Oh, that wacky Joe Biden. Just when we thought we were safe, he had to open his big trap. Okay, we haven't heard from Joe Biden in while. And apparently for good reason. When he opens his mouth invariably he inserts his foot.
This time he was speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School where in the course of his speech, he implied that Turkey and the other regional allies have supplied "or facilitated" the growth of ISIL and other extremists in Syria. He even went all folksy about how President Erdogan of Turkey was "an old friend" and that he admitted to Biden that Turkey screwed up by allowing foreign fighters to cross into Syria.
It is just fine to tell "the truth" however, when trying to create a coalition to help defeat ISIL and global terrorism in general, insulting entire regions probably is not a wise move. Biden is marketed as a savvy politician and an expert in foreign policy, yet he has had to apologize to Turkey, UAE, and Saudi Arabia for his remarks. At best, his diplomatic skills are just amateurish. And, as tech savvy as the this Administration is, they cannot seem to grasp that when someone from the Administration makes these kinds of statements anyplace, even at the hallowed hall of Harvard Kennedy School, it will be heard by more than just those who attend.
But they don't understand that the words they choose matter. Earlier in the month, Biden referred to bankers as "Shylocks" which got the Anti-Defamation League's backs up. Then he used the outdated imperialist term "the Orient" which got the Asian-American's backs up. [But then Harry Reid didn't help when he jokingly remarked "...I don’t think you’re smarter than anybody else, but you’ve convinced a lot of us you are" and “One problem I’ve had today is keeping my Wongs straight.” in Vegas to the Asian Chamber of Commerce.] Maybe Joe Biden just can't help himself.
So, fearing that he may have to chew on more shoe leather, let's get ahead of the game. I mean, we haven't made light of "Ol' Joe" in a while, so let's have some fun. Maybe if we come up with just the right statement he can use that will insult everyone in the world all at once, he can just make one big apology and get it over. Then just maybe the world will be a much more cooperative, happy place. Let's do this for "World Peace", People!
So, here's the photo. Do your stuff for sake of all mankind...er...humankind!
By the way, I hear from "The Management" that there may be prizes for the best caption that may (or may not) include a no-expense paid vacation to anywhere in the world you want to pay to go!
This time he was speaking at the Harvard Kennedy School where in the course of his speech, he implied that Turkey and the other regional allies have supplied "or facilitated" the growth of ISIL and other extremists in Syria. He even went all folksy about how President Erdogan of Turkey was "an old friend" and that he admitted to Biden that Turkey screwed up by allowing foreign fighters to cross into Syria.
It is just fine to tell "the truth" however, when trying to create a coalition to help defeat ISIL and global terrorism in general, insulting entire regions probably is not a wise move. Biden is marketed as a savvy politician and an expert in foreign policy, yet he has had to apologize to Turkey, UAE, and Saudi Arabia for his remarks. At best, his diplomatic skills are just amateurish. And, as tech savvy as the this Administration is, they cannot seem to grasp that when someone from the Administration makes these kinds of statements anyplace, even at the hallowed hall of Harvard Kennedy School, it will be heard by more than just those who attend.
But they don't understand that the words they choose matter. Earlier in the month, Biden referred to bankers as "Shylocks" which got the Anti-Defamation League's backs up. Then he used the outdated imperialist term "the Orient" which got the Asian-American's backs up. [But then Harry Reid didn't help when he jokingly remarked "...I don’t think you’re smarter than anybody else, but you’ve convinced a lot of us you are" and “One problem I’ve had today is keeping my Wongs straight.” in Vegas to the Asian Chamber of Commerce.] Maybe Joe Biden just can't help himself.
So, fearing that he may have to chew on more shoe leather, let's get ahead of the game. I mean, we haven't made light of "Ol' Joe" in a while, so let's have some fun. Maybe if we come up with just the right statement he can use that will insult everyone in the world all at once, he can just make one big apology and get it over. Then just maybe the world will be a much more cooperative, happy place. Let's do this for "World Peace", People!
So, here's the photo. Do your stuff for sake of all mankind...er...humankind!
By the way, I hear from "The Management" that there may be prizes for the best caption that may (or may not) include a no-expense paid vacation to anywhere in the world you want to pay to go!
Insulting everyone in the world at once is a tall order and I don't think even Biden could manage it, but I fully expect him to make some sort of Ebola joke in the future that could come close.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, like liberals did with Bush, conservatives have had great fun highlighting Biden's tendency to trip over his own tongue. The strategy thrills the base, but it may actually be counterproductive because it lowers the bar for them (Biden didn't cover himself in glory during his debate with Ryan, but he won because Ryan didn't crush him the way our beliefs about Biden told us he should have).
If everyday you shout from the rooftops that X says stupid things all the time, it helps them come across as a 'man of the people' (an image both Biden and Bush cultivated) rather than a consummate politician (something that was also true of Biden and Bush and is true of everyone that rises as high as they did in politics).
*Shrugs* Of course, that might not be true of foreign affairs, but at this stage damaging Obama's foreign policy is like mutilating a corpse.
"How come Obama gets away with saying stupid stuff yet never has to apologize. I don't like...I don't like it...I don't like it. There I said it.
ReplyDeleteCan I still play with you guys?"
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou're calling for Obama to apologize more often? Not a demand one sees every day, especially on conservative websites :).
Anthony - Biden disappears from the media when Obama needs Biden to disappear. But the media have been getting restless and in need of click bait. WaPo has become particularly aggressive toward the Obama Admin since Jeff Bezos bought it. Or should I say, that WaPo is no longer the extension of the WH press secretary's office.
ReplyDeleteAnon - I would just settle for Obama taking responsibility just once. Even when he tries, he ends up blaming someone for giving him the wrong/incomplete [fill-in-the-blank]. And since he and his press camp can no longer use a Bush (pick one) because, well, that would just be ludricris at this point, they still try...
ReplyDeleteBev,
ReplyDeleteInteresting to read about the changes to the Post. I was once a regular reader, but the death of Princess Diana pushed me away it (Day 19, Still Dead!).
The way newspapers and tv networks over-covered whatever the current obsession of the day was always a pattern I noticed, but either it got worse or I got more sensitive to it and eventually I parted ways with both.
Bev,
ReplyDeleteToday the Washington Post reported on the Colombia prostitution scandal and how much did the White House know about the possibility that several staffers may have solicited a prostitute. Some good stuff there.
LINK
The Obama folks want Fauxcohontas Warren to be the next POTUS and they will torpedo Biden and Hillary to get it done...watch the bloodletting really pick up steam after November when White House staffers start leaking all sorts of stuff about Uncle Joe and Hillary.
ReplyDeleteTest, test, test, I changed my profile pic to my hero, Fr. Guido Sarducci....confessions at 6 PM, drinks at 7.
ReplyDeleteCritch - I don't do confessions, but drinks at 7 are just up my alley! Loved Fr. Guido Sarducci. Whatever happened to the good Fr.? Ahh,the golden years of SNL...
ReplyDeleteKit - Washington Post has really taken up the gauntlet of old school "journalism" lately and has taken on the Obama Administration. Maybe it's their new owner Jeff Bezos or maybe it's this election cycle. Whatever it is, they seem to understand again what their job is supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of golden age of SNL, I just read that Jan Hooks has passed away. The report didn't say why or how, but she wasn't looking to well in some of her recent appearances. TMZ report said she had "been battling a serious illness".
ReplyDeleteBev, I saw that. I was surprised. She was only 57, which isn't very old at all these days.
ReplyDeleteCritch, Nice call!!
ReplyDeleteBev, As for Biden, I enjoy poking fun at him and I think it is important to deflate this idea that the Democrats are somehow the party of smart people and the Republicans are the party of morons.
ReplyDeleteThat said, I agree to a large degree with Anthony that attack someone like Biden is ultimately counter-productive. I think that for attacks like this to have meaning, we need the support of the culture machine. That's how you destroy a Sarah Palin or Dan Quayle. We don't have that at the moment, so we have a problem.
"You can all go to Hell! I like lemons, dammit!"
ReplyDeleteSeriously, it's all in the lip.
"Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan and Kailash Satyarthi of India won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for risking their lives to fight for children's rights. The decision made Malala, a 17-year-old student and education activist, the youngest-ever Nobel winner."
ReplyDeleteFinally, people who are deserving of a Nobel Peace Prize...
Andrew - If we cannot make fun of politicians and pundits then what is the point exactly? Seriously. And exactly who IS the "culture machine" for which we are in need their support? In my opinion, the problem IS the "culture machine".
ReplyDeleteBev, My point is more this: there is this belief that you can destroy a politician and shame their party by pointing out how stupid they are, i.e. by relentlessly mocking them. The problem with that is that unless your attacks make it into the broader non-political culture, then they don't take. All they end up at that point is being fodder for ideologues who already hate the person, i.e. preaching to the choir.
ReplyDeleteIf you want such attacks to work, you need comedians, actors, etc. to repeat these attacks as their own, which moves them into the broader non-political culture for consumption by the public at large. That's where something like SNL has real value to the left. They can take a partisan attack on Sarah Palin and turn that into a cultural meme with the public because the public doesn't see them as being openly political. Instead they see them as arbiters of what is culturally relevant and exposers of truth. So they pound home an attack and, soon, the public accepts the meme as true: "I can see Russia from my house!"
We don't have anything like that on our side for two reasons. First, there are too few conservatives in show business, so our ideas rarely get play. And secondly, those that are in show business tend to identify themselves as "conservative," which means their opinions are written off as biased. So when our side attacks someone like Biden, it gets no traction with the non-conservative public because there is no one out there who can sell it to them.
That's my point about the culture machine. And until that changes, attacking people like Biden can be fun, but it won't move the needle.
I guess it'll be awhile before Biden talks Turkey again.
ReplyDeleteBen, Nothing slows old Joe.
ReplyDeleteI've started reading the Washington Post more and I am thinking of changing my kindle subscription to it from the USAToday. It looks more and more to me that the USAToday is more liberal. Besides, I can get copies of the latter at my university for free.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Wendy Davis's new attack ad against the paralyzed Greg Abbott features a wheelchair. Even leftists like Mother Jones are criticizing her campaign over this movie.
Kit Davis is desperate. She is behind by double digits and her camp has no other choice appararently. She can't win on policy because she has no other policy than abortion rights issues.
ReplyDeleteI doubt many Democrats thought Davis was going to win Texas, but they probably hoped (with Republican complicity) to turn her into 2014's Sandra Fluke. Her vicious, stupid attack ad probably took that off the table.
ReplyDeleteBev,
ReplyDelete"She can't win on policy because she has no other policy than abortion rights issues."
The more I look at Davis the more I wonder, "Was there anyone else in the state they could've picked other than her?" How bad are things for Dems in Texas if she is the person they consider their best chance to beat the GOP there.
It seems they were hoping for a "War on Women" angle… in Texas. There are worse places for Democrats to use this card, Kansas, for instance. Kansas would definitely be a worse play to the "War on Women" angle than Texas. Maybe Georgia, Mississippi, or Alabama would as well.
Its like a Republican running for governor in New York on an anti-gay marriage platform.
If they wanted a candidate to run on his or her identity then they should've gone with a Hispanic.
Anyway, if you want some entertainment, 5 or 6 days ago the Daily Kos recently had a post claiming she will win, even as they acknowledge she is behind by 9 points. Apparently, closing a 15pt gap to a 9pt gap a month before the election is sign of an impending victory.
LINK
While a victory for Davis is not completely impossible, it is very, very unlikely.
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteBush was able to avoid the SNL attacks as long as he came across as effective. It was only in the 2nd term of his Presidency, with Katrina and the Iraqi Civil War, that the sketches became effective. The SNL attacks certainly didn't stop him from winning a 2nd term in the first place.
In 2008, Sarah Palin's poor interview performances made her look like a flake not ready for the primetime. Which made the SNL attacks more effective.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"I doubt many Democrats thought Davis was going to win Texas, but they probably hoped (with Republican complicity) to turn her into 2014's Sandra Fluke. Her vicious, stupid attack ad probably took that off the table."
You might be right.
I think "many" Democrats in Texas thought Davis could win. But there is the Turn Texas Blue crowd who DO think Davis can and will win and the entire state will be "Blue" in 2016.
ReplyDeleteBev,
ReplyDeleteThis one is a bit long but its worth it.
Most left-wing sites are saying that even if she loses she wins because it means women voters will be "a force to reckon with in 2016".
Jessica Grose, of Slate, wrote back in early-July: "But whether she wins in Texas is somewhat beside the point, at least as far as her status as a national icon is concerned. As we head down the long road to the 2016 elections, Wendy Davis’ campaign serves as proof that a lot of people across the country can get fired up about women’s health and that hashtag activism can have concrete results."
LINK
"Concrete results"? Which ones? Well, let's go through the list:
"The hashtag that coalesced around the filibuster, #standwithwendy, moved people to storm the statehouse and prevented the abortion bill from being passed that night"
That is true, it was not passed… that night.
This was largely the result of a procedural quirk as, due to the filibuster, the Republicans wound up passing the law after midnight, which according to State Senate's rules they cannot do so the vote was declared void. That was June 25-26.
A Special Session was convened and on July 10 it was passed by the House and the Senate on July 13. 5 days later on July 18 Rick Perry signed it into law. She delayed the Senate's vote on it by 18 days and its signing by Perry by about a month.
Grose point 2: "The social media storm also led to incredible grassroots support of as a result of of Davis" and there is some evidence for that, as she quotes Manny Fernandez in the New York Times: "She and her aides note that no other Democratic candidate for a statewide-elected office in Texas history has amassed more individual donors (133,000) or more volunteers (20,000)"
Ok, but at the end of the day, the question is this: Can it result in victories for Democrats and Pro-Choice activists at the ballot? She more or less admits that there is good chance Wendy Davis will lose the election. So, then what exactly would be the "concrete results" of all of that hashtag activism? Yeah, they galvanized support but if it does not translate into wins for Democrats and pro-choice
She also points to the Hobby Lobby ruling which resulting in the hashtag #notmybossbusiness. Which resulted in nothing. Again.
So what is the checklist for concrete results
(1) Delaying the passage of a major state pro-life bill for a little under a month.
(2) A grassroots campaign for a candidate that will most likely fail to gain a victory for its candidate.
(3) Grassroots support for pro-choice that has yet to result in any "concrete" gains at the ballot other than a doubling in donations for Choice in Montana after an abortion clinic in the state was vandalized*.
(4) Rage over a supreme court decision that will not be reversed at least for the near future.
*Grose calls it a "Women's Health Clinic". I googled, it was an abortion clinic.
TYPO: I quoted Ms. Grose as follows: ""The social media storm also led to incredible grassroots support of as a result of of Davis"
ReplyDeleteThe ACTUAL quote was this: " The social media storm also led to incredible grassroots support of Davis"
Bev,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure some Democrats believe Davis can flip Texas from red to blue in a single election cycle, but most of the talk I've read about Texas turning blue focusing on changing demographics over time rather than a candidate or issue suddenly changing the current voting base's tastes.
Anthony,
ReplyDelete"I'm sure some Democrats believe Davis can flip Texas from red to blue in a single election cycle, but most of the talk I've read about Texas turning blue focusing on changing demographics over time rather than a candidate or issue suddenly changing the current voting base's tastes."
Most, that is except for Egberto Willies at the Daily Kos, whose blog post I linked to above. I'll post some excerpts, simply for the laugh factor. Because it really is fun to read. Emphasis is mine.
------------------------------------------------------
The reality is that the people in Texas have blue values, but they have bought into the narrative that the state is conservative. What is undeniably true is that conservatives vote, and liberals and moderates in Texas don't. They haven’t because for too long, too many Democrats have sounded like Republican lite, reinforcing the notion of Texas being a conservative state.
If Texans are given real choices that they believe, they will register. They will vote. In fact, Texans are looking for a reason to vote, and Wendy Davis is giving Texans that reason. She gave compelling reasons Texans needed a governor like her in a speech she gave at the National Press Club before she officially declared her run. Texans already knew she was willing to fight for positions she and many Texans believe in, based on her epic filibuster a couple of summers ago.
------------------------------------------------------
His conclusion:
------------------------------------------------------
Time is running out. Voter ID laws are problematic. That said, if the activity and enthusiasm seen throughout the state is met with similar activity at the polls through early voting and in November, the status quo in Texas will be broken. Wendy Davis will win and a host of qualified Democratic statewide candidates down ballot will win as well. Texas will likely turn blue before it turns purple.
------------------------------------------------------
LINK
Anthony, I think you are right. That is what most Dems and liberals think. In fact most are probably predicting a loss for Davis. Though you have a lot of "even if she loses she/pro-choice wins" (see Salon article above).
ReplyDeleteI couldn't resist posting the excerpts, though. :)
Kit, To harm someone through humor requires both something funny/witty and memorable, and something true. You can't just attack someone as something they give no indication of being. Bush was not seen as incompetent until Katrina. Palin made a fool of herself with Katie Couric, and then removed all doubt in the following week.
ReplyDeleteIf SNL had attacked Palin as stupid from day one, it wouldn't have resonated... not until she proved it. With Bush, the attacks were basically ideological until Katrina gave them a visceral attack. He played that all wrong and it exploded on him.
The reason a guy like Biden survives is because no matter how stupid he proves to be, places like SNL never attack him in any nasty, personal or permanent way... they save that for Republicans. Even their "attacks" on Bill Clinton were all goodnatured and made him out as a goodnatured philanderer.
With Reagan they tried everything from war monger to senile, but none of it stuck because Reagan never showed those traits. With Bush Sr. they zinged him for being rich and out of touch, something he proved repeated (e.g. not knowing what a grocery scanner was or the price of milk). With W, they made him out as the stupid pawn of evil Dick Cheney, but it didn't stick until Katrina gave them "helplessly stupid Bush" to work with.
They've never told an Obama joke... just "look at how stupid the people are Obama needs to deal with" jokes.
Andrew they also attacked Bush because he did not respond because he understood that mercilessly lampooning our political leaders is what we do. See the story of the 300+ soccer fans who were detained for chanted "F**k Vlad" .
ReplyDeleteBev, Let me clarify, I don't mean "not respond" to SNL. He should have ignored them. The problem was that he needed to go on the offensive to push the blame onto the governor and mayor who vanished in the crisis and failed to give him permission to do what needed to be done. Instead, he let them off the hook by remaining pleasant. So the image became that of Bush doing nothing as things blew up rather than Bush being angry at the governor for not authorizing the feds to get involved and save the day.
ReplyDeleteBut Andrew, what is REALLY counter productive in a crisis like Katrina/New Orleans, is to spend valuable time laying blame. And since former Gov. Blanco is out of politics and former Mayor Nagin is now in prison, it wasn't necessary.
ReplyDeleteBev, All political events have two considerations: (1) doing it right and (2) managing the political "optics" that come out of it. And as sad as it sounds, the second is the more important for politicians. If you manage the optics well enough, you can actually screw up the event itself. By the same token, if you don't manage the optics, you can solve the crisis and still get blasted for your handling of it. Guys like Clinton, JFK, and Hitler, were masters at this. Everything was a triumph and anything that simply couldn't be called a triumph was the other guy's fault.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with Bush was that he genuinely assumed that if he did his job well, people would respect that. He didn't realize that politics is played in bad faith and that if he didn't manage the optics, the Democrats would manage them against him... which is what happened.
In terms of being necessary, it was. The problem is this: his failure to respond then allowed a legacy to be defined against him, and changing that legacy will be nearly impossible because it has become conventional wisdom that Bush was responsible... not Blanco or Nagin.
BTW, Obama is a great example of a politician who understand this, but is so aggressive about it that he hurts himself more than helps himself with his attempts to manage the optics. Essentially, he's been so blatant about deflecting everything that he's lost people's trust.
ReplyDeleteIt's a fine line to walk. And the guys who walked it best are probably Reagan and Clinton.
I agree that "optics" are important, but what's the real end game? The people of Louisiana saw where the real problem was - Gov. Blanco, Mayor Nagin, and the entrenched Democrat political machine and the many, many years of graft, greed, and payoffs that caused the levies to break because they were shoddily built. They changed their course and Louisiana is better for it. To me THAT is the end game - better leadership.
ReplyDeleteBev, The end game is to win the public over to your ideas. Getting a good solution is part of that, but sadly, not the biggest part... the PR is the biggest factor in that. Trust me, Reagan sold every single thing he did to the public. He knew he couldn't just assume that people would respond to the results. He knew the Democrats would try to steal the good results and pin bad results on him... and they did. They claimed success for the economy, for beating the Soviets, and for everything else. They tried to blame him for every ill society could muster as well as every fake scandal they could.
ReplyDeleteHad Reagan responded like Bush and said nothing, his legacy would have been much different.