First Thoughts: Aggressive Biden - NBCNews.com [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Lady GagaLady Gaga is suing Excite Worldwide LLC for using her name to market their products without her permission. For more details read www.bbc.co.uk Lady Gaga photo is from www.flickr.com used under creative commons license Supreme Court is public domain. CSPAN's copyright policy here www.c-span.org This video was meant to parody those who claim they are reporting the news on YouTube. While I can certainly sympathize with Lady Gaga and other stars who must constantly fight to keep their name and likeness from being used without their consent or justification, situations like hers do not warrant to be top of the News. To see the biggest news story right now I would advise you to look up Occupy Wall Street. www.youtube.com For a great breakdown on what is going on I suggest you watch the latest videos from New York resident www.youtube.com Start with this video www.youtube.com America is one of the richest nations in the history of the world and yet so many American's delay basic medical treatment due to health care costs. Even though many do have insurance, the high price of deductibles and co-pays makes it difficult for many American's to seek treatment for their medical conditions. The Senate investigating Google is something that should concern us all on YouTube. If the Senate forces Google to break up the way they did with Ma' Bell back in the day that could cause YouTube to be sold to another company or to break off and go it alone without Google's deep pockets. Should ...
Biden, the aggressor … His performance was therapeutic for base Democrats, but Ryan held his own. … It was Scranton Joe vs. Think Tank Ryan, heart vs. head … Both Biden and Ryan accomplished their goals … But Biden struggled on Libya … Ryan struggled on stimulus, abortion … The ball moves to Obama. His challenge â€" searching for Goldilocks, not too hot, not too cold. … Biden-Ryan didn’t come to blows but Berman-Sherman almost did …and things get nasty in Arizona.
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, and Domenico Montanaro
DANVILLE, Ky. -- If there was something both sides agreed on last night, it was this: Joe Biden was aggressive at last night’s vice-presidential debate. Now, Republicans thought he was too aggressive (with his interruptions, laughs, and facial expressions), and Democrats thought he was just right. After last week’s presidential debate, Biden threw the kitchen sink at both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney -- on issues that President Obama didn't touch in Denver. He brought up Mitt Romney’s “47%†comment. “It [Romney’s opposition to the auto bailout] shouldn’t be surprising for a guy who says 47% of the American people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives.†He brought up Osama bin Laden, resurrecting Romney’s 2007 line that he “wouldn’t move heaven and earth to get bin Laden." And Biden tried to score points on the issue of abortion. “I guess he accepts Gov. Romney's position now, because in the past he has argued that there was … rap e and forcible rape.†More than anything, Biden's performance was therapeutic for base Democrats after Obama's dud in Denver.
*** Scranton Joe vs. Think Tank Ryan: So who won? If you judge a debate on who took the fight to his opponent, who best defended his top of the ticket, and who best attacked the other side, you’d have to say it was Biden. (Indeed, by our count, Biden said “Romney†26 times, while Ryan said “Obama†or “the president†14 times.) If you judge a debate purely on style points, Biden might get penalized. And if you judge a debate by who best plays it safe -- especially on issue terrain that’s not your comfort zone -- then Paul Ryan scored well. That’s probably why the two insta-polls after the debate seemed to indicate a split decision. CBS’s poll of “undecideds†gave it to Biden. CNN’s poll of ALL voters went to Ryan. Both men had two different strategies: Biden was there to energize his side after last week and draw a clear contrast with his opposition, especially on issues like abortion and foreign policy. Ryan, meanwhile, was ther e to look competent, pass the presidential threshold test and do no harm as we head into next week’s second presidential debate. They both accomplished their goals but did it with two very different styles: It was Scranton Joe vs. Think Tank Ryan. Heart vs. head. And as political commentator Matthew Dowd, who worked for the Bush campaign but for Democrats before that put it on Twitter: “Heart wins.â€
*** Fine lines: Biden needed to walk a fine line between gravitas and condescension. At times, he accomplished that; at times, he didn't. He did, however, appear more knowledgeable with one GIANT exception â€" Libya. When he said, stunningly, that the administration was unaware of security requests, it may have been the most significant news of the night (more on that below). Ryan needed to look presidential, and you could say he accomplished that, but he also sometimes seemed overmatched by the more aggressive Biden on foreign policy and even on SOME fiscal issues, like the stimulus. Ryan struggled to explain his letter requesting stimulus money despite criticizing the program. In all, Biden did what he needed to do â€" re-energize the base after the president's lackluster performance a week ago and stop the handwringing and fretting. He did that. Now, the ball moves back to the president, with a different style than Biden that has more appeal to independ ents and undecideds. Ryan’s job was not to blow the lead for Romney, become an unexpected problem. And he did that. Now it’s up to Romney to see if he can win two debates in a row, something he needs to do if he’s going to not just draw EVEN with the presidential in the battlegrounds, but surpass him.
*** Ryan struggled on abortion: Where Ryan struggled the most, interestingly, was on abortion. And don’t be surprised if we see Obama pick up the same attack. When moderator Martha Raddatz asked if a Romney-Ryan ticket should worry those who want abortion to remain legal, Ryan replied, “We don't think that unelected judges should make this decision; that people through their elected representatives in reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination.†Biden pounced, “The next president will get one or two Supreme Court nominees. That's how close Roe v. Wade is. Just ask yourself, with Robert Bork being the chief adviser on the court for -- for Mr. Romney, who do you think he's likely to appoint?â€
*** Where Biden struggled was on Libya and the Benghazi attack: “We weren't told they wanted more security,†Biden said. “And by the way at the time, we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew, that was the assessment." But as NBC’s Andrea Mitchell has pointed out, the State Department DID know that requests for more security resources had been made -- and were turned down. In fact, a State Department official acknowledged that while testifying on Capitol Hill on Wednesday. Considering the timing of this debate, yesterday’s Capitol Hill hearing and the Tuesday full tick-tock of what REALLY happened in Benghazi, it’s shocking Biden didn’t have a better answer than what he said. His strategy for the debate was, give the minimum answer and move to Iraq and Afghanistan. Not sure that can work for the president.
*** Looking ahead to next week â€" in search of Goldilocks: The pressure is still on Obama in next week's town hall-style debate in New York. But make no mistake: Biden -- by turning his volume to 11 last night -- takes some of that pressure off the president. If you've followed Obama over the past six years, you know it's not his style to be overly aggressive. Well, Biden last night both gave Obama a roadmap for how to attack Romney-Ryan (on abortion, tax fairness, foreign policy), and he gave him room to do it in the way he feels most comfortable. The question is: Can he deliver? And can Romney deliver another solid performance? Obama is looking for a Goldilocks' performance. Obama in Denver was too cold, Biden in Danville might have been too hot, and Obama, the sequel, has to figure out how to be just the right combination of assertive without being condescending. On to Hofstra!
*** Berman vs. Sherman (literally, folks!): A lot of boxing metaphors are thrown around before and after debates. No one expects there to be a REAL fight. Of last night’s Biden-Ryan showdown, at least you can say they respected one another â€" enough not to come to blows, anyway. The same CANâ€T be said of a debate last night between two DEMOCRATIC congressman. The L.A. Times: “The bitter race for a San Fernando Valley congressional district took a bizarre turn Thursday when Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) got into a near-altercation during a forum at Pierce College. Video of the event in Woodland Hills shows the candidates exchanging words and Sherman at one point putting his arm around Berman, saying: ‘Do you want to get into this?’ A uniformed officer then came onto the stage and appeared to ask that they move away from each other.†Sherman, by the way, who initiated the touching has apologized .
*** Raising Arizona: And speaking of nasty, don't miss what's happening down in the open Arizona Senate race. Rep. Jeff Flake (R) went up with an ad featuring Richard Carmona’s (D) former boss, who says Carmona angrily pounded on her door in the middle of the night, and it was Carmona. “Carmona’s not who he seems,†she says looking directly to camera. “He has issues with anger, with ethics, and with women. … Richard Carmona should never, ever be in the U.S. Senate.†Carmona responded with an ad of his own, showing pictures of his family, a former female co-worker from his SWAT team, him talking to children, and the famous picture of him rappelling from a helicopter to save a man. “When I see a career politician like Jeff Flake attacking Rich Carmona, who has spent his life helping others, it’s despicable,†the co-worker says. “Congressman Flake should be ashamed.â€
*** On the trail: Fresh off of his debate performance, Ryan heads to Ohio where he’ll hit a rally with Romney in Lancaster at 5:40 pm ET… Before that, Romney campaigns in Richmond, VA at 12:10 pm ET… Meanwhile, Joe and Jill Biden stump in La Crosse, WI at 2:00 pm ET.
Countdown to 2nd presidential debate: 4 days
Countdown to 3rd presidential debate: 10 days
Countdown to Election Day: 25 days
Click here to sign up for First Read emails.
Text FIRST to 622639, to sign up for First Read alerts to your mobile phone.
Check us out on Facebook and also on Twitter. Follow us @chucktodd, @mmurraypolitics, @DomenicoNBC, @brookebrower
Related First Thoughts: Aggressive Biden - NBCNews.com Issues Question by Rachel: Is the current policy "don't ask, "don't tell" for gay and lesbian military personnel appropriate? Why or why not? If a different policy were adopted, what should it be? 2-Explain why you agree or disagree using two arguments? Best answer for Is the current policy "don't ask, "don't tell" for gay and lesbian military personnel appropriate?:
Answer by Erudite
They should be free to be who they are. This is called true freedom. Respect should be the policy.
Answer by Ranken
Now i have never been in the military or anything, but i don't see anything wrong with that policy, just because i believe if you are there to serve your nation that is exactly what you are there for and nothing else. Your private life is for your ears and eyes and nobody elses. If this world were a better place to 'gay and lesbian' people then it would be great if there was no policy, it would be as if homosexuals and heterosexuals were assimilated into one group, but alas that isn't how it is these days. This sounds like an assignment. But either way i would say, it doesn't matter whether or not the policy is enacted i still wouldn't believe it is anyones business but your own.
Answer by AliL
Seeing that a gay or lesbian person is just as able to hold a gun it is not a big deal. Yeah, the people around them can judge however they wish but it's not as taboo as it used to be. Also people thought that it might help them get out of the military so the military just does not pay much attention to it now.
Answer by GW Campbell
yes because Military members dont care about pity political debates , most of the times the chain of command knows about it and decides to ignore it as long they dont bring their personal life to work
Answer by Maurice
If straights are able to show their love and affection for their mates in public, so should gays. Simple as that. Especially considering that many of the gay people who are being discharged hold pretty important roles in the military. People may say that there may be homophobes in the military who won't like gays being so open. But you know what? National security and protection should trump their personal biases. If they can't handle being around someone different yet still good at their job, the complainers don't belong in the military in the first place.
Answer by Tyler
It is a very complicated idea. I can see reasons for and against the policy. For: The main idea for the policy is the protection of the gay/lesbian soldier. The policy wants to protect the soldier from being targeted from other soldiers. I will give you an example. If a very intolerant soldier goes to war with a homosexual who he simply hates because they are gay, there might be some friendly-fire. Of course this is an extreme example, but this is still a very strong possibility. Against: This policy places the gay/lesbian soldier in a very awkward predicament. The soldier feels segregated against. Also, because this policy has a strict punishment, most gay/lesbian soldiers have to silence their gay/lesbian lifestyles. For example, if a gay soldier is in a relationship, this couple cannot be seen in public, especially around other soldiers. It is very difficult keeping a relationship and a lifestyle silent. Solution: Have a tolerances policy instead of a gay/lesbian policy. I believe the military should train soldiers to become tolerant of other lifestyles. If the military can train soldiers to kill, they should at least be able to train soldiers to be tolerant. That way, the one who gets kicked out of the military is the intolerant soldier and not the homosexual soldier. This allows the homosexual soldier to be open about their lifestyle and relationships while maintaining a safe atmosphere in battle and outside of battle. ...of course this will probably never happen. But for now, I think the Don't ask Don't tell policy is appropriate.
Answer by bargoth125
Sexual preference is ones own decision and nobody can force them to change something as private as this. In addition to this, the military doesn't need to know the sexual preference of their recruits as it makes no difference to them. Therefore the military is bound to respect the privacy of the recruits by giving everyone an equal chance to enlist, regardless of sexual preference.
Answer by constitution comes 1st, then RvD
well i have nothing against gay people. if they want to join the military they can. if they want to be gay they can. i just dont think they should be getting married.
Answer by John U
Military Oath of Enlistment: I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. (Optional) So help me God. Doesn't say anything about Bob needing to date Tom or Suzy marrying Betty. If you disagree with the Government policies one can do so but it is not your job to question why or where you are going and what you are going to have to do once you get there. You do not have to like being in the military once your in but the general rule is to act like you are happy to be here. If you are gay or lesbian, keep it to yourself. It causes more problems when one even thinks that another is not heterosexual and takes away from the supporting and defending of the constitution of the United States. Ergo we won't ask and we don't need you to tell us because there are more important things to worry about in your 32 hour day than whether you are gay or lesbian. Didn't really care for Pres Clinton but this is probably one of the best things he or any other politician came up with. It has to be a good policy or you wouldn't be the three billionth person to ask this very same question.
Answer by The God of reason
It is absolutely appropriate, and is the better policy then I can think of. The military cannot simply ban homosexuals outright. The fall out and uproar this would cause would be huge. Just imagine what would happen. Whether or not you would like this policy, it would be a disaster. Allowing openly homosexuals also won't work. At least it won't work yet. While I personally don't care about ones sexuality, and don't think it is a reason to be able to or not serve, there are simply too many people who are not tolerant. In fact, with the whole way that the structure of the military is, all that it would take is for one person with any authority to make this a nightmare. That is why this current policy is the best out there. It prevents those that would want to discriminate against gays from doing so. In fact, because of the policy, they could end up hurting their own careers. At the same time you can be gay in the military. As long as you don't flaunt it, you won't get kicked out. There are many gays in the military, and many times people know they are gay. Even if it is obvious, as long as they don't go around saying so, you just carry on doing things normally. This really is one of those things, that even if the policy isn't the most "right" or fair, it is what has the best balance between being fair and working well. Many policies that people push for because it is the right thing, fail because of that very reason. It is unfortunate, but reality.
Answer by Mark F
Sounds like someone has a homework question so I'm not going to quite play by your game. I will however say "what could possibly be wrong with a policy that encourages our soldiers to be dishonest to protect the sensibilities of neantherdthal homophobes?"
Gaza - The Killing ZoneLife in Gaza is a constant gauntlet of Israeli sniper fire, military rockets and army bulldozers. No one is safe. In light of the escalating tensions, we're bringing back one our most moving documentaries, a hard-hitting expose of life in the Occupied territories. We speak to the children caught in the crossfire and find out the true cost of Israel's targeted assassinations policy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment