Because I'm hearing a lot about how Ryan's going to "destroy" Joe Biden.

Let's look at reasons why that won't be so:

1. The Moderator Chooses The Questions and Will Presumably Attempt to Maintain "Control."

When liberals assailed Jim Lehrer for "losing control" -- that is, permitting two highly accomplished, adult men with no criminal history to talk to each other without much official supervision -- they weren't really criticizing Lehrer. They were making excuses for Obama, but more importantly, they were working the refs of the next game.

They were laying down a marker for the next moderators that If you fail to properly coddle Obama and/or Biden, you will be all but excommunicated from the Press Club.

I imagine this worked. I imagine, as many have said, that Paul Ryan will be debating two opponents, not one. I believe that all the tough, wedge-issue questions will be put to Ryan -- with the moderator interrupting his answers to contradict him and cavil -- whereas Biden will be offered open-ended questions asking him to rehabilitate Obama's image. And he will do so.

2. All Issues, Including Abortion, Birth Control, and #waronwomen, Will Be Included In This Debate.

Understand this about the Romeny/Obama debate -- that debate was on the economy, debt, and taxes. The issues the Romney/Ryan ticket are running on.

This debate will cover all issues, and bet your bottom dollar that #waronwomen will be three of them. (There are nine "pods" of questions; expect a full third, or more, to be devoted to Birth Control, Abortion, and #waronwomen.)

It's not that Ryan automatically loses on such questions; but he doesn't have any advantage. Further, when the moderator is dwelling on all the tough questions of Ryan's position (abortion in cases of rape) but serving up Biden Home Run Pitches and not asking him any tough questions ("abortions" conducted on actual live-birth babies), it stacks the field pretty badly.

Ryan will tread very carefully here, trying to appease both the harder-core of the social right while trying to not scare the shit out of moderates. He will come off scripted, controlled, and not quite candid during these interrogations.

And that's a third of the debate.

And when Ryan gets into the specifics of budgetary policy, and Biden seems to be flailing, the moderator will advise Ryan "let's get out of the weeds here."

Of course-- let's get away from Ryan's advantage. And ignore the fact that the game is in the weeds. That's precisely where you hunt it.

3. Biden Is Liberated From Responsibility And Can Say Literally Anything Without Fear of Fact-Check.

Biden's reputation for silly blarney means that nothing he says will be fact-checked by a media desperate for an Obama/Biden win, and furthermore, no matter what howlers he tells, none of that will be permitted to reflect poorly on Obama himself.

No idiocy of Biden's will wind up staining Obama. So he can indulge in the Tactically Idiotic at will.

A Liberation From Responsibility is quite an advantage.

4. Biden Has Long Been Regarded As Rather A Strong Debater.

No bullshit here -- this isn't just me hackishly propping him up. As Legal Insurrection recently noted, with video clips aplenty, Biden's strength -- one of his only strengths -- is being good at both giving an old-fashioned ward-heeler type political speech, and giving the same sort of Machine Politician Pro debate performance.

Remember, Sarah Palin gave a good performance in the 2008 VP debate -- so good I thought she won, and won clearly (on points, but unanimous decision by the judges).

But polls -- the same polls that now say Romney won Round One with Obama -- said Biden actually won.

Sarah Palin wasn't an idiot, and had charisma, and had done her homework in preparing for the debate. Biden still won.

And Biden was judged to have won many of the Democratic debates when he ran for president in 2008. No one noticed, because he was never considered a serious candidate, but his combination of joviality and po-mouth blarney was thought to be winning and charming.

5. For a Certain Segment of the Population, Intellect Is Threatening and "Other."

And this is Biden's secret strength -- he talks best to people who are, how do I say this, not particularly bright. That was Obama's cynical reason for picking him as VP.

Will he have his facts in order? Will he know his policy cold? No, he won't, but he "speaks from the heart," which is what people say when they want to compliment someone who's kind of dimwitted and out of it.

Biden's strength is this: "Often in error, seldom in doubt." He will make sweepingly stupid statements, and he will offer them with complete conviction, because he's stupid enough to believe what he's saying.

Meanwhile, Paul Ryan is an extremely smart guy, and is, how would we put this in terms Biden would understand?, burdened by knowledge and expertise.

Some of the people who voted for Obama last time might feel a bit of resentment at this obviously highly intelligent young whelp beating up on a confused old man who means well and "speaks from the heart."

6. No Matter Who Wins, The Media Will Claim Biden Won.

They need Biden to win; thus, it will be so. And because the ratings will be so much lower for this debate -- the VP debate tends not to be watched very much, the 2008 aberration aside -- most people will learn of the debate via the media, not the report of their own eyes.

And hence, "Biden wins" is the headline.

It's already the headline. It has already been written.

To actually "win" -- and be judged as winning -- Ryan will actually have to demolish Biden worse than Romney demolished Obama. An extremely high hurdle, which simply will not happen.

If Biden wins, then Biden wins.

If Biden ties, then Biden wins.

If Biden loses, then Biden wins.

Only if Biden commits the sort of embarrassing gaffe that becomes a viral sensation can Ryan possibly win-- and then in that case, he "edges" Biden, only because of this one little problem, which by the way is no big deal.

So, overall: Chillax. We're not going to "destroy" Biden. We're looking for a win, which then becomes a "tie with little impact on the race" in the media's telling.

And it will be an uphill battle to get that much.

Format: The basics:

Unlike last week, Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Paul Ryan will be seated, next to each other and at the same table as Raddatz....

Another difference will be format. TonightÂ’s debate will be roughly evenly split between foreign and domestic topics. Last weekÂ’s debate was domestic only; there will be a with a town-hall format and a foreign-policy debate to follow over the next two weeks.

And while Jim Lehrer moderated a debate broken into six 15-minute segments, RaddatzÂ’s debate will be broken into nine 10-minute segments.

...

At the beginning of each segment, Raddatz will ask the same question to both Biden and Ryan. Each will have two minutes to respond, uninterrupted, with lights giving time signals to both men.

Raddatz will then use the balance of the time in each segment to facilitate a discussion between Biden and Ryan. There will be no opening statements, though both will be given on minute and 30 seconds for closing statements.

Posted by: Ace at 01:03 PM | Comments (384)
Post contains 1249 words, total size 8 kb.

"Selective editing," but oh yeah, also fired.

Posted by: Ace at 12:02 PM | Comments (235)
Post contains 37 words, total size 1 kb.

A Kinsleyan Gaffe is a statement in which a politician reveals her real, but repulsive, beliefs.

Stephanie Cutter just committed a horrific one.

She views the abject failure of Obama to provide adequate security in Benghazi -- due to his naive view that a disarmed consulate would deter armed aggression -- as a purely "political" issue.

A "political" issue to be spun, reframed, recontextualized.

A "political" issue that just happens to have a bodycount.

This explains why the Obama Campaign lied about the attack for two weeks: Because, as Stephanie Cutter just told you, they view this as a "political" issue to be spun and won.

This explains why the Obama Campaign lies to the face of the mother of Sean Smith. Because, as Stephanie Cutter just told you, Sean Smith's death is just a "political" issue to be won in a newscycle.

This explains why Obama jetted off to a Vegas fundraiser on the day of Chris Stevens', Sean Smiths', and two SEALs' murder. Because, as Stephanie Cutter just told you, this is just a "political issue" and for Obama to cancel political plans would suggest it might be more than that.

This explains why Hillary Clinton lied about the cause of Chris Stevens' death, just yards away from his coffin. Because, as Stephanie Cutter just told you, this is just a "political issue," a distraction from the only thing that matters, the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama.

This explains why the Obama Administration claims its investigation into why they themselves refused completely reasonable security upgrades cannot be completed... until after the election. Because, as Stephanie Cutter just told you, the catastrophic decision to pursue a Let a Smile Be Your Bodyguard folly is just a "political" issue to be reframed for media soundbites.

This explains a full month of lies, evasions, and complete refusal to admit any sort of responsibility. Because, as Stephanie Cutter just told you, the bodies of four Americans are just a "political" issue, just "bumps in the road," to be buried and forgotten.

Not a Gaffe: A Planned Administration Strategy. As @verumserum notes, Jay Carney trotted this "politicization" claim yesterday.

Posted by: Ace at 11:29 AM | Comments (337)
Post contains 370 words, total size 3 kb.

The most damning thing is that she says these people -- and Susan Rice -- personally lied to her.

She's not saying she got these lies from TV. They personally lied to her.

Susan Rice told her it was because of the YouTube video.

Quoting them:

"We're checking up on it. Trust me. Oh I love that one: Trust me."

Devastating.

“Don’t give me any baloney that comes through with this political stuff,” Pat Smith told CNN’s Anderson Cooper Wednesday. Her son, Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith, was one of four Americans killed at the consulate in Benghazi on Sept. 11. “Just tell me the truth, what happened, and I still don’t know.”

Smith added, “The things they are telling me are just outright lies.” U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, she said, told her the attack was a result of protests around an anti-Muslim video. “I don’t trust you anymore,” she said of the administration. “You — I’m not going to say lied to me, but you didn’t tell me and you knew.”

Thanks to Countrysquire.

Huge Update: I'm looking for the cite on this. But Philip Klein, a great reporter, tweeted it. (Actually he retweeted it: Buzzfeed's @buzzfeedandrew caught it.)

I'm going to put into headline form:

Obama Spokeswoman Stefanie Cutter: Benghazi Only An Issue Because "Romney and Ryan" Made It One

Video Up: I'm not sure she keeps her job.

Doublin' Down: Cutter tweets:

"Romney has politicized Libya w/no plans of his own. POTUS' priorities are getting facts & bringing terrorists to justice."

more...

Posted by: Ace at 10:36 AM | Comments (396)
Post contains 320 words, total size 3 kb.

He's warning people to avoid socialism.

Peterffy told CNN he expects to spend $5-$10 million on the ad buy, depending on its effectiveness. The spot will run on CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, and test markets in Ohio, Wisconsin, and possibly Florida.

The one-minute spot, which began airing Wednesday and will continue through Election Day, has no mention of any specific politician or lawmaker. It's simply a plea for an end to what he sees as growing hostility to personal success - and to vote Republican.

"America's wealth comes from the efforts of people striving for success. Take away their incentive with badmouthing success and you take away the wealth that helps us take care of the needy," he says in the commercial.

...

In the new ad[,] Peterffy says [Obama's] policies lead to a "slippery slope."

"It seems like people don't learn from that past," he says. "That's why I'm voting Republican and putting this ad on television."

Oh No You Didn't: I have no words.

This was posted in the comments of the above-linked article.

Please Mr. Pefferty – get a life and go study social sciences. You obviously have no idea what socialism is.

Guy grew up under socialism in Hungary. Obviously, he needs to study "social sciences" to really know what it means. Like this imbecile.

via @benk84

That ad, again:
more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:51 AM | Comments (284)
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

A guy named John E. did some photoshops over at Breitbart.

Many more over there. The relationship goes all the way back to Hawaii... yes, to that gang in Hawaii.

Also, this girl is voting for Romney.

Okay, here's some comment: She thinks Mitt Romney is hot.

She also thinks Mitt rhymes with tit and she has two of those, so that's serendipitous.

But back to the hot thing. It helps.

Hey, people are going to have all sorts of bad reasons to vote for a President.

Via @larryoconnor

Posted by: Ace at 09:17 AM | Comments (160)
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

What a shock-- Andrew Sullivan was peddling a lunatic conspiracy theory.

Shortly after the presidential debate last week, a number of liberal bloggers including ones at Daily Kos, FireDogLake, Democratic Underground, and the Daily BeastÂ’s Andrew Sullivan, among others, began posting items suggesting that Mitt Romney had cheated during the debate.

When asked if the Obama campaign had any hand in pushing this story (an allegation made by Charles Hurt), Ben LaBolt answered:

No — We’ve never casted our lot with the tinfoil hat crowd.

Posted by: Ace at 09:04 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

Here's a roundup of the morning's headlines on the jobless claim figures released by BLS today.

CNN: Jobless claims fall to four-year low

CBS: Jobless claims fall to lowest level since '08

Reuters: Jobless claims fall to lowest in four and a half years

Bloomberg: Jobless Claims in U.S. Fall to Four-Year Low

Chicago Tribune: New jobless claims plunge to 4 1/2-year low

And on, and on. Break out the bubbly and the top hats and tails; happy days are here again.

Oh, wait! Those rightwing nutjobs at Faux News noticed something in the details of the report that makes the gold in them thar hills look a little more like iron pyrite.

STRANGE: Jobless Claims Sank to 339,000 in Latest Week, Though Data Didn't Include One Large State

Well now. A large drop when comparing apples and oranges is pretty meaningless, isn't it? So where were all those other guys in noting that the data is bad and the real change from prior ... oh, right.

I'd bet everything I own and then some that those headlines would've been markedly different if, say, a Republican was in the White House.

And anybody notice a missing word up there? What the hell happened to "unexpectedly"? This was so huge a change from the expectations of a 2,000 claim drop that you'd think they'd be blaring this in all the headl ... what? that doesn't help the President? ... oh, right.

Now, I'm not saying that BLS is cooking the books. But is there a reason to release this incomplete data without putting a gigantic asterisk by it to help the meticulously objective lapdog media not leap to the wrong conclusion about it?

Well, I can think of one. And only one.

But don't fret, the correction to those ever-so-helpful headlines will appear on page A26.

Score another victory for Jack Welch.

The Obama campaign and its supporters, including bigwigs like David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs, along with several cable TV anchors, would like you to believe that BLS data are handled like the gold in Fort Knox, with gun-carrying guards watching their every move, and highly trained, white-gloved super-agents counting and recounting hourly.

...

Bottom line: To suggest that the input to the BLS data-collection system is precise and bias-free is—well, let's just say, overstated.

Posted by: andy at 08:30 AM | Comments (209)
Post contains 397 words, total size 3 kb.

Deadly naivete.

Video at the link, but here's the transcript:

The second scandal is the lack of security at the site before. So what happened before? And I think that what happened was the administration, it wasn't a lack of money that they withdrew all the support and they didn't put up the required barbed wire and the fences and all of that. It was under the theory which starts with Obama at the beginning; we don't want to be intruders in the area, we don't want to be oppositional, we don't want to have a fortress in America, we don't want to look imperialist. We want to blend in with the people and help them build. That's a noble aspiration and that was the motive for having very light security, but it was a catastrophically wrong decision to do it in Benghazi in a no man's land in Dodge City and it cost us the lives of the Ambassador and three other Americans.

The first part is important too -- he notes Hillary Clinton spread the YouTube spontaneous protest lie standing directly next to the coffin of Chris Stevens.

Posted by: Ace at 08:13 AM | Comments (92)
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't know where he's playing this ad, but it's a great one. more...

Posted by: Ace at 07:35 AM | Comments (160)
Post contains 33 words, total size 1 kb.