Who won the debate between Biden and Ryan?

I watched the entire debate last night between Biden and Romney last night.  I thought one of the better analysis of the debate was by Yuval Levin at NRO.

I think both candidates basically did what they needed to do in the vice-presidential debate, which leaves the Republican ticket in a slightly better position—since Biden’s goal was damage control with the base and Ryan’s was reinforcing a positive impression with persuadable voters.

After the calamity they experienced in last week’s presidential debate, liberals needed to be bucked up by the Obama campaign, and I think they got that tonight. It probably came at a real cost—I have a feeling that Biden’s hyper-aggressive and at times buffoonish performance (and perhaps especially his Joker grin, which seemed to me as much a product of nervousness as of intent) hurt the ticket some with independent voters and especially with women—but it was a price the Obama campaign is probably quite willing to pay given the situation they’re now in. This debate didn’t help them win persuadable voters, and it probably won’t move the polls in their direction, but it will calm liberals down and it was absolutely essential for them to do that. The MSNBC types needed someone to be a jerk toward Paul Ryan to his face, and they got it.

 How will it affect the race?

To assess the effect of it all on the race, I think an important question will be how many voters watched this debate, compared to the last one. For those who did, I imagine this will basically be a draw—a tie between those who found Biden’s bullying effective and those who found it off-putting. But among those who only hear about it in the coming days, I have a feeling that this will turn out to have been a bit of a problem for the Democrats. Ryan’s performance probably won’t be much noted either way (which is about what he was going for, I suspect; he has now established his place in the very upper tier of American political life without even much of a fuss), but the two lasting impressions of this debate that will be talked about will be Biden’s bizarre behavior and his false assertion about requests for security by American diplomats in Libya. As they struggle to close Romney’s narrow lead, neither will be a welcome subject of discussion for the Democrats. 

Ultimately, the race will still come down to Obama and Romney.  The pressure is on Obama.  The pundits and everyone are saying that Obama did poorly in their first debate.  There's no where to go but up.  The problem is Obama isn't a natural debater.  He's more professorial.  Likes to lecture. 

Romney has to come off as credible and presidential in the next debate.  People are nervous and very concerned about where our nation is headed.   They want to know whether Romney has a credible plan and is competent to take us in a different direction.  If Romney can accomplish these goals, without major mistakes, he's likely to expand his lead.

Of course, we'll find out what happens on Tuesday night.

Who really cares for the less fortunate. Big government liberals or generous small government conservatives?

There's a lot made over the release of Mitt Romney's tax returns. It shows not only his taxable income but also his charitable giving. It's interesting seeing what the various presidential candidates and incumbents have done with their money.

So what were the headlines? He raked in about $42 million in 2010 and 2011. His effective tax rate was just below 14 percent, lower than that for many American taxpayers. He paid $6.2 million to the taxman and donated a staggering $7 million to charity, including $4.1 million to the Mormon church.

OK, so Mormons are supposed to tithe 10 percent of their income. But it's to Romney's immense credit that he promised to do this in his youth and followed through with that - to the tune of scores of millions (maybe hundreds of millions) of dollars throughout his life.

In fact, in those two years, he paid 16 percent of his income to charity, compared to, er, 2.6 percent by Newt Gingrich.

And what about President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in the run-up to their 2008 campaign?

USA Today broke it down here. In 2007, the Obamas gave more than $240,000 to charity, about 5.7 percent of their income. The Bidens gave an average of $369 to charity a year for the decade before he moved to the Naval Observatory - about 0.3 percent of their income. Back in 1997, then veep Al Gore and his then wife Tipper gave $353.

Since becoming veep, Biden hasn't become much more generous. In 2010, he gave $5,350, about 1.4 percent of income. That same year, Romney gave some $3 million. The national average is about three percent.

What's interesting is how much they give to charity. Romney's gifts to charity in 2010 and 2011 were 13.73% and 14.11% respectively.

President Obama made $1.2 million from 2000 to 2004. He gave $10,772 to charity during that time period. Less than 1%. In 2005 and 2006, he earned $2.6 million over the two years. His charitable gifts were $137,622 or less than 5%.

Gingrich gave 2.6% over 2010 and 2011.

Biden gave 1.4% in 2010.

I realize the liberal litmus test for caring for others is how much one is willing to spend other people's money on the less fortunate and poor. But wouldn't a better indicator be what one does with one's own money?

Doug Kmiec on Obama: moral confusion or worse?

I mentioned earlier this week a LA Times column by law professor Douglas Kmiec who's Catholic and active supporter of Barack Obama. His endorsement has generated attention because he's a Catholic and been viewed as a conservative.

It was bad enough he would support the strongly pro-abortion Obama, but since then he's attempted to justify his support for Obama by attempting to reconcile his pro-life beliefs with Obama extremist views on abortion. His attempts at self justification have only resulted in him digging himself a bigger hole which only further diminishes his credibility.

His effort to justify supporting a stridently pro-abortion political candidate in the context of his Catholic beliefs puts him in the same company as VP candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who attempted to justify their pro-abortion views with their Catholic faith. Archbishop Chaput's recent comments on such efforts by Biden and Pelosi also apply to Kmiec. Chaput said, "To suggest--as some Catholics do--that Senator Obama is this year's 'real' pro-life candidate candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse."

Kmiec does seem hypnotized by Obama rhetoric. He points to Obama's comment in the last Presidential debate when he writes, quoting Obama, "Abortion is 'always a tragic situation,' he said, and we should 'try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances.'"

Obama's comments are merely the rephrasing of Bill Clinton's "safe, legal and rare" mantra which merely served as a smoke screen for abortion on demand policies.

While paying lip service to the "tragic situation" of abortion, Obama remains radically pro-abortion. He opposes outlawing the partial birth abortion procedure unless it includes a "health exception" which everyone knows is a blank check for abortion for any reason any time.

And while an Illinois state senator he opposed the Illinois Infant's Born Alive Act which would have banned infanticide. I blogged on that early this summer.

And he certainly will appoint judges who will continue to uphold the current, judicially imposed "abortion on demand" regime.

Yet Kmiec is mesmerized by Obama. He asks the question: "So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes..."

What's the basis for this view? Obama's desire to provide "appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby."

In essence what Kmiec's saying is it's OK to support a person who actively supports policies which permit and encourage the unfettered killing of the unborn as long as the person also supports condom education ("Appropriate education" is a euphemism for condom and contraceptive education at the expense of abstinence education.) along with funding for adoption and government welfare programs.

The American Catholic bishops pointed out the inconsistency of this view in their 1998 "Living the Gospel of Life" statement which says,

Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights.

Just because a politician may be right on other issues doesn't excuse their continued support for abortion. Kmiec totally ignores this reality.

Kmiec further seeks to justify his view by saying, the repeal of the judicial protection of abortion found in Roe v. Wade really isn't that important; it won't make any difference. Kmiec says, "Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion." That defies logic. The striking down of abortion laws by Roe v. Wade led to a dramatic increase in the number of abortions. It's repeal will no doubt change the public's understanding of the rightness of abortion and result in increased legal restrictions which will mean fewer abortions.

Of course, if Obama is elected president his commitment to appoint pro-abortion judges will only insure continuation of the current abortion on demand regime.

Kmiec then curiously suggests that pursuing a pro-life position will only cause division in our nation and will impose a religious view on the nation. "Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy."

Give me a break. He knows better than to suggest that protecting innocent human life is somehow the imposition of narrow religious tenet. If that's the case then our laws against murder are at risk because they're imposition of the one of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus. And do we back away from issues simply because they will cause division? If that's the standard then slavery and racial segregation would never have been challenged.

I think this statement shows Kmiec's true colors. It's an argument, tactic of the Left used to marginalize religious conservative voices. It raises questions as to the sincerity of his espoused support for the pro-life position.

Then Kmiec injects a postmodernist argument that we need to let indivdiuals decide what's true.

Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths.

Here Kmiec makes the pro-abortion argument that "this sensitive moral decision" depends on "religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths." So does that mean if you believe the voice of God is telling you to kill your unborn baby go ahead and do it? He certainly seems to be saying just that.

Kmiec needs to engage in some truth in advertising by no longer calling himself a pro-life Catholic. He's embraced the Joe Biden view of "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't want to impose that view on anybody else." That's moral relativism and fundamentally opposed to moral truth and the inalienable right to life.

It's all about worldview: Biden, charity and helping others. Or is that the government's job?

There are more interesting comments coming from Vice President candidate Joe Biden. They reveal how he views the world.

In addition to ticking off Catholic bishops with his pro-abortion views espoused as a self proclaimed practicing Catholic, he's also used Catholic doctrine to support his view that people have a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes. He said, "Catholic social doctrine as I was taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the most."

He sees the answer to the social problems of the day resting squarely on the shoulders of government not private individuals and groups. The Wall Street Journal reviewed the release of his and his wife's tax returns and found that they "reported an average of $380, or 0.2% of their income, in annual charitable contributions over a 10-year period.” He doesn't believe he has a responsibility to help the less fortunate; that's the government's responsibility. That's reflected in him giving close to nothing from his personal income to help the less fortunate.

The problem with his views and actions, which no doubt reflect his worldview, are they're fundamentally wrong. Government is institutionally unable to give to the poor and less fortunate what they truly need the most -- personal involvement and moral challenge and encouragement.

It's said, "Look at a person's checkbook to see what they value." In Joe Biden's checkbook, there's nearly nothing to help the less fortunate.

Biden's, and Obama's, Catholic problem grows. Biden's guffaw problem is manifesting itself on national stage.

Pro-abortion VP Joseph Biden, self identified Catholic, is having more problems with the leadership of the Catholic Church over his efforts to justify his pro-abortion position as a practicing Catholic. On "Meet the Press", he said he believed life began at conception yet wouldn't allow that to influence his positions as an elected official.

The number of Catholic bishops who have spoken in criticism of Biden's positions has grown to 55. One columnist points out this can be problematic for Biden and Obama politically. Not that every Catholic will follow the lead of the Bishops but for those in the middle, efforts by Biden to misrepresent the Church's teaching could be taken as a personal affront. In a tight election every vote can make a difference.

What's incensed Catholic leadership is the false representation of the Church's position on abortion by Nancy Pelosi and Joseph Biden. It's bad enough they identify themselves as pro-abortion Catholics but then to misrepresent the Church's actual teaching on abortion is going too far.

Here's a description of what the Catholic Bishop in Madison, Wisconsin said.

In Madison, Wisconsin, Bishop Robert Morlino reacted angrily to Biden's televised comments, and tossed aside his prepared Sunday homily to focus on the question, realizing that this has become a topic on which Church leaders must speak forcefully. Bishop Morlino told his Sunday congregation:

Senator Biden does not understand the difference between articles of faith and natural law. Any human being-- regardless of his faith, his religious practice, or having no faith-- any human being can reason to the fact that human life, from conception until natural death, is sacred. Biology-- not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology; biology-- tells us-- science-- that at the moment of conception there exists a unique individual of the human species.

Bishop Morlino went on to say that while Senator Biden and Speaker Pelosi claim to be honoring the principle that religion and politics are separate realms, the politicians themselves are violating that principle by presuming to speak about Church teachings-- and stating those teachings inaccurately-- before a nationwide television audience. "They're stepping on the Pope's turf and mine," the bishop said, "and they're violating the separation of Church and state, confusing God's good people."

I found it interesting that during Obama's Saddleback remarks on abortion he noted consistency of those who believe life begins at conception and therefore want to protect life from conception. That's why he didn't want to answer the question of when life begins; it was beyond "his pay grade." He knew that if he said life began at conception he'd be asked why he didn't protect it at conception. Obama alluded to the issue of consistency when he said:

One of the things that I've always said is that on this particular issue, if you believe that life begins at conception, then -- and you are consistent in that belief, then I can't argue with you on that, because that is a core issue of faith for you.

The problem Biden has is he's not consistent and he's stuck his finger in the eye of Catholic leaders. He's history of guffaws is showing itself at inopportune times now that's he's on the national stage.

Biden confused and more Catholic bishops speak out

VP candidate Joseph Biden went on "Meet the Press" with Tom Brokaw and said, "I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

Biden's position is morally bankrupt and confused. On the one hand, he believes life begins at conception and yet he doesn't want to impose that that belief on others. Well, he does support imposing a belief on others, a belief he just doesn't support.

Imagine you believe innocent human life is being destroyed yet you refuse to do anything to protect it even when it's in your power to do so. That seems tantamount to having the power to protect life during the Holocaust and yet refusing to do so because that would mean "impos[ing] that judgment on everyone else" and that's "inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

Well, I'm grateful to see 14 Catholic bishops speaking out against Biden's bankrupt and confused statement.

Biden makes McCain's argument against Obama -- he's too inexperienced

I attended my brother's law school graduation ceremony at the University of Minnesota in the late 80s. Joseph Biden was the commencement speaker. My recollections were that he had a good speaking voice but didn't anything noteworthy or compelling, e.g. where's the beef? His speech was a political one; he officially announced he was running for president. Also, others in attendance reminded me he didn't mention the graduates or give them any advise. A while later, he was found to have plagiarized material for a political speech and during law school and was forced to drop out of the race.

A problematic aspect of adding Biden to the ticket is he's already made the case that Obama is not ready to be president; he lacks the necessary experience. He said so much during a presidential debate. Not surprisingly the McCain campaign already has a campaign ad highly Biden's comments about Obama made in Obama's presence. The question is what's changed?

Again, ultimately the vice presidential candidate won't ultimately decide whether voters will vote for the presidential candidate unless he serves as a drag on the ticket by unnecessary faux pas.