Vice-President Joe Biden warns Americans not to travel on airplanes, subways, or go to confined places. Apparently that's what he is also telling his family. Although the White House has insisted that this is not what the Vice President meant to say, that is exactly what he said and meant to say. Listen to him yourself. So the White House compounds the initial idiocy, with ridiculous spin.
Now it's all very well for the Vice President to avoid subways and confined public places. But how is the average Joe going to do that? Not that Biden cares that much about the average Joe, considering his miserly charitable instincts.
Add this bit of nonsense coming out of Biden's mouth to his other classic statements. You will remember that he forgot when T.V. was invented, didn't know that Herbert Hoover was President in 1929, and thought that the word JOBS has three letters. But when you have the Vice President of the United States telling people not to travel on airplanes or subways, in effect putting out a panic call, I think he goes too far. And so do most folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Spector changes parties and Souter retires, and this is what we're talking about? (Because I can't keep my mouth shut: you imply that Biden doesn't understand the average Joe; that he's wealthy. That's incorrect. In the Senate wealth tables, heranks last out of all 100 Senators. His annual income is (*cough cough*) less than many, say, law professors.)
ReplyDeleteAs for Souter replacements, every open seat since 1977 has been filled by someone more conservative than his predecessor. Justice Stevens made this observation in 2007, and it was verified by Judge Richard Posner in a comprehensive empirical study. That study found that five of the current justices are in the ten most conservative to sit on the Court since 1933; four are in the top five (Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, in that order).
My vote is for Kathleen Sullivan. I know there's no chance this will happen, since she once failed the CA bar, and she's a lesbian from San Francisco. Still: a guy can dream. There are rumours that Obama wants to appoint a lawmaker, like Jennifer Granholm. As a lawyer, I think this is an awful idea, since such a person would probably write terrible opinions and have little concern for one of the main functions of a Supreme Court: resolving circuit splits. As an observer, though, I'd love it. Some of the most effective justices (in bringing forcefulness & consensus to the court) have been lawmakers, like Earl Warren.
What do you think?
-scott
Hey Scott:
ReplyDeleteI have to correct one major misconception. Biden made about $300,000 US last year. You say this is less than many law profs. What law school do you have in mind??? Sign me up asap! No law prof makes anywhere near that. (Hope this doesn't change your academic career plans, but I think you ought to know the truth).
Later on Souter and Spector.
I agree, democracy stinks! I think we can all agree that politicians should be selected based solely on their relative IQ, not their popularity. Oh, what a wonderful would it would be.
ReplyDeleteSir,
ReplyDeleteTwo points:
First, Biden is there to make the electorate remember that a politician who says dumb things can cause dangerous consequences, such as the increase in US casualties after George "Bring It On" Bush's ill-conceived invitation to attack US troops. He's there to make Obama look good, and to keep the fires burning when the GOP runs its next Know Nothing avatar in 2012.
Second, (echoing Matheson), why do you rise to the bait on these issues? Whether respondents to your posts or minor idiocies such as this latest Bidenity, be they ill-informed buffoons or master baiters, I am left wondering why someone of your obvious accomplishments doesn't spend more time on Souter. Or Woo. Or whatever. When you do focus on more substantive material, your blog is an interesting and provocative read.
Sincerely,
Geoff Clark