25 thoughts on “Joe Biden’s Qualifications To Be President”

  2. It wasn’t an idiotic decision, viewed from a certain perspective. While no one but Obama himself will ever truly know what his motivations were for selecting Biden, it can be argued to have had at least two positive goals: Assassination/impeachment insurance, and making the President look intelligent and stately in comparison to his VP.

    1. First rate leaders choose first rate staff. They surround themselves with the best people possible to increase their chances of success.

      Second rate leaders choose third rate staff. They surround themselves with weaker people to make themselves look better by comparison.

      Guess what kind of leader Obama is.

      1. Larry J,
        he HAS a first rate staff, IF the objective was to to drive us into bankruptcy and turn us into socialist country.

        1. No, I don’t think that’s even right. His staff is full of lawyers and academics. Not only do they lack real-world business experience, they lack real-world revolutionary experience. When your worldview is shaped by conversations in the faculty lounge (or sharing hits on a bunt), your grasp on reality is weak, indeed.

  4. The left’s treatmeant of Palin vs Biden would be amusing if a good woman wasn’t burned at the stake in the process.

    1. Biden can sound like he knows what he’s talking about. For the left, that’s all they need. The fact is she won that debate from beginning to end.

      1. I was fit to be tied. I kept shouting at the TV, “that’s not true!” and “you’re making that up out of whole cloth!” When Fearless Joe actually said the French (the FRENCH!) kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I had to get up and walk away before I had a stroke. And, then the media declared him the WINNER because he had all these fact(oids) at his fingertips!

  5. He’s clean, articulate, light-skinned, and he speaks with with no Negro[*] dialect, unless he wanted to have one.

    [*] Hey, blame Reid. And Biden.

  6. Unfortunately, {}bama has the most important qualification to be President – leaving aside the birther issue.

    Americans, you voted for him. Which says a lot of things, none of them good, about Americans in general.

    1. No, in ‘general’ we didn’t.

      But a majority did, and even though we knew he was going to be horrible for the country [and even though most of us are racists ‘in general’] we allowed him to take the office without any rioting, looting, or shooting holes in his black skin.

      And , just what ‘important’ does it say? That 57% voted FOR him or the rest voted AGAINST him?

      The much bigger issue is just how many voted for him BECAUSE of his skin color, AND openly admitted it! But even that group wasn’t a large group ‘in general’. I just want to know what your ‘in general’ means Fletcher.

      1. Obama won a solid plurality of those that voted (and more importantly, he won the required number of Electoral College votes). However, usually less than 60% of eligible Americans bother to vote. Most eligible Americans did not vote for Obama, but even fewer voted for McCain.

        Let’s hope we can correct that error this November.
        One
        Big
        Assed
        Mistake
        America!

        Jan 20, 2013 – the end of an error.

    2. According to Wikipedia, Obama received 69,456,897 votes, 52.9% of the popular vote. He won a majority (not just a plurality) of the votes cast. Turnout was 63%, so he received votes from 33% of eligible voters.

      None of which technically matters, thanks to the electoral college. It’s very unlikely, but I wouldn’t mind Obama winning in 2012 despite losing the popular vote, since it’d spur the GOP to support the National Popular Vote.

      1. Nope. If I, in “flyover country”, opted for the NPV, my vote would no longer count for squat. The major population centers on the East and West coasts would be given de facto suzerainty over the entire country. That would hardly help us influence the rules and laws which are important to us, but of little concern to our urban overlords.

    3. Yep:

      “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgement to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is merely a symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools who made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

  7. The fact that a majority, of those who voted, voted {}bama says something unflattering about the majority of Americans. The fact that only 63% voted at all, for the most important office in the USA and probably the world, says something even less flattering.

    The fact that the choice of tickets was between a Left-wing political hack and a crooked lawyer (OK, redundant word there) on the one hand, and a geriatric zealot and ex-Miss Alaska on the other, and that was apparently the best that a country of 300 million could do for a choice between two people one of whom would end up having control of 20,000 nuclear weapons – that says something still worse.

    BTW, we in the UK are just as bad. We choose our head of government differently, but this time we ended up with a party apparatchik in Opposition and a coalition of an Old Etonian upper-class twit and a watermelon Green in Government. Oh, and our election turnout was only 65%, also.

    1. Unfortunately, the choices we get here are driven by a system that actually drives out the most qualified candidates. The people most likely to do well in office are the ones least likely to actually WANT the job in the first place.

    2. …”and a geriatric zealot and ex-Miss Alaska…”

      I’d have to disagree with you there. McCain was a grandstanding, past-his-prime media whore, but I don’t think you could fairly characterize him as a “zealot.” As for the ex-Miss Alaska jibe… There are those who believe in the rule of elites, imagining those trained in the art of governance to be the best qualified to govern. But, I think the historical record renders that presumption highly questionable, to say the least.

      Many of us in the US are fascinated by the give and take of Britain’s House of Commons, the ease and facility with which the representatives of the people debate and discuss deep issues of the day. Sometimes, we wish we could have something like that over here. And, yet… one is left with a nagging question of, “what has it done for them?” If the results of Britain’s policy making were clearly superior to those of the US, there would be no question. But, sadly, they are rather lacking. Britain appears to continue its decline from the pinnacle of world power to this day with nary a pause.

      The lesson is that, often uncommon wisdom and knowledge of the world come from common people who have actually experienced life, and not spent all their time being locked up in an ivory tower imagining a nonexistent, perfect world more to their liking.

  8. Bart – Indeed. I seem to remember reports of bumper stickers saying “Maggie Thatcher for President”. She was the best Prime Minister we have had since Churchill – probably even better than him for peacetime. And she was an honorable exception to the usual upper-class idiots who infest the Tory Party, having grown up in a flat above a grocer’s shop in Grantham (not the most glamourous town in the world, by a long way) and worked as a professional scientist in an industrial lab.

    The British Conservative Party (or at least a considerable portion of it) hated that. So now we are back to an Old Etonian millionaire (who inherited most of it) as PM.

    1. I was thinking of her myself when I wrote that. Saw the film with Meryl Streep recently. Amazing lady. How is her legacy holding up? It seems all I hear is negativity. But, maybe that’s because the most voluble speakers, who feel it their duty to inform you what they think, tend to be of the opposing political persuasion.

Comments are closed.