That's what John "Cactus Jack" Garner famously compared the job of this country's vice presidential position to. It's been dumbed-down to warm spit; but I digress.
As did our own vice president last night.
In the much-anticipated dual of the veeps, Joe Biden and 'the congressman' (I'm fairly sure he has a name, Joe!) went bumper-to-bumper and wire-to-wire in trying desperately to stick to their scripts; but Biden famously has not that gear in his transmission.
And what a transmission.
The one comment that strikingly received the only unamimous and spontaneous reaction--a gut/belly laugh so sincere I assume that the Dems joined in--was when 'the congressman' stated the obvious: Biden tends to only open his mouth when not constrained by a pesky script to change feet. "I think the vice president is all too familiar with saying something in not exactly the way that he means," I believe is the quote. Harrrrrrrrdeeeeeeeeeeeharrrrrr.
And this from an audience that--I've been told by someone on the inside--had been scolded, implored, and threatened with expulsion prior to the event about ANY verbal responses. This from Ryan, though, said itself, as did the response.
But here's the thing.
Note Biden's response to the clear repudiation of this old man's tendency to explicitly condescend (to both his opponents and his audiences/constituents). After leaning back and smiling that Cheshire-Cat-under-a-black-light-in-a-dark-room grin (whiten much? jeez!), he composed himself, fixed his plugs, and Good-Ole-Joe'd Ryan with, "But I mean what I say. (then, as if to say, yes, I realize what I'm saying now, too, son) I mean what I say."
So you meant, when you so famously stated in front of a mostly minority crowd in Carolina earlier this campaign, that Republicans want to bring back slavery ("They wanna put y'all back in chains.")
I guess your passing on this opportunity to Say It Ain't So, well, Joe, means that you did mean that.
But it's Republicans who always go on the personal attacks, huh? Chains? Y'all? That's not even pandering. What's a lower form of politician than a panderer? This guy.
But I digress now.
Another observation from the vice debate: I guess I'll never understand why when a tax cut for 'middle class' folks is universally seen as a quote-unquote no-brainer good thing, why isn't one for everyone? Just wondering. And by the way, not to sound too elitist; but you know those 1%-ers who everyone hates? They, yes, do own 48% of all the stuff in this country. Ever wonder how much of the total taxes they pay? 90%. Fair share? Please.
And one more. It was mentioned on my way to work this morning that your U.S. Postal Service will increase the cost of a stamp again in January; but, "The move will do nothing to rectify the financial crisis there." I relate that to the debate. The USPS's problem isn't mainly a revenues problem, it's a spending problem. Why not simply increase the cost of a stamp to $2.00? $10.00? The answer is obvious, no? So why does the larger governments not realize that simply raising taxes more and more eventually get you not only less returns (i.e. lesser taxable activity); but does nothing to solve your real (spending) problems?
Just a thought. Candy says I think too much about these crazy things.
But it sure makes it easier to avoid the real issues.*
(*Adam Wainwright's right arm and Nick Saban's Saturday morning mood.)