Joe Biden: The Most Obnoxious Candidate in the World!

Is Biden Too Crazy To Be Defeated in Debate?

"You can't beat crazy!"

I think we can all agree; Joe Biden is a bit crazy! Some people think he's crazy in the sense that he says things that politicians don't normally say. Some people think he's crazy in the way your crazy uncle is crazy - it's a bit alarming but it's also kind of endearing. Some people think Joe Biden is legitimately crazy - not-fit-to-be-President crazy or not-fit-to-be-employed crazy.

Regardless of the type of crazy or the degree of crazy, crazy people are hard to pin down. They don't play by the rules! When most of society (the number appears to be dwindling) has agreed to use logic and reason in discussions and debates, it puts most of us at least on similar wave lengths. We can still have big disagreements and differences of opinions, but we are still generally able to understand where others are coming from. But, when someone comes from an entirely different wave length, it is so foreign and odd that it is hard to discuss ordinary ideas. You may have logic, reason, facts and style on your side, but a crazy person can put on such a bizarre show that it frustrates you and distracts you from your objectives that the crazy person can actually start to make you think you're crazy.

As a litigator, I have had the unfortunate experience of facing several pro se (people who represent themselves) parties. In many ways it is a great advantage to face someone who doesn't have a lawyer, but it can also be confusing, time-consuming and maddening. Pro se parties do crazy things like filing non-existent, insane motions. You are left to wonder: do I even have to respond to this considering it is insane or do I still have to answer just to be safe? Usually you answer the crazy motion to protect yourself and your client, which is time-consuming and expensive for the client. Then, when you draft the response you have to combat the craziness and sometimes the only way to combat it is with craziness. I admit that sometimes it is fun, but usually it is annoying.

Paul Ryan is slick, smart and focused. He seems to dislike nonsense and frivolous debate. Well, he's going to get it tonight! Biden is going to be all over the place. He's going to attack Romney/Ryan, he'll make some outrageous allegations, he'll appeal to the working class effectively and he'll try to paint Ryan as a young punk who doesn't know what he's talking about. He will make some good points, but he will also say some crazy things. If Ryan can't bring the debate back to reason, he will open the possibility that Crazy Uncle Joe might appear to have bested him, even if Ryan wins on substance, reason and sanity. In addition, crazy people often gain sympathy because of their plight. Many Americans will have a soft spot for Joe, so if Ryan goes at him too hard, he might come off as a mean bully.

I actually find Joe Biden somewhat endearing, especially when he is making good points for the GOP, but I wouldn't want to have to debate him. Expectations for Biden (and most crazy people) are so low that if he is still clothed at the end of the debate, it will be a victory. Who would you enlist for debate prep as a stand-in for Biden? Leave suggestions in the comments. Here is my pick.

The sh**er will be full when Biden leaves the stage Thursday night

Obama's Strategy For Next Debate

Obama: "Give it to him, Big Bird!"

Romney vs. Empty Chair, Empty Suit, Empty Podium

Suburban Roads Lead To Middle Class Swing Counties, Mr. Obama

The Daily Caller video that surfaced (Not "re-surfaced" as reported by the Mainstream Media, because the most controversial portions never surfaced before) of Obama speaking in 2007 has some fascinating aspects to it relating to the middle class.  I couldn't care less what voice or cadence he used, because the substance is what is important to me.

Among other divisive things, Obama said: "We don't need to build more highways out in the suburbs.  We should be investing in minority-owned businesses, in our neighborhoods, so people don't have to travel from miles away."

Here is a small list of assumptions in that short excerpt:

1. Minority-owned businesses aren't in the suburbs;
2. "We" shouldn't be investing in non-minority-owned business (in the suburbs or not);
3. "Our" neighborhoods aren't in the suburbs;
4. "People" currently have to travel from miles away to visit businesses; and
5. The highways in the suburbs are in good shape or the state of highways in the suburbs isn't important.

There are more, but that will suffice for purposes of this article.  Obama's use of the word "our" suggests he is speaking collectively with his audience.  Since the audience is made up of almost all African-Americans, it is quite reasonable to assume that Obama is speaking about African-Americans and their situation.  And since he differentiated between the suburbs and "our" neighborhoods, it is also reasonable to assume that Obama is referring to the suburbs as "their" neighborhoods (whites or non-blacks).

Obama was generally correct in his assessment of the suburbs.  According to articles (here and here; and there are many more) "the average middle class white household lives in the suburbs" and "the average middle class African-American household lives in the center city."  Recent articles note that the percentage of African-Americans in the suburbs is actually growing - nearly 33% as of 2011.  Do those African-Americans need roads out there in the suburbs with those people?  Are those African American suburb-dwellers still part of the "our" that Obama was talking about?

What is most interesting to note is that the suburbs are made up of almost all middle class voters, whether black or white.  If Obama were a true man of the middle class, it seems he would want to build roads (literally and figuratively) to the suburbs.  So, why wouldn't Obama want to build more roads for these middle class citizens?  Why wouldn't he want to encourage minority-owned businesses to migrate to the suburbs?

There are about a dozen counties in the United States that could swing the 2012 election to one side or the other.  In almost every case, the suburban middle class voters are key.  For example, Chester County, PA, Jefferson County, CO, Wake County, NC, and Hillsborough County, FL all have significant populations of middle class voters living in suburbs.  President Obama has tried to paint himself as the man of the middle class for nearly six years, and yet the middle class has been the hardest hit during his Presidency.  Under Obama the median household income fell to $50,054 (8% drop since 2007).  And now (or then) he is telling the ones in the suburbs that they don't need more roads.  Let us celebrate the unity of that notion.

Could it be that Obama doesn't see people in the suburbs as "middle class"?  According to Charles Ogeltree, one of Obama's mentors, political advisors, when Obama says "middle class" he really means "poor", but doesn't like to use the term "poor" because it's demeaning and not politically popular.  Are most people in the suburbs poor?  No.  So, when Obama talks about the middle class, is he talking about the people in the suburbs?  Probably not.  Have Obama's policies been aimed at the traditional "middle class" or the "poor"?  You decide.

And, those swing voters in those swing counties out in the suburbs should decide whether Obama really has their best interests in mind as they drive to the polls on those suburban roads Obama doesn't think "we" need.

An Economy That Works For Everyone?

I recently received the following email from Michelle Obama:

"Garrett --

I'm always amazed by how Barack balances his responsibilities as president, a husband, and a dad.

But sometimes even he needs a little help. And this campaign is going to take all of us pitching in.

All of the things we've poured our hearts into -- from passing health care reform to fighting for an economy that works for everyone -- are on the line. 

I know I don't want to wake up on November 7th wondering if I could have done more. So I'm doing everything I can between now and Election Day to make sure we can keep moving this country forward for four more years. 

We've only got a few more hours before an important fundraising deadline. Please support this campaign by giving $3 or more today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/Deadline-Midnight

From all of us, thanks. 

Michelle"

Even HE needs a little help, huh?  Well, as nauseating as that statement is to me, it is the "fighting for an economy that works for everyone" comment that has me wondering.  What kind of an economy does work for EVERYONE?  Does that kind of economy exist?  Is it even conceivable, desirable or attainable?

I think not.  Is the President spending all his time chasing Nirvana?  Yep.  Is that going to actually help the Country?  Nope.  So much for the bring the great Pragmatist.

An Open Letter To Senator Harry Reid Re: Attacks On Mormonism

Senator Harry Reid

Office of Senator Harry Reid

522 Hart Senate Office Bldg

Washington, DC 20510

An Open Letter to Senator Harry Reid Re: Attacks on Mormonism

Dear Senator Reid,

I, like you, am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, I was a member of a Gospel Doctrine class you taught as a lay Sunday School teacher in Washington, DC in the summer of 2001. I didn’t agree with your politics then, and I still don’t, but I appreciated your devotion to teaching.

As members of the LDS church, we are not obligated to support any particular candidate or political position. But, as you know, one of the articles of our faith is that “[w]e claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may” (11th Article of Faith). This obviously does not mean that everyone will afford us the same privilege and respect, but we certainly should seek to protect others’ rights to practice their religion and come to their defense when they are attacked, no matter what their religious affiliation. Is it not our duty to defend this right?

I remind you that the LDS church and its members have suffered severe persecution in their brief history. Early church members were driven from state to state by mobs, militias and hostile communities; deprived of property; slandered; tortured, raped and murdered...all because of their beliefs. Seeking protection of the rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, Joseph Smith traveled to Washington, DC to supplicate President Martin Van Buren for assistance. As you may recall, President Van Buren punted, saying, “...your cause is just, but I can do nothing for you. If I take up for you, I shall lose the vote in Missouri” (Documentary History of the Church, 4:80).

Senator Reid, as the 2012 General Election approaches, it appears that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President. It goes without saying that there are legitimate attacks against Mr. Romney and not every attack will be based on religion, but actual attacks on Mormonism related to Mr. Romney have already begun. Lawrence O’Donnell, of MSNBC, recently launched a baseless smear against Mormonism and in all likelihood President Obama and his political allies (of which you are clearly one) will launch vicious attacks on Mormonism for political gain.  Putting aside the obvious hypocrisy of their remaining silent on your Mormonism while attacking Mr. Romney’s, isn’t it despicable and beyond even the realm of political smears to launch such attacks?

Article VI, paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution states that: “...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” I don’t expect you to support and defend Mr. Romney’s political positions, associations, decisions, actions or background, but will you not defend his religion; your religion? Will you honor your oath of office by supporting and defending the Constitution? I would hope that you would do so for a Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist or any other denomination or religion, but your silence would be all the more glaring if maintained in the face of attacks on your own faith. Will you stand silently as your political friends trample the Constitution and smear your religion? Are political points that important?

The First Amendment to our divinely-inspired Constitution (D&C 101:80) protects the rights of the free exercise of religion. It also protects freedom of speech. I acknowledge that those who baselessly attack religions - Mormonism in this case - are free to do so and you and I are free to stay silent or speak. My question is: How will you exercise your freedom of speech? Will you follow in President Van Buren’s footsteps or will you be courageous, even if it means losing the vote? Is the cause just? Can you do something? Will you do something...anything?

                                                                Your brother in the gospel,

                                               
                                                                        Garrett R. Hall