It's time to dump Biden and replace him with Sen. Hillary Clinton. I don't care how it's done. Campaign chief David Axelrod can figure that out. And the sooner the better. Because I'm starting to think that if Team-Obama doesn't do something dramatic fast, it's gonna lose this election. There's a worrisome shift in momentum and in the polls. The Palin phenomenon, while truly unfathomable to Democrats, has energized McCain's campaign and allowed him like Houdini to snatch Obama's "change" theme right out from under him. It's time to snatch it back.
I've been suggesting this might happen for a couple of weeks now. Hey, if Barry would throw his own grandmother under the bus likening her to Rev. Jeremiah Wright (for supposedly confiding her fear of black men to him), he wouldn't think twice about throwing Biden overboard if he thought it might help him win this election.
6 comments:
Off topic, from the Wall Street Journal, 9/13/08 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122126282034130461.html?mod=djemEditorialPage)
Despite the federal government's growing economic dominance, individual states still exercise substantial freedom in pursuing their own economic fortune -- or misfortune. As a result, the states provide a laboratory for testing various policies. . .
Growth in jobs, income and population are proof that a state is prospering. . .
Ranking states by domestic migration, per-capita income growth and employment growth, ALEC [American Legislative Exchange Council] found that from 1996 through 2006, Texas, Florida and Arizona were the three most successful states. Illinois, Ohio and Michigan were the three least successful. . .
Incredibly, the business climate in Michigan is now so unfavorable that it has overwhelmed the considerable comparative advantage in auto production that Michigan spent a century building up. No one should let Michigan politicians blame their problems solely on the decline of the U.S. auto industry. Yes, Michigan lost 83,000 auto manufacturing jobs during the past decade and a half, but more than 91,000 new auto manufacturing jobs sprung up in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Texas. . .
So what do the state laboratories tell us about the potential success of the economic programs presented by Barack Obama and John McCain?
Mr. McCain will lower taxes. Mr. Obama will raise them, especially on small businesses. To understand why, you need to know something about the "infamous" top 1% of income tax filers: In order to avoid high corporate tax rates and the double taxation of dividends, small business owners have increasingly filed as individuals rather than corporations. When Democrats talk about soaking the rich, it isn't the Rockefellers they're talking about; it's the companies where most Americans work. Three out of four individual income tax filers in the top 1% are, in fact, small businesses.
In the name of taxing the rich, Mr. Obama would raise the marginal tax rates to over 50% on millions of small businesses that provide 75% of all new jobs in America. Investors and corporations will also pay higher taxes under the Obama program, but, as the Michigan-Ohio-Illinois experience painfully demonstrates, workers ultimately pay for higher taxes in lower wages and fewer jobs.
Mr. Obama would spend all the savings from walking out of Iraq to expand the government. Mr. McCain would reserve all the savings from our success in Iraq to shrink the deficit, as part of a credible and internally consistent program to balance the budget by the end of his first term. Mr. Obama's program offers no hope, or even a promise, of ever achieving a balanced budget.
Mr. Obama would stimulate the economy by increasing federal spending. Mr. McCain would stimulate the economy by cutting the corporate tax rate. Mr. Obama would expand unionism by denying workers the right to a secret ballot on the decision to form a union, and would dramatically increase the minimum wage. Mr. Obama would also expand the role of government in the economy, and stop reforms in areas like tort abuse.
The states have already tested the McCain and Obama programs, and the results are clear. We now face a national choice to determine if everything that has failed the families of Michigan, Ohio and Illinois will be imposed on a grander scale across the nation. In an appropriate twist of fate, Michigan and Ohio, the two states that have suffered the most from the policies that Mr. Obama proposes, have it within their power not only to reverse their own misfortunes but to spare the nation from a similar fate.
Lower taxes, and lowering taxes is the proven way of creating jobs and providing for economic stimulus.
Biden and BO both have a some out saying that they support taxing the "rich", and Biden has a record of such.
I think we've talked about this several times before. One candidate chose someone who will help him govern, the other candidate chose someone who will help him win an election.
I think it's quite telling that Barack Obama didn't make a crass political choice in picking Biden, while John McCain made a desperate grasp in picking someone he'd only met twice and until she was chosen had refused to endorse McCain (due to his opposition to drilling in ANWR).
The Republican bounce is going or even gone in some polls and the momentum is with Barack Obama again as the campaign shifts to the issues.
With McCain repeating his claim that the economy is strong this morning at a time when foreclosures are at an all-time high, when unemployment is the highest in 5 years, when there are major investment banks liquidating, I just don't think that claim is going to go well with voters.
If either candidate succumbed to this ploy their electability would fly right out the window.
Why? Because the conclusion would have to be that if their judgement was too flawed to pick the best Veep candidate, then what other lapses of judgement would we be getting?
Vox, You were blogging over at Blue Indiana after Obama picked him what a terrible choice Biden was because of how he had sold out consumers to financial industry titans who had lined his pockets with campaign contributions and hired his son as a lobbyist. Change of heart?
Here's exactly what I wrote on Blue Indiana:
I have mixed reactions... (0.00 / 0)
I'm not particularly happy with the selection of Joe Biden. He is owned by the credit card industry and he cuts against Obama's message of change by having spent most of his 65 years as a Senator (he's been in the Senate for almost 36 years). He was also a supporter of the Iraq War. It's hard to see how Biden, who received very little support in the primaries and has a penchant for saying off-putting comments (Obama is a "clean and articulate" black man for example) helps Obama get more votes.
That said, Biden is a solid governing choice. He knows where the bodies are buried in DC and knows how to get legislation through the Congress. He'll be good in a debate unless McCain selects a female running mate (when we might have to worry about Biden calling her "sweety" or something equally sexist). At 65 years old and with a history of health problems, Biden is a "party elder" like I wanted who probably won't run for president himself in 8 years (when he will be older than McCain is now). That means there won't be a Democratic front-runner and we should have another competitive primary.
Overall I think it's a wash for Obama. He had the option of selecting two game changers, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore. They both know the in and outs of Washington and could have brought Obama more votes than Biden will.
So I think "terrible choice" is your phrase, while "a wash" was mine.
My point about Biden is that he's not going to get taken off the ticket. That ship has sailed.
Vox,
Please tell me you didn't suggest Al Gore as a possible VP choice. The man is too busy enriching himself scaring the public then turning and selling them carbon credits.
Post a Comment