What you see is what you get.
That’s according to Paula Deen, the television cooking star who built a fortune on her food and her down home, honest to goodness personality.
I’ve watched Paula Deen over the years, and frankly, I think she is as genuine as the real article she claims to be. Without personally knowing the lady off camera, I have neither seen nor heard of any evidence that she is not what she appears to be.
This is a woman who knows what it means to struggle, pull herself up by her boot straps, and keep trying to better herself.
After a failed marriage, Paula was living as a single mother of two boys, trying to make ends meet to provide for her children.
That’s when she began making brown paper sack lunches that her boys would sell to business people on their lunch breaks. Pretty soon, her sack lunches were in high demand, being delivered to office buildings all over the city.
Business soon became not only brisk, but downright overwhelming. It wasn’t too much later that Paula would open a restaurant called “The Lady and Sons” in Savannah, Ga. Invoking the name of her original sack lunch business, this venture, too, became a local hit.
Then came television, the Food Network, and the big time. Endorsements and her own product labels soon followed.
For many years to come Paula Deen was the Food Network, for all intents and purposes. She was there in the network’s early years before it became the popular hit channel it is today. In fact, Paula was a main attraction on the cable network. One might go so far as to say that she was one of the reasons the Food Network took off like it did, appealing to generations of cooking fans who found her folksy appeal almost as endearing as her recipes.
But then, at the height of her success, word was leaked to the news media just a couple of weeks ago that Deen had uttered a racial slur.
Uh-oh.
Anyone who is media savvy knows exactly what this means: Your career is in jeopardy, and possibly over.
Several media personalities over the years have faded into obscurity following the controversies contrived over things they’ve said.
And just like that, the Food Network dropped Paula Deen quicker than a stick of deep-fried butter fresh out of the oil.
The company that can bank much of its success on Paula Deen was the first to throw her under the bus. And all over something that someone accused her of saying.
Paula hasn’t denied using the racial slur. But she denies using it the way she has been alleged of doing.
According to Paula, she used the racial slur three decades ago while under pressure in the middle of a bank hold-up.
Now, there are those who believe this story like they believe Deen’s high calorie dishes are healthy for them. And then there are those who will take Paula Deen’s word just because she is Paula Deen.
I’m sure a lot of people have found themselves falling to one side or the other.
Then there are those of us that look at the situation and are waiting for the evidence that establishes her guilt to surface.
I am not going to proclaim her guilty until I’ve seen the evidence. I’m uncertain if she’s innocent, either. But I do know that in America, an accused person is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
So Paula has admitted to uttering a racial slur at some time in her life. This was 30 years ago. If that is the extent of her “racism,” then no one, including Paula, should have anything to worry about.
As Paula noted, everyone makes mistakes and says things they may regret. She appeared quite contrite and genuine in her public apologies. Her appearance on NBC’s “Today” show brought her to tears…real tears.
So many media and marketing experts have analyzed and over-analyzed her television appearances since the controversial allegation came out. Many have said that Paula hasn’t said enough, she hasn’t done enough, to earn back the love she once enjoyed from the American public.
But, the way I see things, the only people panicking over what Paula Deen said three decades ago are her corporate partners who are in “cover your butt” mode to protect against financial fall-out. In other words, they are merely looking out for their monetary interests, because they know how knee-jerk the media is and how much the ignorant public can be.
Paula’s true fan-base is largely unchanged. She may have lost those who followed her as a passing fancy, because they think she has a funny accent and her food looks good. But those who truly admire what she has done throughout her life, how much she has accomplished, and the obstacles she has overcome, are likely to stick with her until there is hard, empirical, conclusive evidence that establishes Paula is not the person she claims to be.
I do have to question the motive of the individual who leveled this accusation; and the timing.
Paula is at the top of her game. Her name, her brand is worth millions of dollars. To someone who is down and out, and who perhaps was rubbed the wrong way by Savannah’s “Bag Lady,” making an accusation of racism would seem like an viable game plan to getting one’s hands on a piece of Deen’s fortune.
After all, Paula has all of the right ingredients to be labeled a white supremacist racist. She’s white and she’s a Southron.
Quite frankly, I think that’s why the news media latched onto the accusation as quickly as it did.
Everyone in the media knows that every white Southerner is really a racist at heart. That’s the profile that is built by a supposedly unbiased news media.
If the accusation had been made of Ina Garten or Giada Di Laurentis, it wouldn’t have resonated through the media the way it did because the accused was Paula Deen, whose Southern accent is so strong, I swear I can’t understand some of the things she says; like “pah,” or “buhhhder.”
Now, I’ll concede that Paula didn’t come right out and say “I’m sorry,” or “I apologize” on NBC's “Today Show.” She did utter a pretty clear apology on YouTube, asking people for their forgiveness.
From the way the "Today" interview went, I think Paula was downright angry, frustrated and upset about the fall-out over something that is in the distant past. She felt railroaded, the target of a witch-hunt because of her success.
I’ll wager she is partly correct.
She is also a target because she is a white Southron. Those traits plus financial success equal inevitable trouble over the hyper-sensitive issue of race.
Why?
Because white Southrons are profiled as racists by virtue of the South’s history.
They are guilty of racism without even having to open their mouths, because, dag-nabbit, we all know where a white Southerner’s heart and mind lay, don’t we?
They are presumed guilty until proven innocent.
I particularly enjoyed Paula’s parting shot at her critics, who very clearly are ready to throw stones her way. Invoking the New Testament story of Jesus who stepped in to save the life of an adulterous woman about to be stoned to death, Paula looked into the camera and pleaded for anyone who has never said something they have regretted to pick up a stone and throw it so hard it kills her.
Anyone with an ounce of sophisticated thought could hear that Paula was admitting her guilt, but then challenging the rest of us to examine ourselves to see if we really ought to be condemning her.
Whether America turns its back on Paula Deen or she is able to rise above yet another obstacle remains to be seen. I’ll put my money on Paula. She is more resilient than the people and entities bailing on her right now.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Gay doesn't mean joyful anymore
Back in the day, the term "gay" meant joyful.
Today, "gay" means to be part of an activist community and a protected minority group.
In my humble opinion, there is nothing joyful about today's gay movement.
Recentlhy, a same-sex marriage proposal has been passed in the Nevada Assembly. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) voted to allow gay boys into their ranks; after years of standing their ground firmly opposed to the practice of homosexuality. And the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down both Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.
Of course, permissive rationalists today don't call homosexuality a practice, but a biological preference, genetic orientation, and a natural lifestyle.
I find the Boy Scouts' reversal disturbing, because it means the leadership is caving on Biblically moral issues in order to save "face" with an increasingly more "tolerant" society and world view. ...And to avoid future discriminatory lawsuits.
I thought it was laughable to hear a Nevada legislator supporting the same-sex marriage bill say that it was about equality and civil rights.
Civil rights? Since when is marriage a right? Last time I checked, it is a freedom and privilege of liberty. I don't know about anyone else, but I am very tired of everything decent and Biblically moral being walked on as though nothing Judeo-Christian is sacred anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, the government declaring marriage to be open to homosexuals treads upon the religious practice of marriage, and may, in fact, violate the First Amendment forbidding government from abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble and practice their religion.
Marriage loses its sacredness when secular government steps in and declares what it is and what it isn't.
I have nothing against homosexual people. I have a brother who is openly gay, and I would do whatever I could for him if he was in trouble and needed help. I love him. I neither fear gay people, nor do I want to deprive them of the same Constitutional rights that I enjoy.
But I draw the line with marriage. God ordained it, and He did so specifically between a man and a woman.
The homosexual lobby just cannot leave religion alone. Years ago, gays just wanted to be left alone. But now their activist lobby is pursuing to take down every sacred religious institution. It may not be long before a minister, priest or pastor is sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. Until then, they'll just be persecuted. But, I suppose this is all prophetic of things to come.
Recentlhy, a same-sex marriage proposal has been passed in the Nevada Assembly. The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) voted to allow gay boys into their ranks; after years of standing their ground firmly opposed to the practice of homosexuality. And the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down both Proposition 8 in California and the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996.
Of course, permissive rationalists today don't call homosexuality a practice, but a biological preference, genetic orientation, and a natural lifestyle.
I find the Boy Scouts' reversal disturbing, because it means the leadership is caving on Biblically moral issues in order to save "face" with an increasingly more "tolerant" society and world view. ...And to avoid future discriminatory lawsuits.
I thought it was laughable to hear a Nevada legislator supporting the same-sex marriage bill say that it was about equality and civil rights.
Civil rights? Since when is marriage a right? Last time I checked, it is a freedom and privilege of liberty. I don't know about anyone else, but I am very tired of everything decent and Biblically moral being walked on as though nothing Judeo-Christian is sacred anymore.
As far as I'm concerned, the government declaring marriage to be open to homosexuals treads upon the religious practice of marriage, and may, in fact, violate the First Amendment forbidding government from abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble and practice their religion.
Marriage loses its sacredness when secular government steps in and declares what it is and what it isn't.
I have nothing against homosexual people. I have a brother who is openly gay, and I would do whatever I could for him if he was in trouble and needed help. I love him. I neither fear gay people, nor do I want to deprive them of the same Constitutional rights that I enjoy.
But I draw the line with marriage. God ordained it, and He did so specifically between a man and a woman.
The homosexual lobby just cannot leave religion alone. Years ago, gays just wanted to be left alone. But now their activist lobby is pursuing to take down every sacred religious institution. It may not be long before a minister, priest or pastor is sued for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. Until then, they'll just be persecuted. But, I suppose this is all prophetic of things to come.
That flushing sound you hear...
...is the institution of marriage circling the drain on its way down the toilet.
The U.S. Supreme Court today just struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, and Proposition 8 in California. With this decision now in the books as case law from the highest court the land, it will be used to strike down laws by other states that prohibit gay marriage and seek to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
While I understand and appreciate the issues of discrimination and equal protection under the law faced before the court, I fail to see how the freedom to marry falls into the category of equal protection.
The "gay rights" community insists marriage to be a civil right. I contend that it is not a right, but rather a liberty and a privilege. It is a religious liberty for faith groups to exercise and practice under much higher laws than civil laws of men. Marriage is about the freedom to exercise one's religion.
The USSC's decision today ensures that neither the federal government nor the states may prevent the gay movement from re-defining marriage; but the decision will open the flood gates for gay activists to prevent religious groups from protecting their definition of legal marriage. As such, there is not only a double standard that already exists, but I foresee that "equal protection under the law" will soon not apply to religious groups or individuals who want to preserve their definition of marriage.
Another can of worms that could be opened by this decision is the notion that a minister who refuses to marry a gay couple may be sued for discrimination; thereby infringing upon the cleric's constitutional right to freely exercise religion.
The question will be which constitutional right comes first: The "right" to marry or the right to practice one's faith? In my view, the issue of marriage is a moral and Biblical one. For other faith groups, it is clearly a religious rite and issue. As a Christian, I married for two reasons: (1) Because I wanted to raise a family with the woman I loved; and (2) so that my sexual expression may be pure and righteous.
If the primary purpose of marriage is to establish our love and commitment to someone, then should I marry my mother, siblings and children to establish my love and commitment to them? Absurd as this sounds, that is the logical conclusion one reaches when listening to the gay rights lobby express why its members want to marry.
From a secular position, the pragmatic point of marriage is to create an institution that is stable for the procreation of humankind, and for the raising of next generations of such beings. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the dynamic of a mother (female) figure and a father (male) figure in a family unit has proven effective for generations, centuries and millennia. There is something specific I cannot quite put my finger on that a woman (wife, mother) brings to the marriage and something specific that the man (husband, father) brings to the marriage. Whatever it is, it works. God has known it since before the beginning of time. That's why He established it when creating man and woman.
The USSC's ruling will not only permit homosexuals to marry across the country, but to adopt children, and perhaps even "procreate" through surrogacy and through artificial means. I do not see how this will be effective and productive for society.
How will the proven dynamic of a mother and a father figure be introduced in a "family" of two mothers or two fathers? How will young females benefit from two mommies if they do not have a solid male role model to develop an intimate relationship with, and learn how to have appropriate and healthy relationships with members of the opposite gender? Or, how will they learn to be healthy women if they do not have a solid female role model in their lives?
Same for young males. If they do not have the nurturing of a mother figure, how can they learn to interact appropriately with members of the opposite sex and develop healthy intimate relationships with them? Or if raised without a father figure, how can they be expected to grow up to be healthy men if they do not have a solid male role model from which to learn?
I feel that the dynamics of gay couples will confuse children as they grow into young adulthood.
Environment plays a significant role in the lives of children, and has a substantial impact on them and the choices and decisions they make. They learn from observation. To be a man is different from being a woman. The genders are very distinct in their behaviors, in the way they process information, and in their intrinsic skill sets. They play off and benefit each other in special ways.
How will a boy learn what it means to be a man in society if raised by two mommies, or two daddies and no mother figure? How will a girl learn what it means to be a woman in society if raised by two daddies, or two mommies and no father figure? The gay community hasn't answered these questions. It hasn't addressed these very important issues and what they mean to be a family unit protected within the bonds of marriage.
I feel that gay activists just want to keep pushing their way into areas of society that their religious opponents value. It is about getting in peoples' faces. It is about pushing and pressing boundaries of others; dissrespecting their spaces. It is about advancing an agenda.
Twenty-five to thirty years ago, the gay movement said it just wanted to be recognized as legitimate people and not in-human freaks. Fifteen to twenty years ago, gays just wanted minority status so they could be protected in their jobs, their schooling, and their ability to purchase property. And in the past decade or so, the ante has been upped to seek marriage. The envelope and the boundaries are continually being pushed.
What is next? A couple decades ago, to be gay was to have a sexual preference. The activist movement then attempted to legitimize its lifestyle by insisting this "preference" was really a biological orientation. It was genetic and couldn't be helped, fixed or reversed. This helped them to gain minority status.
What I don't get is how gays can defend their insistence that their lifestyle is a biological orientation when the same people said being gay was a preference just a few years before. Either it is, or it isn't a choice or preference.
If homosexuality was truly biological, then why isn't the animal kingdom as much homosexual as heterosexual? Why do animals continue to be exclusively heterosexual? Dogs perform what appear to be homosexual acts as a way to communicate dominance over another dog; but not as sexual preference. Many other species do the same.
I do not see conclusive proof that there is a homosexual gene, and that it is a biological orientation rather than an environmental influence.
I'm just concerned about what is next. Will the homosexual community insist that a gay-friendly version of the Bible be published to counter the "conventional" version? Will they insist upon equal time on TV, radio and in print? Can a doctor be sued if s/he refuses to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple? Or if a surrogate mother refuses to carry the child of a gay couple? Where will the boundary pushing stop...or will it?
The U.S. Supreme Court today just struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, and Proposition 8 in California. With this decision now in the books as case law from the highest court the land, it will be used to strike down laws by other states that prohibit gay marriage and seek to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman.
While I understand and appreciate the issues of discrimination and equal protection under the law faced before the court, I fail to see how the freedom to marry falls into the category of equal protection.
The "gay rights" community insists marriage to be a civil right. I contend that it is not a right, but rather a liberty and a privilege. It is a religious liberty for faith groups to exercise and practice under much higher laws than civil laws of men. Marriage is about the freedom to exercise one's religion.
The USSC's decision today ensures that neither the federal government nor the states may prevent the gay movement from re-defining marriage; but the decision will open the flood gates for gay activists to prevent religious groups from protecting their definition of legal marriage. As such, there is not only a double standard that already exists, but I foresee that "equal protection under the law" will soon not apply to religious groups or individuals who want to preserve their definition of marriage.
Another can of worms that could be opened by this decision is the notion that a minister who refuses to marry a gay couple may be sued for discrimination; thereby infringing upon the cleric's constitutional right to freely exercise religion.
The question will be which constitutional right comes first: The "right" to marry or the right to practice one's faith? In my view, the issue of marriage is a moral and Biblical one. For other faith groups, it is clearly a religious rite and issue. As a Christian, I married for two reasons: (1) Because I wanted to raise a family with the woman I loved; and (2) so that my sexual expression may be pure and righteous.
If the primary purpose of marriage is to establish our love and commitment to someone, then should I marry my mother, siblings and children to establish my love and commitment to them? Absurd as this sounds, that is the logical conclusion one reaches when listening to the gay rights lobby express why its members want to marry.
From a secular position, the pragmatic point of marriage is to create an institution that is stable for the procreation of humankind, and for the raising of next generations of such beings. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the dynamic of a mother (female) figure and a father (male) figure in a family unit has proven effective for generations, centuries and millennia. There is something specific I cannot quite put my finger on that a woman (wife, mother) brings to the marriage and something specific that the man (husband, father) brings to the marriage. Whatever it is, it works. God has known it since before the beginning of time. That's why He established it when creating man and woman.
The USSC's ruling will not only permit homosexuals to marry across the country, but to adopt children, and perhaps even "procreate" through surrogacy and through artificial means. I do not see how this will be effective and productive for society.
How will the proven dynamic of a mother and a father figure be introduced in a "family" of two mothers or two fathers? How will young females benefit from two mommies if they do not have a solid male role model to develop an intimate relationship with, and learn how to have appropriate and healthy relationships with members of the opposite gender? Or, how will they learn to be healthy women if they do not have a solid female role model in their lives?
Same for young males. If they do not have the nurturing of a mother figure, how can they learn to interact appropriately with members of the opposite sex and develop healthy intimate relationships with them? Or if raised without a father figure, how can they be expected to grow up to be healthy men if they do not have a solid male role model from which to learn?
I feel that the dynamics of gay couples will confuse children as they grow into young adulthood.
Environment plays a significant role in the lives of children, and has a substantial impact on them and the choices and decisions they make. They learn from observation. To be a man is different from being a woman. The genders are very distinct in their behaviors, in the way they process information, and in their intrinsic skill sets. They play off and benefit each other in special ways.
How will a boy learn what it means to be a man in society if raised by two mommies, or two daddies and no mother figure? How will a girl learn what it means to be a woman in society if raised by two daddies, or two mommies and no father figure? The gay community hasn't answered these questions. It hasn't addressed these very important issues and what they mean to be a family unit protected within the bonds of marriage.
I feel that gay activists just want to keep pushing their way into areas of society that their religious opponents value. It is about getting in peoples' faces. It is about pushing and pressing boundaries of others; dissrespecting their spaces. It is about advancing an agenda.
Twenty-five to thirty years ago, the gay movement said it just wanted to be recognized as legitimate people and not in-human freaks. Fifteen to twenty years ago, gays just wanted minority status so they could be protected in their jobs, their schooling, and their ability to purchase property. And in the past decade or so, the ante has been upped to seek marriage. The envelope and the boundaries are continually being pushed.
What is next? A couple decades ago, to be gay was to have a sexual preference. The activist movement then attempted to legitimize its lifestyle by insisting this "preference" was really a biological orientation. It was genetic and couldn't be helped, fixed or reversed. This helped them to gain minority status.
What I don't get is how gays can defend their insistence that their lifestyle is a biological orientation when the same people said being gay was a preference just a few years before. Either it is, or it isn't a choice or preference.
If homosexuality was truly biological, then why isn't the animal kingdom as much homosexual as heterosexual? Why do animals continue to be exclusively heterosexual? Dogs perform what appear to be homosexual acts as a way to communicate dominance over another dog; but not as sexual preference. Many other species do the same.
I do not see conclusive proof that there is a homosexual gene, and that it is a biological orientation rather than an environmental influence.
I'm just concerned about what is next. Will the homosexual community insist that a gay-friendly version of the Bible be published to counter the "conventional" version? Will they insist upon equal time on TV, radio and in print? Can a doctor be sued if s/he refuses to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple? Or if a surrogate mother refuses to carry the child of a gay couple? Where will the boundary pushing stop...or will it?
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Joe Biden needs surgery
To repair a jaw malfunction.
It seems like almost every time he works his jaw, his mouth opens and something wrong comes out.
Doctors have yet to diagnose him, but near as I can tell from my limited experience in lay medicine, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden suffers from Open Mouth Syndrome(OMS), a much more severe form of Foot-in-the-Mouth Disease because guffaws and gaffes occur much more frequently; nearly constant, in fact.
In the case of "Delaware Joe" Biden, OMS is a daily cause of embarrassment for himself and those around him, because he is unable to open his mouth without something bad coming out.
Given his latest guffaw made at a senate candidate fundraiser to replace John Kerry, I'm thinking it's time for Joe to be fitted with a muzzle.
At the event held Tuesday, June 11, 2013 Biden made comments to follow his introduction by Al Gore meant to be complimentary of the former U.S. Senator and Vice President-turned-environmental propagandist.
Biden said, "This man (Al Gore) was elected president of the United States of America...But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision, in my view, was made, he did the right thing for the nation." He went on, "I’ve served longer than all but 13 members of the United States Senate. I can’t think of very many who would put his country first like that at a really, really, really difficult time. There’s an awful lot of folks Al and I both know who have run for president and still haven’t gotten over it. ...Al, you set an example for this country that is going to live as long as recorded history, about the man who won by a decision that I think constitutional scholars now and in the future will conclude was an ill-fated decision,” Biden said. “The way you stepped up, it was amazing.”
*Sigh* How to start with all of this...
Well, first of all, Joe, Al Gore wasn't elected President of the United States (POTUS). The Constitution requires that, to be elected POTUS, a candidate must win a majority of electoral college votes. Gore, while collecting more popular votes in the 2000 Presidential election, failed to earn a majority of electoral college votes necessary to become President-elect. Rather, his opponent, George W. Bush, did. And the rest is history.
But perhaps there's the rub. Despite his comments, Joe apparently still ruminates over Gore's loss and still bitterly broods over its perceived subjective injustice. It was an injustice to Gore, his supporters and the Democratic Party because the Florida election results did not go their way.
Still, what the Veep said is categorically incorrect. Gore was not elected POTUS because he did not receive sufficient electoral votes to win the Presidency.
Now, concerning what Biden said about Gore being a gracious loser...
Unless my memory fails me, it was Al Gore and his campaign that drew the Florida recount out much farther than it should have gone. Votes were recounted twice, and twice George W. Bush came out the winner. On the third recount request by the Gore Campaign, then-Secretary of State Katharine Harris halted the recount, citing state law that supported sufficient recount had been performed to certify the election and that the results should stand.
And, as I further recall, the Gore Campaign didn't like Harris' determination, so an appeal was made to the Florida State Supreme Court, which, in turn, sided with Gore and overruled the SoS decision, requiring that a third recount proceed.
But the state supreme court's ruling was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which collectively found that the SoS's original determination was correct and should stand. The state supreme court's ruling was overruled by the highest court in the land. End of story. George W. Bush was certified as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes and became U.S. President-elect instead of Gore.
I see no evidence that Gore was a gracious loser. He couldn't demand enough recounts to satisfy his ego. And when his efforts to continue the recount were halted, he wouldn't accept the rule of law. He couldn't appeal the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, so why even go there? That the Gore Campaign conceded after that is a foregone conclusion. By law, he sort of, kind of had to.
So, not only was Biden wrong about Gore being the rightful POTUS--which, by law, he wasn't--but he was also wrong about Gore being the gracious loser he painted him to be.
And make no mistake: The losers never did forget about Florida 2000. They made it pretty clear in the months following as GWB was sworn into office that they did not recognize him as POTUS. He was, in their words, illegitimate and he wouldn't ever be their President.
I would not be at all surprised if both Gore and Biden could be counted among those who held such a grudge that they couldn't even look upon GWB as he took the oath of office.
Gracious losers? Uh, huh.
Try instead "sore," a word that fittingly rhymes with Gore. And speaking of "getting over it," Joe, if you were really "over" the 2000 election, then why bring it up again and lament it as a mistake, a travesty? Obviously, it still bothers you enough that you've got to raise that haunting specter of yours yet again.
Frankly, I don't think Biden has ever really gotten over his failed presidential bids; of which there are multiple. The only reason he is able to remain composed when talking about presidential candidate failures is because current POTUS Barack Obama appeased him and the elders of the Democratic Party by naming him as his running mate.
The scalding comments that Biden is documented to have made against Obama during the 2008 primaries stand in stark contrast to the praise that "Delaware Joe" gives his running mate nowadays.
Naming Biden to the 2008 ticket was a purely political move on the part of the Obama Campaign.
Doing so prevented Biden from making a further fool of the party as a yet-again failed presidential candidate. It also pacified him in his zeal for executive power. And it satisfied all of the old-guard Democrats who wanted to see a "veteran" get his due.
Plus, who better to show "Mister Change" how to play the old game by old rules than ol' "Delaware Joe" himself?
Surgery, a muzzle, something needs to be done to help Joe overcome the handicap that his impairment causes. Otherwise, we will all continue to suffer. I wonder if this would qualify as a "pre-existing condition" under Obamacare?
It seems like almost every time he works his jaw, his mouth opens and something wrong comes out.
Doctors have yet to diagnose him, but near as I can tell from my limited experience in lay medicine, U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden suffers from Open Mouth Syndrome(OMS), a much more severe form of Foot-in-the-Mouth Disease because guffaws and gaffes occur much more frequently; nearly constant, in fact.
In the case of "Delaware Joe" Biden, OMS is a daily cause of embarrassment for himself and those around him, because he is unable to open his mouth without something bad coming out.
Given his latest guffaw made at a senate candidate fundraiser to replace John Kerry, I'm thinking it's time for Joe to be fitted with a muzzle.
At the event held Tuesday, June 11, 2013 Biden made comments to follow his introduction by Al Gore meant to be complimentary of the former U.S. Senator and Vice President-turned-environmental propagandist.
Biden said, "This man (Al Gore) was elected president of the United States of America...But for the good of the nation, when the bad decision, in my view, was made, he did the right thing for the nation." He went on, "I’ve served longer than all but 13 members of the United States Senate. I can’t think of very many who would put his country first like that at a really, really, really difficult time. There’s an awful lot of folks Al and I both know who have run for president and still haven’t gotten over it. ...Al, you set an example for this country that is going to live as long as recorded history, about the man who won by a decision that I think constitutional scholars now and in the future will conclude was an ill-fated decision,” Biden said. “The way you stepped up, it was amazing.”
*Sigh* How to start with all of this...
Well, first of all, Joe, Al Gore wasn't elected President of the United States (POTUS). The Constitution requires that, to be elected POTUS, a candidate must win a majority of electoral college votes. Gore, while collecting more popular votes in the 2000 Presidential election, failed to earn a majority of electoral college votes necessary to become President-elect. Rather, his opponent, George W. Bush, did. And the rest is history.
But perhaps there's the rub. Despite his comments, Joe apparently still ruminates over Gore's loss and still bitterly broods over its perceived subjective injustice. It was an injustice to Gore, his supporters and the Democratic Party because the Florida election results did not go their way.
Still, what the Veep said is categorically incorrect. Gore was not elected POTUS because he did not receive sufficient electoral votes to win the Presidency.
Now, concerning what Biden said about Gore being a gracious loser...
Unless my memory fails me, it was Al Gore and his campaign that drew the Florida recount out much farther than it should have gone. Votes were recounted twice, and twice George W. Bush came out the winner. On the third recount request by the Gore Campaign, then-Secretary of State Katharine Harris halted the recount, citing state law that supported sufficient recount had been performed to certify the election and that the results should stand.
And, as I further recall, the Gore Campaign didn't like Harris' determination, so an appeal was made to the Florida State Supreme Court, which, in turn, sided with Gore and overruled the SoS decision, requiring that a third recount proceed.
But the state supreme court's ruling was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which collectively found that the SoS's original determination was correct and should stand. The state supreme court's ruling was overruled by the highest court in the land. End of story. George W. Bush was certified as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes and became U.S. President-elect instead of Gore.
I see no evidence that Gore was a gracious loser. He couldn't demand enough recounts to satisfy his ego. And when his efforts to continue the recount were halted, he wouldn't accept the rule of law. He couldn't appeal the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling, so why even go there? That the Gore Campaign conceded after that is a foregone conclusion. By law, he sort of, kind of had to.
So, not only was Biden wrong about Gore being the rightful POTUS--which, by law, he wasn't--but he was also wrong about Gore being the gracious loser he painted him to be.
And make no mistake: The losers never did forget about Florida 2000. They made it pretty clear in the months following as GWB was sworn into office that they did not recognize him as POTUS. He was, in their words, illegitimate and he wouldn't ever be their President.
I would not be at all surprised if both Gore and Biden could be counted among those who held such a grudge that they couldn't even look upon GWB as he took the oath of office.
Gracious losers? Uh, huh.
Try instead "sore," a word that fittingly rhymes with Gore. And speaking of "getting over it," Joe, if you were really "over" the 2000 election, then why bring it up again and lament it as a mistake, a travesty? Obviously, it still bothers you enough that you've got to raise that haunting specter of yours yet again.
Frankly, I don't think Biden has ever really gotten over his failed presidential bids; of which there are multiple. The only reason he is able to remain composed when talking about presidential candidate failures is because current POTUS Barack Obama appeased him and the elders of the Democratic Party by naming him as his running mate.
The scalding comments that Biden is documented to have made against Obama during the 2008 primaries stand in stark contrast to the praise that "Delaware Joe" gives his running mate nowadays.
Naming Biden to the 2008 ticket was a purely political move on the part of the Obama Campaign.
Doing so prevented Biden from making a further fool of the party as a yet-again failed presidential candidate. It also pacified him in his zeal for executive power. And it satisfied all of the old-guard Democrats who wanted to see a "veteran" get his due.
Plus, who better to show "Mister Change" how to play the old game by old rules than ol' "Delaware Joe" himself?
Surgery, a muzzle, something needs to be done to help Joe overcome the handicap that his impairment causes. Otherwise, we will all continue to suffer. I wonder if this would qualify as a "pre-existing condition" under Obamacare?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
