We don’t have to belabor this, do we? The Vice-President’s performance in his debate with Paul Ryan was rude, uncivil, obnoxious and undignified.
Did it “lose” the debate? Nah. It appealed to the red-meat progressives who were screaming for President Obama to be more assertive in the first Presidential debate, and they were getting panicky. It made Al Gore’s eye-rolling, sighing act during his infamous first debate with George Bush in 2002 look positively restrained, so Al benefits, and it was certainly less damaging to the Democratic ticket’s prospects than Biden shouting out “I am the Lizard King!” or something else ridiculous, as is his wont. Chris Matthews, over at MSNBC, even thought Biden’s constant interruptions and rude demeanor “won” the debate, which figures, since this is exactly how Matthews has treated his guests for years.
Still, Biden was needlessly snide, condescending (anyone condescending is bad; someone like Joe Biden condescending is incomprehensible) and disrespectful, in contrast to Ryan, who acted like high officials of the U.S. government are supposed to act, since they represent our nation and culture whenever they appear in public. The Vice-President made the entire debate unpleasant to watch, and worst of all, he further lowered the quality of political discourse in this election year. That’s nothing to smile about.
On the positive side, at least he didn’t do this.
__________________________
Graphic: Fox News
Ethics Alarms 
I’d still prefer rude truth to courteous lies.
You have that right, but the post was about civility. There was dissembling on both sides of the stage by my count, and Biden’s claims regarding Libya defy belief.
An Iran with nuclear capability appears to be a real yuckfest for Joltin’ Joe.
Three kinds of people in this world:
*Those who make things happen
*Those who watch things happen
*Those who wonder what the heck happened
I place Biden firmly in the last category.
The thought of someone so blissfully unaware (“forgetting” his votes for the Afghanistan & Iraq wars, throwing Middle East Intel under the bus) a heartbeat away from having access to launch codes does little to inspire confidence.
excuse me??? first of all; anyone who thinks Joe Biden was uncivil, does NOT know what that word means. how about fact checking Paul Ryan, not to mention Mitt Money. Lying is rude. Second, Paul Ryan did NOT propose ANY solution to Iran other than what is already being done. Nothing. And let’s talk about Iraq, PLEASE. You mean, when they LIED about the connection of Al Quiada and Iraq and then went in under FALSE pretenses about him having weapons of mass destruction and started a war that has costed TRILLIONS. not to mentioned killed hundreds of thousands of people. Oh yeah.. that was about as sick and immoral as it gets. The GOP who supported it through and through and started it, should literally shut up for the rest of their lives.. and the leaders be arrested for war crimes.
Marianne–I’m guessing this is a trick comment to get me to be condescending. Lying isn’t rude. Lying is dishonest. Sighing, laughing while someone is talking, interrupting and mocking is rude, no matter what the alleged provocation. “Paul Ryan did NOT propose ANY solution to Iran other than what is already being done. Nothing.” has nothing to do with the post. “Nothing.” Stick to the topic, which is ethical conduct, and the ethical conduct I choose to focus on. Read the commenting guidelines. This the last off topic political rant you get past me; I should have warned you earlier. I’d suggest, in a non-condescending way, that you read here a bit and avoid commenting until you figure out that this isn’t a political blog.
Paul started to discuss the issue of war. I responded and if anything has to do with ethics, it is certainly war. And why did you not complain to him then bringing that up? Joe Biden was reacting to incessant lying. Lying IS unethical. And did you see the debate with Romney when he completely interrupted both the moderator and Obama the entire time. Somehow I doubt you had a problem with that.
Dishonesty isn’t rude?
Both debaters were demonstrably dishonest. One was rude.
I’ll take that as a belief that dishonesty isn’t rude. I have some ambiguous feelings on the matter, but I lean towards rudeness.
defy logic? let’s talk about Romeny’s profoundly unethical ways to attack the white house when the US has been attacked. He has lied, he has made incessantly unethical accusations, and the only thing he is concerned about is grabbing political points. And how do you, Jack, feel about Romney’s flip flopping. I cannot even count how many videos I’ve seen on him saying taking two different stances on the same issue only a month, sometimes just days, apart. And take Detroit’s car industry that he wanted to leave in the ditch. Now he even lies about that. This is a thread about ethics? really?
Marianne,
I will leave most of your political rant alone with the exception of pointing out you are either incorrect, lack context or misrepresented nearly everyone of your points about Romney, you may want to stay away from talking points of either side and do some research on your own.
As for the comparison of Romney’s behavior to Vice president Biden’s I have a few things for you to ponder, Democrats cried foul because of Romney’s much less aggressive behavior during the Presidential debate (http://thehill.com/video/campaign/260293-dnc-calls-romney-rude-unbearable-after-debate-performance) but now praise Vice President Biden for his.
You cry that lying is ruder then the Vice President’s behavior yet you don’t acknowledge the lies that the VP told. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121012/us-presidential-campaign-fact-check/) (http://beachcarolina.com/2012/10/12/bidens-top-five-lies-exaggerations-debate-night-edition/)
The last point I will make is about your assertion that the Romney campaign is only out to score political point yet ignore the same behavior from your tribe. You also ignore the broken promises, the lack of transparency and focus on social issues instead of the economy that Obama administration takes part in to score political points.
Continuation of my comment above, my computer decided it wanted to do something other then what I wanted.
With that said I would encourage you to look at it objectively and see if Jacks’ assessment doesn’t hold water. The VP was rude and that debate was not civil, and I think a lot of people got very little out of it because of how he acted.
Gotta watch out when the computer starts doing that. Skynet.
That’s our running joke here, our network and systems are so regulated with so many monitoring and security programs that they become unusable at times as they take over and run commands, updates and restart. I have, as do several others, a second system for the days that one of them does nothing but updates and restarts all day, which happened at least once a week. Inefficiency at its worst.
Reblogged this on David's Blog of Common Sense.
O come on, Obewon Ethics Meister. Of all the things you could have chosen to complain about in last night’s debate, you chose….(wait for it!)…. JOE BIDEN TALKS TOO MUCH. You weren’t troubled by the continued half truths (a much more likely topic for an ethicist) Mr. Ryan uttered. Like the one about his having worked out his Medicare reform plan with a liberal Democratic senator. The problem being that that Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden of Oregon, says the Ryan plan is nothing like the plan they’d discussed and he categorically refuses to endorse it. Facts really do matter, you know.
Read the description of the blog, read the comments guidelines. I’m not going to launch into a political debate about which debater was shading the facts; that’s all a matter of perspective and opinion. Biden’s incivility was undeniable, non-ideological and inexcusable. Surely you can find someplace else for your partisan complaining.
And entering the blog comments here with ridicule of your host is almost as rude as Biden. You get one warning.
well said Milo.
No…you are wrong Marianne. Again, this post is about civility and anyone who addresses the blog host as “Obewon Ethics Meister” is not practicing basic civility. Perhaps you feel that Milo’s comments are well said but you lost all credibility when you referred to Romney as “Mitt Money”. This is exactly why civility is important. When a person resorts to name calling it is assumed that the person has no real argument and is no longer taken seriously.
What I saw and heard last night from the VP was demagoguery. He did everything but take off his shoe and pound the table. Biden’s split screen antics and off camera interruptions (over 100) were juvenile and unethical, especially from an individual representing our government’s interests to the international community. While both candidates stretched the truth, the VP’s statements on Libya look like a major distortion, cluelessness, or gaffe – yet another one – which will not go away before November.
Raddatz interrupted Ryan as much as Biden did. She was just as uncivil as he was. For awhile she was debating Ryan as much as Biden was. She never let Ryan finish when he was trying to make a point. If Ryan hadn’t been such a wimp, he would have stopped and demanded that that woman act like a moderator and stop the interruptions when it was his turn to speak. Biden was certainly rude, uncivil and unethical, but Ryan let him get by with that kind of behavior. It was Ryan’s own fault that such conduct continued throughout the debate. Ryan was a real dunce for putting up with it.
Raddatz did not sigh, laugh, or distract from Ryan while he was talking. She was the moderator—she has a right to interrupt. Even if you’re right, and you’re not, about Raddatz, it wouldn’t make Biden less unethical or uncivil in his demeanor.
Yes—I would have stopped, if I were Ryan, and said, “Mr. Vice President, I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t make outburst and faces while I’m talking. It’s rude, unfair and disrespectful. I wouldn’t treat you that way, and it’s a poor example for any young people watching.”
That he didn’t doesn’t excuse Biden in any way.
Jack,
Your point is unassailable. However, it is either critical of an ideological ally or insufficiently critical of an opponent; therefore, I will not only criticize your statement by without addressing a word of it, but will ridicule you for any attempts to bring the discussion back to the topic.
P.S. My identical twin told me to tell you he’d be here next week when your focus turns to the other party.
He has addressed it, numerous times. If you look back through previous discussions he has attacked both political sides for unethical behavior.
Not only is the factual basis of your argument wrong, but the logic is horrible. Unless someone points out all unethical behavior at all times they have no basis to focus on single examples? Seriously, this shit may fly on newspaper comment boards, but it doesn’t work here.
Longtime commenter. Doing a bit. Note the postscript.
Hook, line and sinker 🙂
Thanks. Do tell your identical twin in advance that he’ll be just as out to lunch as you are, but then, that’s what the nature trumps nurture gang would expect.
well said “this guy”. the critique on Biden and Raddatz is ridiculous.. epecially in the light of how many lies Ryan and Romney told, and how Romney not only constantly interrupted the President himself, but just ran over the moderator. what a joke to make this a thread under the heading “ethics”.
“…epecially in the light of how many lies Ryan and Romney told, and how Romney not only constantly interrupted the President himself, but just ran over the moderator. what a joke to make this a thread under the heading “ethics””
Three things:
1. This is ethically ignorant. Biden’s conduct was what it was, and it was uncivil and rude by any measure. Everyone from liberal pundits to conservative pundits to Saturday Night Live and Jay Leno acknowledged it. It had nothing to do with the moderator, and involved the mugging. mocking, laughing and vocalizations: per se unethical. The “lies” of others can not justify this or change the principles of ethics. Ryan was dignified and respectful, Biden was not.
2. Ethics is not comparative. The post was about Biden, and the conduct of others is irrelevant.
3. I’m warning you once, and not again. You don’t know what you are talking about, and I do. You can shut up and learn something, or not. But don’t come on this blog and say that a legitimate ethics post is a “joke” because you are haven’t the vaguest concept of what ethics is. You can be respectful, read the resource information provided here, and educate yourself, or not, but don’t ridicule me in my professional area of expertise as a guest on this forum because you don’t understand. No wonder you don’t think Biden was uncivil.
Jack, maybe you should have criticized more precisely, when you singled out Biden – as a “Debate Civility Ethics Dunce,” or somesuch. Reading cecil’s comment over and over, it reminded me of how I felt many times when my parents argued in front of me when I was a boy: like all their conflict and upset was my fault. So…Raddatz was uncivil…Biden was uncivil…and it’s all Dunce Eeyoure Ryan’s fault!
IMHO there are no shortage of sites one may visit to have their biases confirmed. This is not one of them.
Biden interupted Ryan 82 times in 90 minutes; I KNEW I should have taken the over…
I was looking for unbiased opinions on the recent VP debate. I quickly found this site. But I see the host starts a blog that calls the sitting VP of the United States a “dunce”. How rude! Definite bias exists here and my gut is saying “ethics alert”, find another site.
You’re welcome. An Ethics Dunce is someone who is ignorant of basic ethical values and principles of conduct in an instance specified by me. I have used the term as a feature on two websites for many years; it is clear and diagnostic, and on occasion have even applied it to myself. There is nothing biased about calling out a public figure who intentionally and inarguably behaves like a mega-jerk on national TV. Unethical conduct needs to be called out, so we can agree on what it is. Anyone Biden’s age who hasn’t learned that you don;t wince, roll your eyes and laugh while someone else is talking is, in fact, an ethics dunce on that particular aspect of conduct, and my designation does not suggest otherwise.
You weren’t looking for an unbiased site at all. Bye.
Nothing that Biden did in the entire debate was even remotely as rude as when Ryan told a story about a family involved in a car accident knowing full well that Biden lost his wife and daughters to a car accident. That right there is the most hurtful and personal attack you can make on someone. Ryan deserves a punch in the face, he’s lucky he got away with mild disrespect. Ryan knew Biden’s history. He knew what happened. He used it in an attempt to spark an emotional response from Biden and it was cheap, underhanded, and inhumane. So pretend that Biden was the unethical one if you’d like, Ryan was far worse and got far less than he deserved.
Matthew, that’s just beyond ludicrous. How do you know Ryan knew about that? I didn’t, and I pay attention to such things. There is no reason to assume that Ryan’s story was intended to be hurtful, even if Ryan did know. That’s a classic faux pas, like the time I told the old “Would I!” joke to my neighbor who had an artificial eye. This is a ridiculous “gotcha!” even in this campaign’s bumper crop of ridiculous “Gotchas!”
And even if your claim weren’t absurd, it still doesn’t excuse Biden’s conduct one bit. Another’s bad conduct never justifies your bad conduct; ethics isn’t comparative; Biden’s act would have been disgraceful in a junior high debate, much less one on national television.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden#Family_and_early_political_career
“On December 18, 1972, a few weeks after the election, Biden’s wife and one-year-old daughter were killed in an automobile accident while Christmas shopping in Hockessin, Delaware.”
First off, I’m amazed that you believe that Paul Ryan’s knowledge of Joe Biden should be limited to your own knowledge of Paul Biden. They’re running a multi-million dollar campaign with hundreds, if not thousands, of aids working alongside them. Do you honestly not believe that they just might look up, at the very least, Joe Biden’s wikipedia page? Joe Biden spoke of the car accident that killed his family in the past. It’s public knowledge in the political arena, whether you knew about it previously or not. Paul Ryan definitely knew about the car accident. If he didn’t, he needs to fire his staff and start over. They have researched every nuance of Joe Biden’s life which has been made public. Believing otherwise is an incredibly naive viewpoint. Sorry, but your initial argument against my claim makes no logical sense whatsoever. He knew about the car accident.
Bringing up a story about a family involved in a car accident where children become paralyzed when speaking with a man who lost his wife and daughter in a car accident is probably not a good idea. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize this. If my friend, or even my worst enemy, had lost their wife and daughter in a car accident out of respect for their loss and my sense of humanity I would do whatever I possibly could to make sure I didn’t bring up a car accident around them. That’s a memory that won’t ever go away. Bringing up a car accident to Joe Biden is like going up to the mother of Amanda Todd and talking about how your daughter is being bullied in school. Given the situation it’s about the most insensitive thing you could ever say to the person. It was rude and poorly thought out, or it was a blatant attempt to derail Biden. Either way, it was completely unprofessional and showed a total lack of respect for Biden as a human being.
You are correct on your last statement. Paul Ryan’s subtle, but horribly personal and insensitive, disregard for Biden as a human being does not excuse his own behavior. It also doesn’t excuse your fallacy of one-sidedness. There is no coincidence here. Paul Ryan never brings up a story about Romney and car crash victims. Queue vice presidential debates. Joe Biden’s wife and daughter died previously in a car crash. Let’s bring it up now. It just reeks of bad taste. Believe what you like. Biden was acting immaturely (even though it was extremely effective and played a part in his debate win) and rude, but not overly offensive and definitely not personal. Paul Ryan, on the other hand, did attack Biden personally. Intentional or not, it was a callous and inhumane act. He knew Biden’s past, he still chose to bring up the most painful memory in his life.
Notice that Biden didn’t bring up a teenager who found their father dead of a heart attack. There are some things you just don’t bring up. Do you have a wife or daughter? Imagine how you’d feel if you were in Biden’s shoes. By the way, your wife and daughter dying in a car accident is a little worse than your neighbor’s wooden eye. I’m sure Biden’s hurt enough for his past without being reminded about it during a vice presidential debate on live television while you’re being watched by millions of viewers. Believe what you want, there’s no excuse for the situation. Your downplaying his family’s death, and you should seriously ask yourself why. Vice presidential candidate or not. Rude or not. That’s not something that anybody should have to experience, and it’s definitely not something that should be used for political advantage by the opposing team.
Again, nonsense. It is telling that the mainstream media, which regularly dismisses any story that bubbles up from the conservative media but usually latches on eagerly to most left-new media sources if there is any dirt to spread on conservatives, has rejected this one as the hysterical sliming that it is.
You see, you can only reach such a conclusion if your brain has been infected with the idea that Ryan is simply evil, because conservatives and Republicans are evil. Were you (and the Daily Kos, one of the places where this idiotic theory crawled out from) not so inclined to denigrate those who disagree with your ideology as sub-humans, it would occur to you that 1) no campaign would take the risk of appearing that mean and vicious in a televised debate 2) Ryan’s story was canned, and was a genuine (and honest) mistake of inadequate research 3) it worked to Biden’s advantage, giving him an opening to tell the story of his own tragedy, which Ryan and his team would never have wanted to give him an opportunity to do if they knew of the background; 4) and therefore the fact that Ryan told the story is strong proof that he did NOT know the connection to Biden’s personal tragedy, because otherwise it would have been gratuitously mean, stupid, and extremely risky. Indeed, when the Left-leaning Daily Beast mentioned the anecdote, it was to show that Ryan made a mistake, not to show that he was trying to deal Biden a vicious soul-blow.
I know its difficult to imagine, Michael, but these people, on either ticket, are just not villains and monsters. When your analysis starts with a presumption of humanity, decency and respect, you can figure out what is happening most of the time. When you take your cues from extreme, mouth-foaming haters on either side of the political spectrum whose starting point is that they know the One Truth and that all opponents are minion of Satan, you end up making a fool of yourself.
First off, you use an ad hominem fallacy to not only attack my character, but also in an attempt to make my argument less plausible through ridicule instead of logic. Sorry, but it’s pathetic. For someone who’s trying to call “ethical alarms” on others, you’re doing a terrible job of showing any kind of standard. You, sir, are being a hypocrite. You’re going to give Ryan a HUGE benefit of the doubt in assuming he wouldn’t know about Biden’s car accident. If he truly didn’t know then he, and his assistants, are completely inept at their job. He’s debating for the position of vice president of the United States. He should know Biden’s past. It’s ammunition. You know and I know it. Pretending anything different is ridiculous. You can argue that Ryan decided that bringing it up would create enough of a bonus to Romney through a story of charitable giving that it would offset the loss when Biden brought up his family, and arguing that Ryan knew nothing of it is flat out denial.
Look, I get that you lean republican. It’s obvious by your constant attempt to throw the “liberal bias” at every single claim that doesn’t support republicans in the media. That’s ironic since currently the media is overly pro-Romney even when the polls show a very minor lead for Romney and a current loss on the electoral map, but that’s your business. If you want to go the denial route to protect your viewpoint from yourself, that’s your business. I won’t stop you. The fact is that Ryan is either completely incompetent and knew nothing of Biden’s family dying in a car accident, or did know and decided to bring up a car accident story anyway. Even if he didn’t do it throw Biden off his game, it’s still morally wrong to do it in the middle of a big debate and throw Biden back to the deaths of his wife and daughter. Again, Biden didn’t bring up a teenager that found his father dead from a heart attack. I’m sure that wouldn’t have been coincidence though right? Then it would’ve been Biden being an even bigger jerk, and Ryan being the innocent martyr.
Romney’s 47% comment pretty much makes him a monster in my eyes. He is correct in his assertion that 47% of people pay no income tax, he is completely false in his belief that they won’t take responsibility for their own lives. I pretty much wrote him off at that point (especially since Obama’s been a far more effective president than the media and Romney wants to pretend). Then again I don’t let my bias stop me from seeing the truth. When Ryan made the car accident comment at the debate it pretty much stopped me from having any interest in the Romney-Ryan ticket. It was not made out of ignorance. It was very subtle, but very deliberate. He knew the effect it could have on Biden, and he said it anyway. It wasn’t graceful. It wasn’t a mistake. It may have not been meant as hurtful, but it was in extremely poor taste. Other sites have run the story, and many people have said it was a huge mistake by Paul Ryan. The media won’t place the blame on Paul Ryan for it, because doing so would place an obvious bias on them. There are many people who feel it was in poor taste and twitter exploded after the car accident story with negative comments toward Paul Ryan. Apparently there are a lot of crazy people who feel that pouring salt in the wounds of someone’s dead family is in poor taste.
Believe what you want, but you, sir, are screaming bias when you in fact are just as biased, if not more so.
1. Your theory about Ryan is partisan fantasy, from the nastiest end of the left spectrum. Nobody sane and fair believes it.
2. My record of fairness and objectivity is damned good, especially since partisan fanatics like you alternately accuse me of being left and right biased according to who I’m criticizing at any one time.
3. I accurately explained why such an idiotic slur on Ryan seems plausible to you, and others like you. It does not deserve more respect that that. You are hypothesizing that Paul Ryan is vicious, inhuman, and stupid–he is demonstrably none of these things—in order to gloss over Biden’s obvious incivility. This is the kind of sludge that pollutes the political process, and you’re a polluter.
4. You don’t “get” anything. I don’t “lean” Republican—I’ll be voting for both Republicans and Democrats in November. Party has nothing to do with my analysis—nothing, and my posts prove it. My political heroes are evenly divided among liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat, as are my villains. My interest, education and expertise are in leadership, history and ethics, as well as law and public policy. My assessment of Obama is that he is a weak leader with no aptitude for leadership, and his party affiliation and policies are 100% irrelevant to that conclusion. If he were a Republican, my assessment would be exactly the same. You don’t believe it? I don’t care. Your Ryan theory tells me how you perceive reality.
5. The media is biased, and it is obvious and admitted by honest journalists, of which there are about 5. The proof is overwhelming, and what a shock: 88% of journalists are Democrats, and yet we are supposed to believe that this doesn’t effect their news judgment. One doesn’t have to lean to the right to perceive the bias—one has to be in the center, fair, objective, or awake.
6.You’re not interested in ethical conduct: you’re interested in partisan warfare. Well, I’m not, and I’m not interested in arguing with the likes of you. You’re banned—get lost.
You’re not being very fair in your approach. There is evidence to support his opinion that Ryan did indeed know about the car accident going into the debate. As he said previously, before you deleted his post, Biden brought up a very similar version of the same story against Palin in ’08. Paul Ryan had to know about it going into the debate against Biden. Unless you’re arguing that Ryan didn’t study the debates from ’08, which is a pretty thin argument.
He also posted a link to a body language expert that believes that Ryan did use the anecdote to elicit an emotional response from Biden.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/expert-analyzes-vice-presidential-candidates-facial-expressions-debate/story?id=17464567#.UHs8M4arQ7c
“Kowal said that Ryan aimed to evoke emotional responses through anecdotes several times during the debate. But the most poignant came when he relayed the story of a husband and wife who his running mate Mitt Romney helped after they lost their children in a car accident.
Biden, who lost his wife and daughter in a car accident, responded in a wave of emotion, Kowal said.”
Did you even read the posts that he put up before you deleted them? There’s plenty of reason to believe that Ryan did deliberately bring up a car accident in the debate against Biden. Why did he do it? Nobody really knows, but to throw the argument away as illogical despite plenty of proof to support it as a plausible theory is not non-partisan. Ban me too if you want, but it won’t make you right. It’ll just stifle free expression.
No, I’m saying that it was a mistake—a mistake if he did know and forgot, a mistake if he didn’t know and should have, a mistake if he knew and didn’t think about Biden’s feelings before telling the story. There is no justification for PRESUMING, as the banned commenter did, that Ryan intentionally evoked Biden’s personal tragedy in order to upset him, which would be beyond despicable. An accusation of that sort requires more than what you or Michael has—it ignores Hanlon’s Law, and is a naked attempt to deflect criticism from Biden’s unquestionable rudeness as well as an offensively unfair smear on Ryan and his campaign.
Your “proof” is colored by your bias. Ryan used the car accident to evoke emotional response from the audience of voters, not BIDEN. Obviously. We do not presume , on my blog,that any of the candidates cross basic rules of civilization, without some prior evidence that they have the kind of character that does that, with sufficient motive to make the tactic plausible. Michael presented neither, and accused me of bias for enforcing the basic rule of fairness. You are in Big Lie territory here, making an ugly insinuation just so it casts a shadow. Sorry. That itself is an unethical campaign tactic, and I will not permit it here.
That topic is done. If a shred of evidence appears indicating that Ryan did what you insinuate, I’ll be the first to write about it, and suggest that Ryan apologize to Biden, the American people, and his party, for debasing us all. But there is no shred.
Comment on something else, or not at all.
You didn’t even address the evidence provided. You began by saying that Paul Ryan didn’t know about Biden’s family. Now it’s obvious that he did know about Biden’s family, so you’re arguing that Paul Ryan made a mistake. Paul Ryan obviously came into the debate with that story in mind. He wanted to tell that story at some point. It isn’t something that you just randomly bring up in a debate. The possibility that Ryan did not think about Biden’s family dying in a car crash prior to deciding to tell the story before the debate is very small. He obviously had a plan and he obviously went over it with his advisors. Someone would have brought up what happened with Palin in ’08. You’re grasping at straws with your theory that Paul Ryan made a mistake.
Matthew nor I insinuated that Paul Ryan was attempting to emotionally hurt Biden by bringing up the story of the car accident, but it’s unlikely that he brought it up without thinking about Biden’s deceased family members beforehand. You’re arguing that this theory is left-wing bias, but logically it makes plenty of sense. It could be wrong, but it’s still a very valid logical argument. What you’re really saying is that a logical theory is bias because it doesn’t give Paul Ryan the benefit of the doubt, and that is very definitely not accurate. Logic does not have to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone.
If you want to prove your argument, then you need to disprove the sources brought to your attention. You haven’t even addressed them. If you want to end the argument, then that’s your choice. I won’t force the issue, but I also won’t allow you to continue to post your opinions of Biden without allowing anyone else to post their opinions about Ryan. That would most definitely be biased. It’s also wrong that you’re banning people for posting their opinions in comments. Matthew did not get personal until you began attacking his opinions. That was very unprofessional of you. He was in the wrong as well, but it doesn’t excuse your conduct (as you pointed out previously). Banning someone for not agreeing with you does nothing more than show your unwillingness to argue the opposing side. People have differences of opinion, you are running your website like a dictator deciding what content can and cannot be posted. That’s not a very ethical practice. In any case, have fun with your site. I won’t be coming back here again.
And just to be clear, Kathy—Michael stated outright that Ryan intentionally raised the story to hurt Biden. To say he didn’t insinuate that it was intentional is intentionally mistating the fact. He wrote:
“Nothing that Biden did in the entire debate was even remotely as rude as when Ryan told a story about a family involved in a car accident knowing full well that Biden lost his wife and daughters to a car accident. That right there is the most hurtful and personal attack you can make on someone. Ryan deserves a punch in the face..”
There si no other way to interpret that. It is total supposition without justification.
Your attack on me is based on a false premise, just as Michael’s attack on Ryan was based on a false premise. I told him his suggestion was unfair, and from the depths of netroot nastiness, which is, in fact, where it squirmed out of. I never ban anyone for disagreeing with me, as dozens of ethical, sane, non-troll critics who I debate with daily can attest to. I won’t allow the blog to be used to spread conspiracy theories, “big lies,” or character assassination dictated by the bowels of the far left or far right, nor will I allow guests to insult my integrity.
Indeed, the more I read your comment, the more annoying it is.
You are saying that Ryan didn’t intentionally try to evoke Biden’s tragedy, but knew he was doing so when he did. In other words, I suppose, you think he was intentionally referencing the VP’s family tragedy, but it never occurred to him that this would trouble the VP? (At least your colleague argued that it was intentional and rude, meaning that it was designed to harm…an “attack.” I don’t know what you think you’re alleging. That he wasn’t possessed by a demon who made him tell the story? I didn’t argue that. Obviously, he told the story he wanted to tell. he obviously did that for its tactical value in making a point, not for ist cruelty value—as Michael insisted—in harming Biden (and giving him a chance to reference his tragedy, making too reasons the gambit was beyond stupid if Ryan was thinking about Biden’s accident when he brought up the other wreck.
Obviously he wasn’t. The “proof” you offer doesn’t prove otherwise at all. And since the only outlets who suggested that Ryan’s car crash story 9to humanize Romney was meant to evoke Biden’s are hard left blogs, the suggestion that this is a non-story seen through a shady blue prism is hardly unreasonable.
And the claim has nothing to do with the post, or ethics. Biden was uncivil and rude. Unless Ryan’s story was aimed at Biden, and it wasn’t, then it may have been bad tactics, but it wasn’t unethical. I regard trying to use non-ethical, tangential matters to deflect from an ethics verdict politicking, not discussing the topic at hand. I have no obligation to tolerate mis-use of this forum. I am not a dictator to insist that comments stay on topic, and during an election, I am going to be particularly vigilant regarding efforts to hi-jack the blog to make political points.
To confirm: I banned Michael Bryant for being personally insulting, as well as obsessive in defending a purely partisan hit job on Paul Ryan’s character without proof or justification. Unlike most bloggers, I engage with commenters here—I am not forced by any principal of ethics to entertain guests on my site who insult me while using the site to spread partisan smears.
I hate banning commenters, and do it seldom. Michael was a borderline case; he may have caught me on a bad day. But his subsequent comments, now turning up as spam, have confirmed my assessment that he is a detriment here in style and substance.
I listened to the debate on the radio. I do agree Biden was more assertive then Obama. The assessment in the car after the debate was that Biden had a better debate but Ryan wasn’t blown away. I thought the moderator showed a bias toward Biden slightly. Ryan kept repeating himself which waters down the message. I would give a slight edge to Biden, sight unseen.
One couldn’t discern how badly Biden behaved over the radio.