Debate Showdown: Biden vs. Ryan in the 2012 Vice Presidential Debate

[CAC1001]

One thing that surprised me is that Ryan let Biden slide on a lot of issues that he oculd have come back at him on.

 

[skippy1729]

One thing that surprised me is that Ryan let Biden slide on a lot of issues that he oculd have come back at him on.

My impression was that the moderator cut him short much more often than she did with the VP.

 

[azdavesoul]

Ryan represents the very worst of Congressional partisanship and rancor. Seriously, this guy champions the destruction of the welfare state, and then screams when no one on the other side wants anything to do with it.

Sounds like 'Some people are just that partisan' when they demonize differing opinions.

 

[Angry Citizen]

Sounds like 'Some people are just that partisan' when they demonize differing opinions.

There are legitimate opinions, then there are illegitimate opinions. Opinions cross the illegitimacy line when they advocate a second Gilded Age.

 

[turbo]

I thought that Ryan acquitted himself well, though I'm quite disappointed with his refusal to lay out details of the Romney tax plan. As far as I can tell, the Romney plan is his plan. At some point, the US voters will have to have some details, since it will affect us all. We already know what Obama will do, since we have a track record on his administration, but Romney/Ryan plans remain an enigma. I have trouble with that. There are partisans that will vote for them no matter what, but I would prefer details rather than buying a pig a poke.

 

[micromass]

Wrong because it's inaccurate, or because you don't like the connotation?

Both: it's wrong because it's inaccurate and therefore I don't like the connotation.

 

[azdavesoul]

There are legitimate opinions, then there are illegitimate opinions. Opinions cross the illegitimacy line when they advocate a second Gilded Age.

Perhaps you were watching a different debate. The Biden/Ryan debate did not include any references to a “Second Gilded Age”. As to “illegitimate” opinions, this seems to demonstrate a mindset where it is easier to label than discuss.

 

[Angry Citizen]

The Biden/Ryan debate did not include any references to a “Second Gilded Age”.

Sure it did. Medicare and social security privatization? Massively reduced taxes for the wealthy? I don't recall regulations coming up, but if they did, then Ryan would've advocated deregulation as well. The modern Republican Party stinks of 1890 - no doubt about it.

 

[BobG]

Both accomplished what they were supposed to accomplish.

If Biden won on substance, it's because Romney hasn't laid out many details of his plan; not because of Ryan's performance (it's Romney's place to lay out the details people are asking for; not Ryan's). Ryan showed good discipline and good composure in sticking to the role of Vice President.

If you're talking about man to man competition, Biden sticking it to Ryan on those lack of details would almost be a low blow - but the competition isn't man to man. The competition was team to team and it was entirely appropriate for the Obama/Biden team to put the Romney/Ryan team on the spot for details they haven't provided. It was appropriate to put them on the spot for positions that have shifted.

When it comes to general impressions of the person, though, I felt Ryan made a much better impression. Some of Biden's "stuff" was justified, but rudeness and disrespect became his primary weapon. After a while, he just appeared obnoxious.

 

[russ_watters]

Characterizing abortion as "killing babies" also seems pretty wrong.

Some yes, some no.

 

[russ_watters]

So Biden won.

According to CNN's Gallup poll, it was a narrow victory for Ryan, though statistically a tie: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[Evo]

According to CNN's Gallup poll, it was a narrow victory for Ryan, though statistically a tie: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/?hpt=hp_t1

Acording to CBS's poll Biden won 50 to 31 over Ryan with undecided voters.

Fifty percent of uncommitted voters who tuned into Thursday night's vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky., said they see Vice President Joe Biden as the winner over Mitt Romney's GOP running mate Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., according to an instant poll taken by CBS News.

Of the 431 polled immediately following the debate, 31 percent deemed Ryan the winner, and 19 percent said they felt it was a tie. Party-wise it's a switch from last week's presidential debate, which uncommitted voters handed easily to Romney over President Obama.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57531059/poll-biden-takes-debate-over-ryan-uncommitted-voters-say

Biden was the clear winner according to Politico.

Joltin' Joe Biden wins the bout

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82323.html?hp=l1

Biden won according to Newsweek/Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cans-bazooka-joe-biden-won-the-vp-debate.html

 

[Vorde]

This may be a little off, but is anywhere here an independent/unsure of whom they are going to vote for? I'd like to hear their opinion.

 

[Pythagorean]

By and large: according dems, Biden won; according to reps, Ryan won.

They both won with respect to their own bases, tied with respect to undecided, and lost with respect to opposite base.

Wrong because it's inaccurate, or because you don't like the connotation?

Inaccurate. A fetus isn't a baby. It's a use of connotation through the abuse of denotation; a typical political tactic, a form of rhetoric.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

On substance, I thought that each of them spent their time mischaracterizing everything. On style I though Biden was amazingly rude and that Ryan looked vice-presidential, whatever that means.

 

[Evo]

By and large: according dems, Biden won; according to reps, Ryan won.

They both won with respect to their own bases, tied with respect to undecided, and lost with respect to opposite base.

Yep. my take as well of the media coverage.

On substance, I thought that each of them spent their time mischaracterizing everything. On style I though Biden was amazingly rude and that Ryan looked vice-presidential, whatever that means.

Ryan didn't do poorly, Biden just seemed to manage to put Ryan on the defensive from the beginning and it stayed that way.

The real winner was the moderator, Martha Raddatz. She should do the Presidential Debate.

 

[BobG]

... and that Ryan looked vice-presidential, whatever that means.

That he looked like the guy that always stands next to the man in charge?

The one strange thing, even if inconsequential, was the word Ryan chose in the Great VP Debate Drinking Game. He could have chosen a cool word like "Malarky"! Instead, he chose "my friend" and to spend the entire debate drinking. (And to think - alcoholics all over the country chose "literally", only to have Biden dump that word completely!)

 

[russ_watters]

Acording to CBS's poll Biden won 50 to 31 over Ryan with undecided voters.



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57531059/poll-biden-takes-debate-over-ryan-uncommitted-voters-say

Biden was the clear winner according to Politico.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82323.html?hp=l1

Biden won according to Newsweek/Daily Beast

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...cans-bazooka-joe-biden-won-the-vp-debate.html

I'm not at all interested in what individual commentators have to say about who won and lost, but the difference in the polls is interesting. The Gallup poll was broader (but not necessarily more relevant) in that it just asked people who watched the debate.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The law looks at it in different ways. If a pregnant woman is murdered for example, it can be charged as a double homicide. Otherwise though, the life inside isn't legally considered a human being until birth. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the abortion issue. It isn't number one on people's list of concerns right now.

I'm not going to argue the legality of abortions. I'm saying people in this country have a need to make it their mission to dictate the lives of others they don't even know. "Oh you're gay? Well I'm going to go to the ends of this god given Earth to make sure you can't love and marry the one you want even though it doesn't affect me in any way except for the damaging of my completely idiotic, imbecilic religious convictions!"; "Oh you want to abort your baby because you were raped?! Too bad because that baby was still a gift from god even if you had to get that from the WORST POSSIBLE WAY A WOMAN COULD GET IT! I don't care that you have your own emotions, I just want my christian values upheld!". It is extremely ridiculous and I find it disgusting that these are the issues that people put on the same pedestal as foreign affairs and economics. These people complain about government telling the people what to do but they themselves do the same.

 

[JonDE]

This may be a little off, but is anywhere here an independent/unsure of whom they are going to vote for? I'd like to hear their opinion.

I sort of am, although I do lean left.

At first from watching the debates, I felt that Biden had definately won. He was definately controlling Ryan the whole time, and his smirk/laugh made Ryan look kind of foolish. He also seemed to make one really good point, that Ryan couldn't answer for. That is regards to their tax plan, several times he repeated the issue and Ryan wouldn't reveal any specifics on deductions that would be cut. He even asked specifically if Ryan could guarantee someone making $100k a year wouldn't lose their home owners deduction, and Ryan wouldn't answer. It seems as though the Romney/Ryan don't really have a tax plan, just a general cut 20% and make it work somehow plan.

Upon reading more this morning, it seems as though the government did in fact know that the Libyan embassy had requested more security. So I changed my mind a little this morning.

All in all? I think I am not going to vote. The most important issues to me are the economy and the deficit, and I don't trust either to handle it properly.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure it did. Medicare and social security privatization? Massively reduced taxes for the wealthy? I don't recall regulations coming up, but if they did, then Ryan would've advocated deregulation as well. The modern Republican Party stinks of 1890 - no doubt about it.

The gilded age ended before 1900 and the income tax wasn't established until the 16th Amendment in 1913. So you must be suggesting that it is the mainstream position of the Republican party to repeal the 16th Amendment and thus abolish the income tax (for everyone, not just the wealthy, of course). Please provide a source for this claim or retract your assertion that the Republican party wants to re-establish gilded age policy.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not going to argue the legality of abortions. I'm saying people in this country have a need to make it their mission to dictate the lives of others they don't even know.

Uh, yeah, of course: Passing and enforcing laws that determine what people we don't even know can and can't do is pretty much the fundamental function of government!

 

[Evo]

Upon reading more this morning, it seems as though the government did in fact know that the Libyan embassy had requested more security. So I changed my mind a little this morning.

A request for security would not have gone to the President or VP, so Biden would be correct. The media are such idiots to not realize this.

WH Clarifies Biden’s Benghazi Embassy Security Comment

“He was speaking directly for himself and for the president. He meant the White House,” Carney said, deflecting notions that “we” meant the entire administration. “Those are things that are handled by security personnel at the State Department. So that, I think — it is very clear if you look at it in context in terms of what the vice president was responding to,” he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/wh-clarifies-bidens-benghazi-embassy-security-comment/

 

[SixNein]

The gilded age ended before 1900 and the income tax wasn't established until the 16th Amendment in 1913. So you must be suggesting that it is the mainstream position of the Republican party to repeal the 16th Amendment and thus abolish the income tax (for everyone, not just the wealthy, of course). Please provide a source for this claim or retract your assertion that the Republican party wants to re-establish gilded age policy.

I would compare the republican party more with the 1920 policies. Inequality was sky high then like it is now. The economy even tanked in about the same length of time. And they had similar control over government.

 

[JonDE]

A request for security would not have gone to the President or VP, so Biden would be correct. The media are such idiots to not realize this.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/wh-clarifies-bidens-benghazi-embassy-security-comment/

Well the State department is part of the Obama administration, so he and Biden are responsible for it and its actions.

Now on looking it up further, I have changed my mind once again. It seems as though the additional requested security would have been stationed in Tripoli, not where the attacks occurred in Benghazi, so it wouldn't have made a difference anyways. Biden probably should have said that instead.

 

[turbo]

A request for security would not have gone to the President or VP, so Biden would be correct. The media are such idiots to not realize this.

The media should have been nimble enough to realize that the Republican-controlled house was also cutting funding for embassy security.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261153--rep-chaffetz-white-house-claiming-ignorance-on-warning-about-libya-attack-is-totally-not-true

It is irrational to lay the blame for every misstep at the feet of the president. Those who do so are counting on the ignorance and gullibility of the US voters (not a bad bet, really), and the laziness of the media.

 

[russ_watters]

Inaccurate. A fetus isn't a baby. It's a use of connotation through the abuse of denotation; a typical political tactic, a form of rhetoric.

The reason abortion is controversial is because answers to seemingly simple questions are not straightforward.

At some point, a fetus becomes developed enough that it can live outside the womb, making the only difference between "fetus" and "baby" a matter of location. So that's a wording distinction without a relevant difference, to me.

Moreover, the fact that, as pointed out previous, killing a pregnant woman is sometimes considered a double-homicide shows an inconsistency in the way the law treats whatever we call what is inside the woman's womb.

 

[russ_watters]

The media should have been nimble enough to realize that the Republican-controlled house was also cutting funding for embassy security.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/261153--rep-chaffetz-white-house-claiming-ignorance-on-warning-about-libya-attack-is-totally-not-true

It is irrational to lay the blame for every misstep at the feet of the president. Those who do so are counting on the ignorance and gullibility of the US voters (not a bad bet, really), and the laziness of the media.

There are quite a number of problems related to Benghazigage, not all of which were discussed in the debate. It is now fait acompli that the consulate was understaffed and while Obama and Biden may not have, themselves known, they still have responsibility. More direct responsibility, however, falls on the lap of Hillary Clinton, since the State Department is hers to run.

The funding issue is a bit of a red herring because:
1. The consulate was a small one, so would not have required much money to properly defend.
2. Biden's suggestion implies that if there was more money available, more security would have been provided, which for now is an empty claim and one I find unlikely. Either way, though:
3. If there wasn't enough money to provide adequate security for the consulate, then the consulate should have been closed. By suggesting that money was an issue, he's saying the administration was knowingly risking the ambassador's life - got him killed - unnecessarily over an issue of money.

Clearly, it makes for great political rhetoric, since people are buying it, but it isn't really relevant: It does not let the administration off the hook

In addition, there is the issue of the bad information the administration fed us for weeks after the incident regarding the nature of the incident and the continuing weaseling on that point. Characterizing the attack as growing out of a protest when no protest even existed was a pretty big - and pretty specific - miss, and the protracted struggle with pulling the truth out of the administration when media (first, Fox) had been reporting it for weeks looks like lying to us for political purposes (to suppress the idea that al Qaeda is still a significant threat despite Obama's efforts). And that is on Obama himself.

Romney endured a firestorm over "jumping the gun" on criticizing the President over his response to the attack. If the media were fair, Obama would be enduring a firestorm over what appears to be an official misinformation campaign that has been reluctantly dropped only because they've been forced by 3rd party reporting to drop it.

 

[Evo]

Romney endured a firestorm over "jumping the gun" on criticizing the President over his response to the attack. If the media were fair, Obama would be enduring a firestorm over what appears to be an official misinformation campaign that has been reluctantly dropped only because they've been forced by 3rd party reporting to drop it.

No, Romney said that Obama was "sympathizing" with muslim protesters, which was false.

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks

In addition, there is the issue of the bad information the administration fed us for weeks after the incident regarding the nature of the incident and the continuing weaseling on that point. Characterizing the attack as growing out of a protest when no protest even existed was a pretty big - and pretty specific - miss, and the protracted struggle with pulling the truth out of the administration when media (first, Fox) had been reporting it for weeks looks like lying to us for political purposes (to suppress the idea that al Qaeda is still a significant threat despite Obama's efforts). And that is on Obama himself.

What? The White House, the very next day, released to the media that the attack was planned.

But U.S. sources said Wednesday the four-hour assault in Benghazi had been planned, with the attackers using the protest as a diversion.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Where do you get your news?

 

[Pythagorean]

The reason abortion is controversial is because answers to seemingly simple questions are not straightforward.

At some point, a fetus becomes developed enough that it can live outside the womb, making the only difference between "fetus" and "baby" a matter of location. So that's a wording distinction without a relevant difference, to me.

Moreover, the fact that, as pointed out previous, killing a pregnant woman is sometimes considered a double-homicide shows an inconsistency in the way the law treats whatever we call what is inside the woman's womb.

Baby/fetus is easy since baby is defined as post-born. The moral philosophy... there's no point in arguing. There's a great deal of difference besides location. Birth triggers all kinds of cues to bring consciousness to the baby.

It's not an inconsistency, it's two different cases. The justification of what's significant about the two different cases is moral philosophy.

 

[Pythagorean]

Anyway, it's irrelevant since only a small minority is vying for day-before-birth abortions. Even in the last five weeks (form 35 o 40) a significant set of changes occur in the brain:

http://s1187.photobucket.com/albums...&current=brain_card_wallet_english_spread.jpg

But this is still irrelevant, since the majority of people (~85%) regardless of party affiliation don't think abortions should be permitted in the third trimester at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_gender.2C_party.2C_and_region

 

[Vanadium 50]

I finally found time to read the transcripts and then to watch the debates.

Both candidates had jobs to do: Vice-President Biden's was to gin up the base, and Congressman Ryan's was to show independents that he was not some sort of granny-killing monster. Both largely succeeded at this.

It has been speculated for a while that the Democratic strategy will be to increase the turnout of their supporters and not to concentrate on changing the minds of those who are still undecided. The vice-president's behavior supports that theory. His arguments support that theory: the argument that the Great Recession was caused by Bush-43's deficit spending and tax cuts, and the solution is even more deficit spending and keeping 2/3 of the tax cuts will appeal to his base, but to nobody else.

I think this is a reasonable strategy. Historically, late-deciding voters tend to break for the challenger. It's a better use of their resources to convince someone who already likes them and may not vote to vote than to convince someone who will vote but may not like them to like them.

The one flaw in this plan is the VP throwing Secretary Clinton under the bus on Benghazi. She's very popular in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. On the other hand, they didn't have many alternatives.

 

[russ_watters]

No, Romney said that Obama was "sympathizing" with muslim protesters, which was false.

Fair enough, there was more to it than just the timing issue. He also got attacked for perceived false interpretations of what the administration was saying about the video. Still, while he's getting attacked for ctiticizing Obama's statements against the video, it was Obama's administration who connected the video to the attack:

What? The White House, the very next day, released to the media that the attack was planned.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/12/world/africa/libya-us-ambassador-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Where do you get your news?

That's not a quote from "the white house." "sources said" is unnamed sources. But that they were probably sources with real knowledge is exactly my point: The Obama administration knew the attack was preplanned even when our ambassador to the UN said this:

That statement contradicts what the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice said on Sunday morning political talk shows on Sept. 16.

"What sparked the violence was a very hateful video on the Internet," Rice said on "Fox News Sunday." "It was a reaction to a video that had nothing to do with the United States. ... What happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent. And those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya, and that then spun out of control.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...-refute-administration-claims-on-libya-attack

Were you not aware of this statement? Where do you get your news?

Here, a few days later, Obama still implies a connection with the protests:

September 20 -- President Obama at a town hall meeting organized by the Spanish-language Univsion Network, responding to a question about the possible involvement of al Qaeda:

"What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests."

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-10/world/world_libya-attack-statements_1_libya-attack-actionable-intelligence-benghazi/3

[same link] Obama again, hedging and implying a connection with the protests:

September 25 -- President Obama on ABC's The View," in response interviewer Joy Behar's question, "I heard Hillary Clinton say it was an act of terrorism. Is it? What do you say?":

"We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved.

So Obama avoided labeling it terrorism and kept implying connections to nonexistent protests, even while (to her credit), Clinton was being straightforward/upfront about it.

Bottom line is this: all of the issues regarding Benghzi have serious negative implications for one of Obama's tent-pole campaign issues. Prior to Benghazi, his record in the war on terror was all but unblemished. This damages that.

 

[Evo]

That's not a quote from "the white house." "sources said" is unnamed sources.

I linked to this article from another which said that WH sources had given the press release to CNN and other news.

But that they were probably sources with real knowledge is exactly my point: The Obama administration knew the attack was preplanned even when our ambassador to the UN said this: http://thehill.com/blogs/global-aff...-refute-administration-claims-on-libya-attack

But the WH had already made it clear that it was pre-planned, that trumps whatever interpretation she had.

Here, a few days later, Obama still implies a connection with the protests: http://articles.cnn.com/2012-10-10/world/world_libya-attack-statements_1_libya-attack-actionable-intelligence-benghazi/3

We're still doing an investigation. There's no doubt that (with) the kind of weapons that were used, the ongoing assault, that it wasn't just a mob action. We don't have all the information yet, so we're still gathering it. But what's clear is that around the world there's still a lot of threats out there." Obama also said "extremist militias" were suspected to have been involved

He said "it wasn't a mob action" he said "extremist militias" were suspected. That's saying it wasn't "protestors".

Obama has been consistent that it wasn't protestors, according to your links.

 

[CAC1001]

One point I heard was that Ryan didn't need to knock it out of the ballpark, so-to-speak, in debating Biden, he just had to hold his own and make people feel comfortable with the idea that he was knowledgeable enough and level-headed to become president if anything was to happen to a President Romney.

What I wonder was if part of Biden's strategy was to purposely be rude in order to try and make Ryan lose his composure, as that would have looked bad. Biden, being the elder politician, and also people can just say, "That's Biden!" can get away with rude behavior, but if Ryan was to lose his cool, it would come across like an immature kid who doesn't like being insulted by the older guy.

Baby/fetus is easy since baby is defined as post-born.

But one could argue that is semantics too.

There's a great deal of difference besides location. Birth triggers all kinds of cues to bring consciousness to the baby.

I don't think there is any proof that a baby/fetus becomes conscious upon being born. Some say consciousness develops before birth, some say it is debatable even if a newborn baby is conscious in the way we think of the word, even though we still regard it as a human being at that point. Some also point out that the fetus could be developed enough to be conscious, but is asleep within the womb for the most part. Then there's the question of when does the fetus feel pain? This from what I understand isn't possible until some point in the third trimester, as prior to that the part of the brain for processing pain isn't developed yet and the nerve pathways connecting nerves to the brain aren't yet fully developed.