Biden’s “They’re going to put y’all back in chains” – “the conscience of our nation’s capital.” Obama Campaign – A New Norm of The Absurd – Opinion

Vice President Joe Biden Rails Racist Insanity Against the Inevitability of the Romney Ryan Machine at Danville, VA Progressive Democrat Campaign Event - image Gatewaypundit.com


The “story” broke yesterday from the Washington Free Beacon: , Vice-President, Joe Biden, speaking at campaign event in Danville, GA, blatantly distorting the GOP take on a budget proposal (which, to date, the Democrat controlled Senate and White House have not passed a sustainable budget in three years), stated: “They’ve said it. Every Republican’s voted for it. Look at what they value and look at their budget and what they’re proposing. Romney wants to let the—he said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the big banks once again write their own rules–unchain Wall Street. They’re going to put y’all back in chains. He’s said he’s going to do nothing about stopping the practice of outsourcing…” – Biden was introduced by the Center for American Progress Action Fund president Tom Perriello, who called Biden “the conscience of our nation’s capital.” (Washington Free Beacon)

The remark, which is, in context, ridiculous and racist, was said to be immediately defended by the Obama Campaign. However, even as the statement had yet to get the worldwide, and local U.S. attention it is getting today (CBS Local, Charlotte), Obama’s Deputy Campaign Manager attempted to support, explain and distance the President from Biden:

Asked about the comments on MSNBC, President Obama's deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said Mr.Obama 'probably agrees with Joe Biden's sentiments.
'I mean he's using a metaphor...He was making a point that if we repeal Wall Street reform which is what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want to do, we're going to go back to the days where they're writing their own rules, and we saw what happened.

(UK Daily Mail)

The fact that Biden is seen by the Progressive Democrats as the “the conscience of our nation’s capital”, coupled with the Obama’ Campaign’s statements that overall support the Vice President’s statement, is in itself proof of the new normal low that has defined Washington for the past three years. What is astounding is the feigned amazement and additional insults coming from the Obama Campaign as the competition, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, along with anyone in the nation with a scrap of decency left, called the remarks what they are, at face value - , “a campaign of division and anger and hate” –an apt description by Romney in response to the latest ridiculous and incendiary statements by Obama Campaign members and or their PAC’s. The reply by the Obama Campaign – “Governor Romney's comments tonight seemed unhinged, and particularly strange coming at a time when he's pouring tens of millions of dollars into negative ads that are demonstrably false”…(The Hill.com).

To which comments and advertising by the Romney Campaign is the Obama Campaign referring to?

This is the first week that Romney, in this phase of the campaign, has basically defended himself as well as his running mate – Congressman Paul Ryan, vocally. Calling out the President and his Campaign for Reelection over PAC ads that accused him of murder, and a variety of statements made by Campaign operatives, including Senator Harry Reid and, of course, the Vice President, Joe Biden, which were demonstrably false. The Romney campaign has, to date, been positive, using an uplifting message, and compare and contrast policy ads. Therefore, while the Obama Campaign, anemically attempting to rely on its economic record, is shocked that statements made that are hinging on slanderous, draw fire from the opposition – appears transparently desperate.

The older Biden has been gaffe-prone (charitably put) since the one-term Senator from Illinois chose the veterans Senator from Maryland as his running mate in 2008. One cannot even begin to characterize the latest statements made by Biden as being in the contest of the role of the V.P. as “attack dog” to the President, since it is considered by the base of the Party to be “the conscious of our nation’s capital”! It is hoped, by those who are in the middle – and not as blindly partisan as those on the far left and right of the political spectrum, that our nation’s capital has a better conscious than that displayed on behalf of the Presidents reelection efforts by the Vice President and Harry Reid, the man who literally controls the direction of the Legislation passed (or not as the case has been proven) in the United States.

There comes a time when those who are, on paper, Democrats, Republicans and Independents become so tired of the constant drumbeat of negativity, as it relates to the way Washington is run and the statements and ads made and run by Obama Campaign staffers, supporters and PAC’s – that a palpable shift begins to take place – similar to the elections of 2010, but somehow more urgent. This shift is to the middle – often referred to as “the far right”. It is understandable that both campaigns want the narrative that the race is “close” in the polls to continue for the moment. On the President’s side, it helps to frame an argument that he can win re-election. On the GOP side, a close elections fuels fundraising as those moderates in all parties cringe at the thought of current divisive, angry and hateful tone coming from the ”conscious of Washington” – specifically the Obama Campaign.

Although there are those on the right that would see Romney go on the attack (rather than answer the absurd with, frankly, a plain spoken common sense, rebuke), it is better that the Campaign continues its’ current messaging, and leaves the Obama Campaign to continue as “normal”. Romney has, to date, shown remarkable composure in the face of attacks from the Obama Campaign, and his literal “scolding” of the campaign, can hardly be characterized as “unhinged”, rather as Romney speaking for those who are sick of the negative, and false, jargon and the absurd. As the new normal continues to frame the Obama Campaigns messaging, it speaks to desperation, rather than confidence. What American’s need, as unemployment remains’ stagnant, food and fuel costs continue to rise, and the general feeling of “hopelessness” is evident in the faces of those who are lucky enough to be struggling under the burden of paying taxes to local, state and the federal government, (the shrinking number of employed Americans), is a President that leads with authority, is upbeat, yet tells the American’s people the truth about steps we can take to improve the economy, our health care delivery, save Medicare and Social Security for those over 55 while offering choices to those under 55 that would both protect those individuals and strengthen the economy - even if the result of that type of truth hurts the feelings of the current “conscious of Washington”. .

Personal Attack Ads - Half-Truths, Lies and Politicians – Nothing New – Neither is Political Party Infighting Analysis

An interesting video shown below, entitled “Attack Ads – Circ 1800”, is a well-done short on the reality of American Politics – otherwise known as name-calling. In goes towards the character of the American Politician desperately trying to hold or gain power by swaying the electorate, casting aspersions on the competition. The difference, however, between 1800 and 2010 is the delivery of the “advertising” against an adversary. The pamphlets employed and reports of the same, took weeks, to wend their way to the voting populace, while today’s ads take seconds to reach an audience be it television or radio.

In the Massachusetts Gubernatorial Race, both Deval Patrick and PACS supporting Patrick have released ads charging Republican Charlie Baker with a host of abuses; the Baker Team (and subsequent PAC’s) has, in turn, released counter ads. The difference today – sound bites that allow those to take a portion of audio or video and attach that to an accusation.

How effective are attack ads, especially in Massachustts? Not very, when one considers the January 19th special election between Martha Coakley and Scott Brown. Coakley, who decided late in the election that her opponent might actually have some traction, ran one negative ad after the other, eventually disenfranchising the electorate, and wining the day for Brown (who did not run any personal attack ads, rather focused on what he would do if elected).

It is the ability of the American Public to see only so many attack ads, even if they are a member of that political party, before they become disenfranchised, and depressed; to the point of staying home on Election Day. It appears that overall, the more negative an advertisement becomes and the more personal, the general public starts to take a hard look at the opposition, as those types of ads smack of desperation.

Case in point, the attack ads on Christine O’Donnell who is running for the Delaware Senate became so vicious, that polls are now showing her closing in on her Democrat opponent. Although attack ads are nothing new, the delivery and sheer volume of messages is definitely increased, causing what one might term “voter angst” or perhaps more to the point “voter backlash”.

Incidentally, as this particular election of 2010 has Democrats fighting one another, and or attempting to distance themselves from certain high profile leaders, in an attempt to save their “jobs”, and ensure that the people re-hire them for yet another term, has caused much speculation that there is a division in the ranks of the Democrats. Not unlike political ads, political infighting is not a new phenomenon. From Google: a link here gives the reader insight into the political maneuverings and infighting of the Democrats in the May 24, 1899 edition of the newspaper, the Robinson Constitution. It is an interesting read from the perspective of then union organizers, who felt that Jefferson was getting a bad rap, and further speaks to the ability of the unions to organize and get out the vote.

It should be noted, that today, speaking of a Senator or Congressional Representative, or Governors actual voting record, is seen by that members political party as an “attack” – unfortunately, those in 2010 who voted for unpopular programs, such as the Health Care Reform Package, Stimulus, and Cap and Trade, should, instead of crying foul, man (or woman)up to the fact that they did indeed support those bills, voted them through against the wishes of their constituents and then stand by them.

Instead, they release ads that are not new, in fact, they are recycled every time the Democrats find themselves in the hot seat – making ridiculous claims that Republicans will take away some poor grandmothers (or grandfathers) social security. The problem with this claim, this year, is that seniors know they have had no increases or cost of living raises for the past two years, while the Congress was controlled by, the Democrats. When one has only oneself to blame, one is somewhat behind the proverbial eight ball – so, stretching the truth, and calling names, becomes the norm - the public however, understands transparency. With that said, crying wolf one time too many, may be setting up those who are going to be going out on the campaign trail for the next round (2012), and therefore, it may behoove all politicians and those who want to server our nation, to speak about what they might do, if elected, in contrast to their opponent, without going for the juggler. That would be refreshing – perhaps Senator Scott Brown’s ads should be studied – they were not the sole reason he was elected, rather played a small part, but it was the decency in his advertising that factored into the equation.

Fortuntaly, so far (there is still time however), not one political ad released in 2010 charges that should an opponnet be elected, one's house will be burnt to the ground.