is engaged in a war on women," and so forth.

Like most Democrat politicians, he depends on the lack of factual knowledge in his audience to craft "convincing" arguments in support of what he is trying to promote. And as Crackpot points out above, if you are not familiar with the facts, it IS convincing.

But no matter what you say, this is not something that "all politicians" do. He is a lying bastard. In addition to being a fool. OBL had him pegged.

[Sue U]

But no matter what you say, this is not something that "all politicians" do.

Obama is a Muslim Kenyan Socialist Fascist foreigner who hates America and pals around with terrorists while plotting a government takeover of healthcare through ACORN voter fraud so everyone's grandma will be dragged before a death panel while being forced to have government abortions at FEMA reeducation camps after mandating that your pastor/priest gay-marry you to the ghost of Saul Alinsky.

Where's the long-form mirth certificate??!!?!!11??!?!?!?!11!?!