There's a saying that the only second chance you get in life is the chance to make the same mistake twice. As he prepares to debate Joe Biden, Paul Ryan will almost certainly confirm that adage. After all, following his first big moment in the national spotlight, the GOP vice presidential nominee was pilloried for his Republican National Convention speech chock full of omissions, misrepresentations and outright lies. Thursday night in Kentucky, the self-proclaimed "numbers guy" will doubtless deny them.

Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney can't handle the truth. And the only way they can win is if you don't know it.

1. Economists Warn Romney-Ryan Plan Means Huge Job Losses
Like Mitt Romney, Rep. Ryan will claim that the GOP ticket will produce 12 million new jobs over the next four years. What Ryan won't mention is how they'll do that, or that forecasts this year from Moody's Analytics, Macroeconomic Advisers and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office already projected that based on recent trends the U.S. economy will generate roughly 12 million jobs by 2016 anyway. But a Romney-Ryan ticket isn't planning to do nothing in office, but instead intends to implement draconian spending cuts that studies suggest could cost up to 600,000 jobs in 2013 and another 1.3 million in 2014.

It's no wonder a survey of hundreds of economists by The Economist found that "by a large margin they rate [Obama's] overall economic plan more highly than Mr. Romney's, credit him with a better grasp of economics, and think him more likely to appoint a good economic team."

2. Romney and Ryan Both Supported Social Security Privatization
Paul Ryan didn't merely call Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." In 2005, he authored legislation to privatize Social Security that was so extreme even the Bush administration labeled it "irresponsible." (Part of his original "Road Map for America's Future," Ryan quietly dropped privatization of the retirement program for 46 million seniors from his 2010 GOP budget.) Romney, too, repeatedly offered his support for diverting trillions from the Social Security Trust Fund into private accounts managed by Wall Street firms during the 2008 campaign ("that works") and in 2010 book, No Apology. But given the staggering unpopularity of Social Security privatization, Romney is quick to deny that it is his current position.

3. 98 Percent of Congressional Republicans Voted for Ryan's Plan to Ration Medicare
In the spring of 2011, 235 House Republicans and 40 GOP Senators voted for the Ryan budget's proposal to transform Medicare into an under-funded voucher program dramatically shifting the cost of health care onto America's seniors. Confronted with the inescapable conclusion that his proposal would inevitably lead to de fact rationing, Ryan protested:

"Rationing happens today!" The question is who will do it? The government? Or you, your doctor and your family?"

Ryan, of course, omitted the real culprits: private insurers. Which is why the 2012 version of the Ryan budget (similar to the Romney plan) maintaining the traditional "public option" as one choice for future Medicare beneficiaries now 55 and younger will nevertheless still lead to cherry-picking of healthier seniors and higher costs for everyone.

Continue reading »

Vice President Joe Biden appeared on Meet the Press and was subjected to more pointed questioning about Afghanistan than anyone in the Bush administration ever was.

Not that I don't want to hear the answers. I've been questioning why we're in Afghanistan since almost the beginning. But I do find Gregory's "come to Jesus" moment oddly and conveniently timed to after the Bush administration's exit. Biden gamely explains the official goals of the administration:

Let me-- separate this out. Remind everybody what our goal is. Our overarching goal and our rational for being there is to defeat and ultimately -- or to—dismantle, ultimately defeat Al Qaeda. Residing central Al Qaeda-- residing in the—Fattah. The-- the Western Regions of the mountains of-- of-- Pakistan. Secondly, to make sure that—terrorists do not, in fact, bring down the Pakistani Government, which is a nuclear power.

Toward that end, we think it’s important that there be stability in Afghanistan so that Al Qaeda cannot re-establish it as a base from which to attack the United States of America. With regard to our effort to degrade Al Qaeda, we’re making great progress. So called C.T. That is counterterrorism. The use of Special Forces and the like to go after individuals who make up the leadership of Al Qaeda and of the Taliban.

On the issue of counterinsurgency, that is where we clear, hold, and build and transfer. We’re making progress not as rapidly as we are on the other front. The President’s been frank to say that-- in his release. Pointing out that we need two things that we’re working on very hard and we’re making some progress. One, Pakistan and safe havens. And two, governance in Afghanistan.

I think that reasonable people can quibble with the Vice President if the focus on preventing Al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan is worth destroying another country and losing thousands of lives for, especially when we know that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in Afghanistan and only about 300 in Pakistan. However, I do take solace with the idea that the Obama administration does at least have an exit strategy to leave Afghanistan:

BIDEN: We are going to, come July, begin to draw down American forces and transfer reasonability to the Afghans.

DAVID GREGORY: Will that be a token amount of soldiers? Will it be a couple thousand troops and no more?

VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Well-- well, it-- it will not be a token amount. But the degree to which we draw down-- if I can make an analogy to-- Iran. I mean, excuse me, to-- to Iraq, which I’ve been put in charge of. What happened there? We signed, three years ago, an agreement with the Iraqis saying that what we’re gonna do is-- at two summers ago, we’re gonna draw all combat troops out of the cities.
Populated areas.

Then we said that-- our Administration, we’re gonna draw 100,000 troops out the next summer. And we’re gonna be totally out. In the meantime, we’re gonna help build a government. We’re gonna transfer responsibility. And we’re gonna be gone. That’s exactly what we did at the recent Lisbon Conference, the NATO conference, where we said we’re starting this process. Just like we did in Iraq. We’re starting it in July of 2011. And we’re gonna be totally out of there, come hell or high water, by 2014.

Cue the GOP concern trolling that we can't give arbitrary timelines to al Qaeda in 5...4...3...2...1...

Above: Sarah Palin's "Greatest Hits" (via TPM)

Sarah Palin and Joe Biden face off tonight at Washington University in St. Louis. Her limited official media appearances so far haven't done a good job convincing voters she's ready for primetime, to say the least. We all know she can give a fiery teleprompter speech, but how will she fare in a tense, high-profile showdown with one of the most knowledgeable and longest-serving members of the US Senate? Which Palin will we see tonight? The aggressive firebrand we saw in Minneapolis? Or the clueless, moose-in-the-headlights neophyte we saw with Couric and Gibson? We're about to find out...

You can watch live online here.

***

9:00 pm: Here we go, my friends.

Continue reading »

The steady stream of bad news about Afghanistan this week served to highlight two inescapable truths regarding the conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. First, Barack Obama is right that the ongoing commitment of American forces in Iraq is limiting the United States in its pursuit of Al Qaeda along the Pakistan frontier. Second, the Bush Doctrine - with its first tenet of "no safe havens" for terrorists - is still dead.

In Washington, President Bush acknowledged that June, which saw the highest U.S. casualties of the Afghan war, was a "tough month." Bush, who is reported to have recently ordered U.S. intelligence assets and Special Forces to make a final push to capture Osama Bin Laden, then promised more soldiers and Marines for the fight. As Time rightly noted:

"We're going to increase troops by 2009," Bush said, without offering details about exactly when or how many.

The President would have done well to first consult with Admiral Michael Mullen, his Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. On the very day that 2,200 U.S Marines learned their tours in Afghanistan will be extended by 30 days, Mullen admitted to reporters at the Pentagon that the United States could deploy more forces there only by drawing down from Iraq:

"I don't have troops I can reach for, brigades I can reach, to send into Afghanistan until I have a reduced requirement in Iraq. Afghanistan has been and remains an economy-of-force campaign, which by definition means we need more forces there."

Unfortunately, that "reduced requirement" in Iraq doesn't appear likely to happen any time soon.

Continue reading »

Sen. Joe Biden was on ABC's THIS WEEK and took President Bush and John McCain to the woodshed over their latest attacks on the entire Democratic Party including Barack Obama over their negotiating in any form with Iran. He busts Bush for being a complete hypocrite. Wow, who knew? Bush asked Biden to negotiate with Gaddafi and he did. And I think it turned out pretty good. And since Gates and Condi want to talk with Iran too, what does Biden think about that? Fire those appeasers now! I'm sure McCain will agree.

STEPHANOPOULOS: It sounds like you're calling it hypocrisy.

BIDEN: Well, I should -- I'm trying to be more polite, but I shouldn't be. It was ridiculous. This is president -- this is pure, unadulterated politics. And the last point I'll make -- maybe the president doesn't know -- I'll be a smart guy, here --maybe he doesn't know what's going on in his own administration. But as soon as he gets back, he should fire, as appeasers, Gates...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Secretary of defense? BIDEN: ... and Rice -- secretary of defense and secretary of
state.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Why? BIDEN: Because they both -- Gates as recently as a week ago --said, we've got to sit down and talk with the Iranian directly.

Download | play Download | play (h/t the very wonderful Heather)

Fill transcript provided by ABC news below the fold

Continue reading »

Andrew Cline (Union Leader, Manchester, NH):

Sen. Joe Biden said in an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader this afternoon that too many Democrats, including the frontrunners for the presidential nomination, do not have faith in the American people.

"We've got to trust the American people more," Biden said.

"I think they've really lost faith in the American people in terms of leveling with them," he said of his leading rivals.

When he asks groups of Democrats if they think the American people are stupid because they elected George W. Bush twice, most respond that, yes, they do, he said. He said he thinks that attitude is a real problem for the Democrats, who fail to understand how smart and pragmatic the American people really are.

So far, so good. I don't think that many of us would disagree that the current bunch of Democratic candidates do seem to be underestimating the American people. Certainly, they could do a much better job of recognizing that we're looking for people who won't be afraid to stand up and say what needs to be said, rather than triangulate and be careful.

But then, Joe has to go slip into his typical Bidenness and go into wanker territory. *sigh* Joe, Joe, Joe..

He said Democrats would do better if they stopped dividing the electorate by playing to their base and instead brought people together. He criticized the left wing of his party for demonizing the rich and Republicans.

"Rich folks are as patriotic as poor folks, but we don't talk that way," he said.[..]

What to think about this tough talk about his own party? He was talking with the publisher and editorial writer of the New Hampshire Union Leader, as well as our chief political reporter, so perhaps he was playing to the crowd. But he knew the interview was on the record and was being recorded, and he certainly wasn't afraid that it would come back to bite him later. He acknowledged that such comments get him into trouble with liberals, but he expressed what seemed to be genuine frustration with what he saw as missed opportunities to broaden the party's appeal.

Nothing like buying into Republican framing there, Joe.

Joe's a good guy overall and a stand up man for saying this, but I happen to agree with him.

CNN:

Joe Biden told supporters at a town hall Wednesday afternoon that Barack Obama might have been better off choosing Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

"Make no mistake about this, Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Let's get that straight," Biden said testily when a voter told Biden he was glad the Delaware senator had been chosen and not Clinton.

"She's a truly close personal friend and she is qualified to be President of the United States of America, she's easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America and quite frankly it might have been a better pick than me," he continued."I mean that sincerely, she's first-rate."

We would have solidified our base in the nutshell.

As a pragmatic exercise, I asked hundreds of rank and file Democrats, many Obama supporters in Denver and in the Big Tent about the VP pick and 99% said he should have picked Hillary for party unity. Everybody liked Biden, but thought it would have rocked Denver and the rest of the party, including the media. Not scientific, but if you walked the gauntlet a few times to the Pepsi Center in the blistering heat, you would know what I mean.
Most of the on-line community that supported Obama were against it there except for a few. On the other hand, McCain solidified his base with his VP pick.

As the election goes I'm not saying all is lost, far from it, Obama still should be our next president, but I'm just making an observation.

How did I miss this, as reported by the UK's Guardian? Why isn't it a major news story in the U.S.? Ah yes...it's all about Sarah.

Biden's comments, first reported by ABC news, attracted little notice on a day dominated by the drama surrounding his Republican counterpart, Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

But his statements represent the Democrats' strongest vow so far this year to investigate alleged misdeeds committed during the Bush years.

"If there has been a basis upon which you can pursue someone for a criminal violation, they will be pursued," Biden said during a campaign event in Deerfield Beach, Florida, according to ABC.

"[N]ot out of vengeance, not out of retribution," he added, "out of the need to preserve the notion that no one, no attorney general, no president -- no one is above the law."

Obama sounded a similar note in April, vowing that if elected, he would ask his attorney general to initiate a prompt review of Bush-era actions to distinguish between possible "genuine crimes" and "really bad policies".

Back in April, Obama said that he would ask his AG to "immediately review the information that's already there" and determine if an inquiry is warranted. Biden's statement simply confirms that the Obama campaign hasn't backed off from that intention.

But "genuine crimes." Where do we start? That would be a really good discussion to have right now, in my opinion. Aggressive war, torture, illegal rendition to torture, surveillance without warrants, criminal negligence over Katrina, various counts of perjury before Congress...

Instead we get endless talking heads pretending they don't know what their conservative guests really think - or even say when they think the mikes are off.

Update: In between when I wrote this post on Tuesday night and its posting today, Biden backed off his statement (H/t - JC in comments).

Biden emphasized that "no one's talking about President Bush. ... I've never heard anybody mention President Bush in that context." He noted that "there's been an awful lot of unsavory stuff that's gone on ... but I have no evidence of any of that. No one's talking about pursuing President Bush criminally."

Biden concluded his comments by explaining that possible misdeeds are
"being looked into now, just so it never happens again in any other administration. ... The Obama-Biden administration is not going to start off saying, 'God, let's go take a look at what this --.' The American people want to know what we're going to do, not what happened."

I understand the arguments on why the Obama campaign should tread softly on this - that it will simply enrage and energize the Republican base. But Palin has already energized that base and in any case this whole triangulation thing strikes me as spineless fence-sitting.

Joe Biden tells the base to "quit whining" and get out there and "look at the alternatives. This president has done an incredible job. He's kept his promises."

And last night on Lawrence O'Donnell's new show, he said: "Those who didn't get everything they wanted, it's time to just buck up."

Just buck up.

I'm not sure how we turned out to be the targets, but it looks like we're officially on notice. No more complaining about frivolities!

The people still without jobs? Quit yer whining.

The ones on food stamps? You, too.

Your house is being foreclosed on? What a buncha whiners. Shut yer piehole!

Those of you living in your cars? Be grateful you still have cars!

Sleeping on your friend's couch? Beats a cardboard box, don't it?

You can't afford to see a doctor? You'll be able to do that in 2014. You can't wait just four more years?

And they actually wonder why the base isn't motivated.

Let me put it this way. You know how Joe Biden's grandparents came here from Ireland to find a better life?

I know Americans who are trying to figure out how to move their families back to Ireland.

Oh, and now Obama's getting in on the act. Hey, be sure to let me know how well that worked, okay, Mr. President?

WASHINGTON – Admonishing his own party, President Barack Obama says it would be "inexcusable" and "irresponsible" for unenthusiastic Democratic voters to sit out the midterm elections, warning that the consequences could be a squandered agenda for years.

"People need to shake off this lethargy. People need to buck up," Obama told Rolling Stone in an interview to be published Friday.

The president told Democrats that making change happen is hard and "if people now want to take their ball and go home, that tells me folks weren't serious in the first place."

Or maybe it means they no longer have a ball. Or a home.

Why is Osama still at large again? I watched this and noticed the same thing Greg Sargent did: Bush To Reporters: Terrorists "Are A Threat To Your Children." Every time Bush talks up a "new" strategy taken by his administration on the war---he predicts the violence will escalate. Really? When hasn't the violence been brutal? When there's an area known as "The Triangle of death," I think that's an indication he can't control the situation, wouldn't you agree? Bush also said we'll leave if the Iraqi government asks us to go. Mmmkay...

Download | play Download | play

Q Mr. President, moments ago you said that al Qaeda attacked us before we were in Iraq. Since then Iraq has become much less stable; al Qaeda has used it as a recruiting tool, apparently with some success. So what would you say to those who would argue that what we've done in Iraq has simply enhanced al Qaeda and made the situation worse?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, so, in other words, the option would have been just let Saddam Hussein stay there? Your question is, should we not have left Saddam Hussein in power? And the answer is, absolutely not.

Full transcript below the fold:

Continue reading »