Joe Biden

If There's an Upside to Joe Biden's "Buried" Comment, Wash Post Will Find It


Joe Biden confirms that the middle class has been buried during the Obama administration.

"How they can justify raising taxes on the middle class that's been buried in the last four years," a growling Vice President Biden, asked supporters in Asheville, North Carolina, yesterday.

The stumble-prone veep's comment immediately caught on with Republicans, as presidential candidate Mitt Romney tweeted, "Agree with @JoeBiden, the middle class has been buried the last 4 years, which is why we need a change in November."

"Unemployment has been above eight percent for 43 months," Biden's challenger for vice president, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) told a rally in Iowa. "Our economy is limping along right now. Vice President Biden, just today, said that the middle class, over the last four years, has been 'buried.' We agree."

"Thank you Vice President Biden," said former New Hampshire governor John Sununu, who is described in news stories as a Romney "surrogate." 

Biden tried to walk back the comment with a tweet explaining that actually Mitt Romney has been president for the last four years: "'The middle class was buried by the policies that Romney and Ryan have supported." I think you'd need the proverbial heart of stone not to laugh at the way Biden tries to work himself into a righteous froth at the phrase "deadly earnest." 

"Premature Burial" by Antoine Joseph Wiertz

But the Washington Post's Felicia Sonmez says Biden's gaffes may really be signs of Biden's "authenticity." It makes perfect sense: When you're looking for authenticity who else do you turn to but a vice president who sat in the Senate for 36 years and before that was a lawyer and a county councilman? 

As with most things that are bad in newspapers, this is mostly to blame on the copy desk, whose reflexive need to balance every "challenge" with an "opportunity" resulted in this headline: "'Buried' comment underscores risk – and reward – of deploying Biden on the trail." The actual story is more aware of how little value Biden brings. His most prominent quoted defender turns out to be his own son: 

The vice president's defenders see things differently. They contend that the occasional slip of the tongue is to be expected from a candidate as candid and unscripted as Biden. They point to the vice president's busy schedule on the trail – he has held more than 100 campaign events this year alone, in a host of battleground states – as proof that he is an asset to the Democratic ticket.

And they argue that Biden is spending his time doing what matters most – speaking directly to voters, particularly those in the middle class, in cities and small towns across the country.

"They usually don't go after you unless you're landing punches and this is about attempting to go after him in a way because he's such an effective communicator for the middle class," said Biden's son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (D).

Still Sonmez beats on, borne back ceaselessly into the past, with an argument that Biden has been "playing an effective role on the trail" so tortured it must violate the Eighth Amendment. Somnez notes that Biden has not been assigned to host any fundraisers. (To his credit, the vice president apparently does volunteer to babysit his grandchild, but there's no indication that Beau has taken him up on the offer.) An analysis of campaign events Biden has been allowed to run is supposed to prove something, but I'm not sure what: 

Of the 25 events Biden has held since Sept. 6, 17 have been in counties that Obama won in 2008, while eight have been in counties won by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), according to a Washington Post analysis. Going back to results from eight years ago, the field tilts even more toward the GOP: 13 of the 25 counties were won by George W. Bush in 2004 while 12 went for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.).

Was this trip really necessary? As either Sigmund Freud or Neil Kinnock said, sometimes a plagiarizing, gaffe-prone, hair-plug-wearing vice president is just a plagiarizing, gaffe-prone, hair-plug-wearing vice president: 

NEXT: iPad Mini May Ship by the Holidays

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Hey Tim, what is this Obama video I keep hearing about?

    1. Starting to wonder about that myself.

      1. I honestly was being sarcastic this morning when I compared them to Newsweek. I didn’t think they would ignore it. I didn’t expect an avalanche of posts. But even I am shocked they haven’t mentioned it at all.

        1. Why are you shocked, after the collective fit they had over Romney’s 47% comment?

        2. It was mentioned in 2007 when it was circulated the first time. Why does a desperate partisan rehash by Matt Drudge deserve attention from the news media?

          1. Because in 2007, the media lied and only reported on 9 minutes of a 40 minute speech. That lying is a story in itself. How did the other 31 minutes where he accuses the federal government of wanting black people to die in New Orleans and says we shouldn’t be building things in the suburbs but building things for “his people” get ignored?

            He sold himself as a post racial President. This speech shows all of that to be a horrible lie. He is nothing but the race hustler his worst critics said he was.

            1. So Matt Drudge says “jump” and the news media are supposed to say “how high?” This video was listed by Politico as one of the 10 biggest mistakes of the Obama campaign. It was out there. The only reason it’s out there now is because partisan operatives dug it up in yet another desperate attempt to win a news cycle. There is absolutely nothing newsworthy here at all.

              1. For the second time Tony. The entire video with all of its racism and horribleness was never seen until yesterday.

            2. And most Republicans are saying exactly what I am.

              1. And most Republicans are saying exactly what I am

                Citation optional. Also, not germain to the discussion at all (big surprise).

    2. Go over to the Daily Caller. Its kinda small potatoes to me. Politician panders to his audience. Its pre-Rev. Wright disownment so the good Reverend gets name-checked. Nobody is switching sides over this.

      1. It was race-baiting bullshit and deserves to be called as such.

        1. Almost everything that the Dems do is race baiting bullshit, so what is the big deal?

        2. At the very least someone ought to ask Obama just what the hell he was talking about. I would be very curious to hear his answer. But forgive me for doubting any of the lap dog White House Press Corps will ask him any such thing.

          1. The implication is obvious, and I think everyone is, for some reason or another, afraid to say it.

            Obama was demagoguing against, at a minimum President Bush as a racist and, at worst, against the “White Power Structure”.

            1. He would have to admit that he is a liar or that he believes those things.

          2. At the very least someone ought to ask Obama just what the hell he was talking about.

            “I speak Jive.”

            1. Chump don’t want no help, chump don’t get da help.

        3. True, but only white guys get called on race baiting. Its pretty bad considering its lies all the way down. But in any case, its just on par with Romney’s 47%. However, its no game changer.

          1. Was Biden called on saying They’ll put you back in CHAINS, comment?

      2. No one already in the tank. But I think it will mean something to some independents who voted for Obama because they thought he was a nice guy and not a race hustler. The video pretty much proves he is a complete liar on race.

        1. The thing is, Obama isn’t really a race-hustler. I mean, he has done some race-hustling, but he’s not even principled enough for that. He just says what he thinks his current audience wants to hear, and any promises he makes or stances he takes are null and void by the next event. Unfortunately, this video isn’t going to get anyone who doesn’t already recognize that to see the light.

          1. “Obama isn’t really a race-hustler. I mean, he has done some race-hustling”

            Why twist yourself into knots trying to justify this shit? He was a race-hustler while he was fucking race-hustling. Just like Wright was a great leader until a year later after Obama evolved.

            1. Because it isn’t his essence. Its just another mask he wears. He doesn’t have an essence. But be all HitundRunpublican, buddy. I’m used to it. I must be defending him if I’m not agreeing with you.

              1. “Because it isn’t his essence. Its just another mask he wears.”

                How do you know what his “essence” is? I didn’t say you were defending anybody I said your statement about someone race-hustling and not being a race-hustler was…stupid.

              2. Are you saying…he denies them his essence?

        2. He’s a hustler from Chicago. Nice is one thing no one should confuse Obama with.

      3. “Politician panders to his audience.”

        I didn’t see Romney use his Jesse Jackson speaking voice when he addressed the NAACP.

        1. Ann Romney says “you people” and everyone goes crazy. Obama calls the entire government racist and we get “it’s an old story”.

          This fucking sucks. I am past anger and just into resigned mirthful ennui.

          1. sit sideways in a dormer window looking wistfully outside…just to complete the picture

          2. Are you listening to Linkin Park?

        2. Actually, they criticized Romney for not pandering at the NAACP.

    3. That video is obviously a crude forgery because Obama is speaking in a black dialect on it, and race baiting the audience.

      And the media collective knows that Obama never does either.

      So it will be ignored.

      1. NPR just played a clip.

        1. And dismissed its significance.

          Sorry I tried to stand up for NPR.

  2. I saw the replay this morning, but I was so busy WTF-ing about his $2000 dollar number I completely missed the Kruschevian “WE HAVE BURIED YOU” part until Scarborough pointed it out.

    1. I can’t figure out if Biden is really that stupid or actually honest and just can’t help but say the truth.

      But it funny how the same people who were convinced a single answer for Sarah Palin about what newspapers she read was of vital importance now tell us that Biden’s never ending stream of stupidity is totally irrelevant.

      1. You haven’t figured out yet that Biden is really that stupid? He has long ago removed any doubt in my mind.

        If Obama was smart he would lock this guy in a basement with his mouth taped shut. Although I suppose it doesn’t mean much when you know that most of your voting base is even dumber than our VP.

        1. Yeah he is that stupid. I just get depressed sometimes when I think how someone that stupid could get ahead.

        2. I believe that Joe Biden is Obama’s anti-assasination deterrent.

          But deterrence only works if your enemies understand the consequences of assassinating you. Thus Obama has to keep Biden in the public eye.

        3. You haven’t figured out yet that Biden is really that stupid?

          Never forget: Biden is actually, clinically brain damaged. A stroke’ll do that to you.

      2. I can’t figure out if Biden is really that stupid or actually honest and just can’t help but say the truth.

        Why cant it be both?

        Im betting on the former, however.

  3. Can’t remember who but some conservative opinion-maker criticized the Romney campaign for sustaining itself entirely by jumping on apparent gaffes by the Obama campaign. It is a shockingly lazy way of doing things. Did Romney really think he’d be able to win just by being anti-Obama and not putting out any policy ideas? (We’re gonna create 12 million jobs by magic isn’t a policy idea.) Drudge is obviously desperate. Even I refuse to believe the Obama people are just so good that the GOP is forced to dig up 5-year-old videos (or 15-year old videos) to try to win a news cycle. Yeah Republicanism as a source of policy ideas has long been in its death throes, but surely even in terms of pure political strategy they can do better than this.

    1. We’re gonna create 12 million jobs by magic isn’t a policy idea.

      But Hope -n- Change is.
      Hey, it worked last time so wtf.

      1. The point was a lack of policy specifics. Are you saying Obama didn’t have those in 2008? Then surely you’d never criticize him for breaking promises.

        1. Romney wrote a fucking book with his policy specifics

          And his website is full of them too.

          So what the fuck to you people want from him? Twenty thousand pages of legislation ready to be submitted Jan 20?

          1. We won’t know his policies until we pass them!

          2. Yeah his spending reduction specifics are almost a parody. Cut Amtrak and foreign aid!

            The main detail people have been asking is how he plans to balance the budget while giving out more tax cuts. His Website doesn’t explain it, and the candidates, despite being asked repeatedly, refuse to explain it. The obvious reason is that there is no mathematically sound answer. So in his defense, not being plausible in this universe is a pretty good reason for not having a specific policy position.

            1. And how exactly does Obama’s “let the Bush cuts expire for the top bracket”, which raises $80 billion a year, reduce a deficit of over 1 trillion?

              1. Both TEAMs are fools. I didn’t RTFB, but I suspect that Mittens specifics are about as non-specific as you can get.

    2. Damn! Thjey have no policy ideas? Because here I thought they were going to end medicare and feed old people to wood-chippers!

      I guess that was all bulshit, eh?

      1. no no, wait…tell me more about this wood chipper stimulous package.


  5. I thought they were gunna put ya’ll in chains. Now it’s burial?

  6. Of course the similarly lazy cries of media bias is their defense… And I agree in a weird way. The media no longer takes every Matt Drudge eructation as a real story. But not because it’s in the tank for Obama, but because desperate and obviously partisan spaghetti throwing doesn’t deserve attention.

    1. So Joe didn’t really say something if Drudge quotes him?

      1. I’m saying a presidential campaign that relies solely on the other side making verbal slips is probably a losing one.

        1. Good thing liberals didn’t go insane over Sarah Palin or anything. My God Tony, don’t your handlers give you any sock puppet training?

          1. Why put any work into it when even the dumbest thing he dribbles out derails entire threads?

            1. I have embraced this wisdom entire.

              1. I have often postulated that o3 is an experiment of just how little derp it takes to still get fed. You watch, he’ll eventually get it down to just two or three characters.

                1. I just posted this on an old morning thread:

                  Fluffy| 10.3.12 @ 11:08AM |#

                  Tony, since you’ve argued many times that nothing can be proven in the area of political philosophy, that strongly (one might say inescapably) implies that nothing can be proven in any soft discipline of any kind.

                  But on that basis it’s impossible for anybody’s work to be any better or worse than anybody else’s.

                  So you really, if you’re going to be intellectually honest and not a douche, should consider yourself estopped from arguing that there’s any way to determine who is and who is not stupid in academia.

                  Sorry, baby, but you don’t get to argue aporeia one day and then assert quality standards of this kind the next day. It just doesn’t work.

                  Killazontherun| 10.3.12 @ 1:06PM |#

                  It’s Tony. He gets to do any damn thing he wants and has demonstrated that as an indisputable fact for four years. When you stop empowering him as you do by treating him as the good faith debater he clearly is not, then your words above may hold some sway.

                  It drives me up the fucking wall.

                2. o3 comes out with some great lines about once a quarter. Like diamonds in duck shit, they’re that much more valuable because of the muck you’ve waded through.

                  1. Yeah, I’ve got a weak spot for Orrin. He will make me laugh on occasion.

                  2. Orin acts like a human being occasionally. I don’t mind him. There are times when he is pretty funny.

          2. John,

            He’s not going to be consistent. He’s all emotion and rationalization.

          3. Most of America thought Sarah Palin was an idiot and the McCain campaign devastatingly wrongheaded in putting her potentially a heartbeat away from the presidency. And that included the McCain campaign.

            1. She was almost as unqualified as BHO.

              1. This is what I don’t understand. How you do successfully attack a vice-presidential candidate as unqualified when she has more executive experience than your presidential and vice presidential candidates combined.

                1. In my opinion, that line of attack only worked on her because she was an attractive Woman.

            2. Is Sarah Palin as President really more frightening than Joe Biden?

              1. I’m not saying Biden is the most brilliant human being on earth, but Sarah Palin may well be the dumbest person ever to run for national office in history. So yes. Obviously.

                1. Biden has made more gaffes in the last two months than Palin has in the last four years Tony. Admit it, Biden is the dumbest person to appear on a major ticket in modern history.

                  1. John Edwards was on the dem ticket not too long ago.

                    1. Edwards was one hell of an ambulance chasing lawyer. He was a more successful lawyer than BO ever was.

                    2. John, being an ambukance chasing does not require intelligence, just low cunning and a dead conscience.

        2. Yet even liberals are noting that the Obama campaign is doing just that.

        3. I’m saying a presidential campaign that relies solely on the other side making verbal slips is probably a losing one.

          [[cough]] 47%, I like to fire people, I don’t worry about the poor[[cough]]

          1. Yes they both do it. But only one of them is doing it right. Romney’s “gaffes” are feeding a narrative about Romney that people already have suspicions about. Romney is just throwing whatever they can at a wall to see what sticks, never having taken the time to develop a negative narrative about Obama. With such a poor economy that can only be attributable to a bad candidate and campaign.

            1. So the you didn’t build that quote didn’t play into the narrative that Obama is a clueless big government stooge?

              And this latest video doesn’t play into the narrative that Obama is pandering liar?

              1. Evidently not. Most Americans just don’t share the reflexive hatred of Obama that Mitt wants them to and that most people here do. It’s just a fact of the world, however fair or unfair.

            2. Romney’s “gaffes” are feeding a narrative

              Tony stumbles on the truth: the DemOp media has a narrative, and seizes on “gaffes” that feed it, while ignoring those that don’t.

              I expect him to pick himself up, dust himself off, and carry on.

  7. Oh, shit. Crazy Uncle Joe got loose and started to tell the truth again. He’s like the Fool in a medieval play.

    1. It can never be repeated enough:

      “In a Just World, All of Our Politicians Would be Minor Variations of Joe Biden”

      1. Your concept of justice and mine are… different.

          1. Very much so – of course, it would be hard to parody or satorize a whole slew of Joe Bidens…so, THINK OF THE COMEDIANS!

  8. When you’re looking for authenticity who else do you turn to but a vice president who sat in the Senate for 36 years

    It’s not like WaPo is going to ask some plumber what he thinks.

  9. “They usually don’t go after you unless you’re landing punches and this is about attempting to go after him in a way because he’s such an effective communicator for the middle class,” said Biden’s son, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (D).

    Yes. We’re making funny of your idiot father because he’s so effective. Delusion obviously runs in the family.

    1. I’m confused. How does Biden have offspring? I thought mongoloids were sterile.

      1. That’s mules.

        The stupid appear to be hyper-fertile.

        1. The only scientific explanation is that he mated with another mongoloid, otherwise his chromosome count wouldn’t match. Come on, NutraSweet, I know you’re not a scientist and don’t have a fancy useless biology degree like me that cost way too much and has never gotten me anything, but I expect more from you.

        2. I’ve often wished I was too stupid to consider the outcome of coming onto a given woman.

        3. I hope it ends with beau. Two generations of retards are enough.

  10. I don’t remember — who else was on the VP short list for Obama in 2008?

    1. A block of wood

      The ghost of Paul Tsongas


      Jessie Jackson III (pre-bi-polar disorder).

      1. Jackson won re-election with 80% in 2010. He hasn’t been seen since June. he’ll probably get 85% this year.

  11. Here’s what I’ve picked up so far in this post:

    Shorter John: OMG! reason is teh TEAM BLUE HAAAAACKS!
    Shorter Tony: OMG! reason is teh TEAM RED HAAAAACKS!

    1. Can you explain the complete lack of posting on the video? Especially in contrast to the two day temper fit they threw over the 47% comment?

      1. Are they required to match your definition of fairness towards your favored political party?

        1. I am as big a defender of reason as it comes, and even I think *something* needs to be said.

          1. Other than Chapman, I don’t think any of them are actually liberals pretending to be Libertarians for a paycheck like Weigel was. I think sometimes they inhale a bit too deeply of the beltway media atmosphere.

            But even I, as one of their worst critics, cannot explain why they haven’t posted on it. It is really inexplicable. This is the topic dejour all over the blogshere. And not one post?

            1. John – I believe they allow their writers latitude as to what to write about. I don’t think they hand out assignments. If the writers don’t feel like writing about a certain subject, they won’t.

              I’m sure one of them will tackle it, but it might not be until this afternoon.

              1. Odd that all of them would choose not to talk about it, especially when all of them chose to write something on the 47% remark.

          2. Because Matt Drudge says so? Something needs to be said right now? Why not a month ago, or a month from now? The story is 5 years old. They trotted it out to distract from Mitt’s failing campaign. Exactly what reason do you think something needs to be said? If I had a website and posted my cat doing something cute, would you demand that be covered by the national news media too?

        2. No. But if they don’t and cover one campaign more favorably than the other, then they can’t very well deny being biased can they?

          1. In other words, my shorter version of your commentary is accurate. I was just trying to provide a time saver for some latecomers.

            1. Do you deny they are exhibiting some pretty serious bias here? If you do, then explain the disparity in coverage? If you don’t, then you agree with me. Don’t you think Reason should be better than your typical MSM? I do.

              1. Do you deny they are exhibiting some pretty serious bias here?

                It’s not my website, they can operate it as they see fit.

                If you do, then explain the disparity in coverage?

                It’s not my website, they can operate it as they see fit.

                If you don’t, then you agree with me.

                It’s not my website, they can operate it as they see fit.

                Don’t you think Reason should be better than your typical MSM?

                It’s not my website, they can operate it as they see fit.

                Are you only a regular on HyR so you can bitch about how TEAM BLUE the writers here are? That seems like a HUGE waste of your time.

                1. So in other words Sparky you have no answer but are pissed off that I pointed out a fact you don’t like. Tough shit.

                  1. No, John. You pointed out a fact that I couldn’t give a single fuck about. It’s not my website. I don’t see fit to make demands that the owners of this website post. If they don’t post something I want to see, I go find it somewhere else.

          2. I think most of the commenters vastly over-estimate the amount of collusion that takes place when stories are posted. It may be the case that none of the editors and article writers are posting anything about the video (which does say something), but I don’t think there is some centralized will to remain quiet on the subject.

            If the behind-the-scenes were so on the ball, why does the same subject or news item appear in posts by the different writers one after another, or an item in the AM/PM links get a full article just minutes later?

            1. That is true SF. But Reason went bizerk over the 47% video. Look at the archives for the week of 18 September when it broke. They had eight different posts on that single quote in a 48 hour period plus mentioning it in both the AM and PM links.

              Now here we are 1:30pm on the day after the video breaks and it doesn’t even merit a mention in AM links? Really? The entire staff finds a video of Obama accusing the government of neglecting New Orleans post Katrina out of racism and not a single Reason staffer finds that worthy of mentioning?

              1. and not a single Reason staffer finds that worthy of mentioning?

                I said that means something, I just don’t think it’s the conspiracy some seem to be indulging in.

                I think it deserves a few posts, but it is really old news. Given that it will not matter on whit in the election makes it pretty thin gruel.

                The 47% percent posts were mostly either defending Romney for telling an uncomfortable truth or talking about it as part of a larger set of mis-steps by the campaign.

                The equivalent post to the 47% is this post, not telling everyone about what they already know about a video they already covered years ago.

                1. The transcript released by the campaign four years ago and advanced by Andrew Sullivan was a scrub job taking the racialist rhetoric out of it. It’s not the crime that gets you, its the cover up.

                  1. The story is really more of a media scandal than anything else. The media lied to the country and edited the video. Perhaps Reason sees it that way too and don’t want to go after other journalists.

                2. The 47% posts were nearly all killing Romney on it. Reason went berserk. They probably criticized him more over that remark, ironically one of the few libertarian things he has ever said, than anything else.

            2. It’s the medical marijuan smoking that sets them up to fail.

      2. Because talking about this video stinks of racism and nothing kills a journalist’s career faster than being labeled a racist.

        1. Huh, at the very least this video is about Obama lying his ass off to race bait.

          1. They’re all afraid of being called racist. They’d rather be called fools, stooges, sycophants etc.

            1. This is it obviously. It’s about time someone uncovered the truth.

  12. And Palin was supposed to be the stupid one.

    Few things annoy as much as hypocrisy from the left when it comes to their sheer hatred of Palin during the 2008 run. They acted as if she was the idiot when they were trotting our JOE FUCKING BIDEN as the alternative.

    Hope you are enjoying Uncle Joe’s run for the stupid trophy.

    1. Yeah, but Obama is young and fit. McCain was old and decrepit, SHE WAS ONE HEARTBEAT FROM THE PRESIDENCY!!!!1!!1!1111!!!!ZOMG!!!

      1. I thought one of the more revealing moments of leftwing double-think was demonstrated when they attacked Palin for her inexperience, not realizing how much that highlighted their own candidate’s lack of qualifications. Weird and sad.

        1. McCain really wasn’t in the last election, it was Obama vs Palin. Just like this election is turning out to be Obama vs Ryan. Apparently, as much as he sucks as a President, Obama would make an awesome Vice President.

        2. they attacked Palin for her inexperience, not realizing how much that highlighted their own candidate’s lack of qualifications

          It somehow worked, even though it seems like the worst possible campaign strategy for someone whose political experience consists of a partial term in a legislative body.

          1. Nothing worked except that the country was tired of Bush and wanted something different, and no one cared for McCain. This idea that Obama was named emperor by acclamation is an insane distortion of reality. It’s also absurd to say he ran some great campaign. Most of the time, that weak shit doesn’t work.

            1. I still hear people claim Palin was unqualified, so it seems to me that that tactic worked. I will concede that running as NotBush was a pretty easy strategy in 08.

              1. I think it worked for people who already wanted the Lord Obama to rule over them.

                Frankly, Palin’s slips have never been any worse than Obama’s. Neither strike me as suited for high office, and I’d say Obama has proven that.

                Best not to vote for mystery candidates in the future, people.

                1. Hey, if you get people to buy into that how am I going to swoop into the White House in 2024? And if I don’t do that, how are you going to become administrator of the Armstrong Kinetic Missile Facility?

    2. Joe Biden is not an idiot. Someone who confuses his gaffe-proneness with Palin’s lack of awareness of Africa being a continent rather than a country just may well be.

      1. Shut the fuck up Tony.

      2. Joe Biden is not an idiot.

        You’re not a Serious Person.

    3. Hope you are enjoying Uncle Joe’s run for the stupid trophy.

      In a bizarre, paradoxical twist, I’m guessing that Biden isn’t clever enough to win the Stupid Trophy.

  13. Joe was picked for the simple reason that he was cast as the comic relief, and he has fulfilled that role.

    1. Contrast that to McCain who was the comical cranky old fart and Palin was seen as the deadly threat by the opposition.

    2. Assassination insurance.

  14. (To his credit, the vice president apparently does volunteer to babysit his grandchild, but there’s no indication that Beau has taken him up on the offer.)

    I can see Joe Biden as a decent house governor. He’s no Mr. Sebastian, but he could totally carry on a serious conversation with a 4 year-old and keep the mundane affairs of my estate in order.

    1. I’m thinking it wouldn’t be worth all the “hostile work environment” lawsuits from the rest of the staff.

  15. If there is one thing I have learned to day a Drambuie and DayQuil mixer really does take the edge off of seasonal allergies. I would drink this every day but the people around me would surely get suspicious.

    1. And yes, I’m still banning my state ABC stores. I confiscated it from the gifts my kid got on his birthday.


    1. Gaia or Gays?

  17. Is Romney proposing to raise taxes? I don’t even understand Biden’s comment I thought the big evil thing about Romney was that we won’t propose raising taxes?

    1. What confuses me even more is that they’ve been trying to retire the Bush tax cuts and have added the penaltax. Romney, whatever his flaws, is not aiming to increase taxes on the middle class in any significant way. Obama is.

      1. No he isn’t! We know he isn’t because he said he wouldn’t. QED.

        1. No, all that matters is intentions. If he didn’t, at any time in the past, intend to raise taxes, it never happened.

      2. Penistax? Why haven’t we heard more about this?

      3. We will taxed for every penny the government spends. By “we” I include every sparkle in the eye of any ready-to- be father or mother for generations to come.

        1. Agreed. No massive spending cuts, and we’re all screwed.

    2. haha nice freudian slip there, “we” wtf.

      1. So you’re Romney? Listen, how about throwing us libertarians a bone?

        1. Oh, we’ll get the bone, all right.

  18. Lost_In_Translation| 10.3.12 @ 1:25PM |#

    sit sideways in a dormer window looking wistfully outside…just to complete the picture

    Haiku version:

    sit dormer window
    looking wistfully outside
    complete the picture

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.