Having seen a bit more of the debate now I have to say the Biden performance was disturbing, at times even... what, offensive, repulsive, farcically theatrical? - and deepening the disturbance is how many on the left actually seem to think the night represented a great victory for them - it's not just rhetoric to say that the uber left's visceral hatred of conservative thought is so consuming in its rage that they truly have conflated disdainful contempt and an affected enlightenment into a single governing ethos - so convinced are they of their own righteous beauty when measured against the grotesque deformities of conservatism that for them the mere expression of outrage or scorn or sarcastic ridicule is argument enough, is self evidently good regardless of proof or explanation or substance. This is political fanaticism, pure and simple - hell, I may even be tempted to reach for the other 'f' word - fascism - it's a bit extreme but I don't think wholly ludicrous to suggest that at times things do seem to be kind of straying in that direction - certainly there's something a little fascistic about the way the press has allowed itself to become the suppliant tool of a political agenda.

I gotta believe that Biden's performance did not go over at all well with moderates, undecideds and independents - and so if Obama chooses to imitate that performance I'd have to conclude that he truly doesn't want to win. I know that some dispirited uber lefties like Andrew Sullivan [who I'm quite sure is actually, actually in love with the Obama] have raised the idea of Dear Leader not wanting to win - but let's remember that it was I a couple of years ago who first proffered up the wild conjecture that if things weren't going well Obama would quickly lose interest in the job and look for a way to get out while still remaining a hero to the left - and if he mimics Biden's performance then I'd have to conclude that that wild conjecture was dead accurate - either that or they've crunched the numbers and figure the only way they can win is by whipping the base up into a frenzy. How else does one explain Biden's bizarre antics? It had to be calculated, right? It couldn't have just been him being an idiot. Then again, we are talking about Biden, so...

So - the VP debate - didn't see it, have no intention of watching a replay and therefore must rely on what others have to say about it. The gist seems to be: Ryan was good, but not brilliant - I think I was expecting brilliant and so I'm a little disappointed by that - still, since it was his first time on the national stage in that kind of high stakes setting good but not brilliant may actually count as something of a win - or maybe I've misjudged his talents - but I was expecting a decisive win so, yeah, a bit of a disappointment there.

As for Biden, I take it he came across as an arrogant jerk, looking down upon the opposition with bilious and sometimes buffonish contempt. The impression seems to be this replacing of argument with 'attitude' may play well to the uber left base that very much wants to cover its collapsing flank with the shallow defense of confusing disdain for keen insight, but that undecideds and independents are possibly going to be turned off by such a performance [this opinion anecdotally confirmed to me by overhearing a conversation between two people who I would consider unaffiliated moderates wherein Biden's act was described as 'creepy'].

Sounds then like it was a bit of a wash - the media will undoubtedly do its best to spin a Biden victory but the polls may ultimately suggest a slight advantage to Ryan [CNN poll supports that belief - 48% to 44% 'win' for Ryan] - I was hoping for more, but I'll take it. Certainly, this somewhat disappointing result is made entirely tolerable by Romney's drubbing of Obama in preceding debate - and maybe that was part of the thinking here, ie for Ryan to play it a bit safe, to not swing for the fences but rather just try and draw Biden into saying something foolish, which possibly he did as regards the Libya fiasco [and there's an upside here in that Romney now has a pretty good idea of the tone and tack Obama will be adopting or at the very least approximating in their next encounter - although I believe the next debate is a 'town hall' type format, which pretty much kills chances of a real debate happening, which helps Obama - he'll have the big shovel out that night for all the bullshit he'll be throwing around - I'm sure the Times has the 'Dear Leader recaptures the magic' story already written - David Brooks is in pre-quiver mode, hungering for another look at those perfect pants].

[yeah, just saw the quickly released GOP 'Joe Biden is laughing, are you?' ad which I think is all of the debate I need to see - Ryan comes across as good, but not great - Biden not only comes across as creepy, he verges a bit on demented. Jesus - bad stuff - guess it's wrong of me to judge whole debate on a few clips but I gotta believe if the uber left is trying to spin Biden's performance into a 'win' then they truly have detached themselves from anything resembling a coherent reality]

A good news, bad news, the news is irredeemably corrupted by left winged bias news story - the New York Times didn't feel the congressional Libya hearing deserved to be put on the front page even though if a republican president had fucked up as badly as Obama has not only would it have been front page news but the font employed in both boldness and size would have rivaled a headline announcing the end of the world - so essentially the Times has clearly announced to all without the slightest bit of shame that when it comes to getting Dear Leader reelected lies are the equal of truth.

So that's pretty depressing - can hear the coffin lid closing on fourth estate integrity in America - but wait - the public editor of the Times has written a very public rebuke of this highly suspicious editorial decision by his superiors - so possibly integrity isn't entirely dead, just have to dig deep into the ranks to find it.

There ya go, some good news, some bad news - still, mostly bad news unfortunately.

I didn't even consider the possibility that the unemployment number was rigged - that just seemed wildly implausible - yes, I do believe and have always held that Obama is entirely capable of such underhanded dishonesty, that's how he built his political career as far as I can tell - but rigging the job numbers just seems too outlandishly corrupt even for him - and then I read this article and suddenly plausibility hovers into view. There could be a trout in that milk.

[on the other hand AEI argues with some cogency that the conspiracy talk is silly - your milk hasn't been tampered with - it is still bad though]

Well, this was all very predictable - I've been warning conservatives to stop focusing so much attention on the unemployment rate number per se and go more big picture because the number will come back to haunt you - and that's exactly what's happened - unemployment rate unexpectedly drops to 7.8 - and now the media has the excuse it needed to turn attention away from Obama's horrible debate performance and probably won't matter one bit if the drop merely represents people falling pell mell from the system and labor participation cratering - the media will now bury Romney's excellent debate performance under reams of 'we've turned the corner' bullshit. This was entirely predictable.

Now some are saying that Romney's debate win marks the beginning of the end of the media's ability to twist the narrative to Obama's advantage, that the debates allow Romney to make an end run round the media's left wing distortion field and speak directly to undecideds and also because an untelepromptered, unfiltered through rose colored glasses Obama is a much more difficult thing to slavishly promote - maybe - but I'll believe it when I see it and I still tend to believe I ain't gonna be seeing it - remember there are two more debates and remember as well that all those complaints from the left about Leher's performance as moderator had less to do with excuse mongering for Obama and much more to do with trying to influence the upcoming moderators - Leher's standing back allowed an actual debate to happen and Obama can't win such a thing because he has nothing of substance to say and little of value to defend - his entire reelection campaign in built on the sands of empty rhetoric, misdirection and outright lies - the left needs the moderators of the debates to keep the tides of reality away from that sand for at least another month - and thus all the complaining about Leher.

The American fourth estate is broken, has devolved to banana republic status - sure, it's been flirting with breakage for a while, but the naive idealist bullshit made manifest in the delusional dreaminess of the Obama has now broken it utterly - the American media has taken up permanent residence in The Emerald City and they have absolutely no intention of pulling back the curtain on their wonderful Wizard.

I could be wrong - some like Mickey Kaus are of the opinion the press is growing increasingly embarrassed by its naked boosterism of Dear Leader and is slowly self-correcting - like I said, I'll believe it when I see it and, but for a few timid steps in the vague direction of a somewhat honest objectivity, I ain't seeing it.

Hmmn... why all the talk in Israel about how the Iran sanctions are starting to bite? Gov't revenues gutted, Iranian currency 'collapsing'... is it possible Obama actually got this one right?

Well, my point all along has been that from Israel's perspective, if you don't trust Obama [and they don't] sanctions are meaningless because they take too long to work and Israel's window of opportunity is short [a short window?] if it's left to act alone. So that dynamic's still in place since even if sanctions are working it's very hard to say when regardless they'll produce the desired results - and then even if the sanctions do produce certain results it's still very hard to say what exactly those results will be - it won't necessarily mean the end of the theocratic regime and the rise of a vague something else we can work with.

But, still, why all the talk about the sanctions supposedly working? If you're Netanyahu and you're still of the opinion that Obama cannot be trusted and there's still a very real possibility that you're going to have to act alone, doesn't it undercut your authority to stoke the idea that the sanctions are indeed working? It seems to me that in order to keep the faith of the population viz the grave risk associated with an attack on Iran that you'd want to play it close to the vest when it came to the sanctions - but they're not. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe a solo attack by Israel never was actually on the table and the tough talk was indeed all bluff. Not sure how to read this one. Can't rule out Obama's gonna shock me here and end up having done something sort of right or at least only half wrong when it comes to foreign policy - still, way too early to say that, lot left to be decided.

Given my increasingly jaundiced view of the democratic process as it exists in this age of ubiquitous media feeding the incessant cupidity of the superficial for the fools gold of trite bemusement and instant gratification - given that shouldn't I be a supporter of Obama since his socialist designs are essentially undemocratic and seek to overthrow the American system of 'negative rights' and replace it with the wise counsel of an enlightened aristocracy made viable by the obsequious support of a majority granting underclass that is ever dependent on it?

Well, no. I'm being overtaken by a cancerous cynicism not a consumptive stupidity. Still, does raise an interesting question: what exactly do I believe? How would I defend democracy if I was going to defend it? If I think it's vital, absolutely necessary that Romney, for all his flaws, defeat Obama, can I legitimately do so if I no longer believe or can maintain a serviceable faith in democracy? Or is it I just haven't figured out yet how to defend democracy given all the bad stuff that is happening but still have the sense that those 'negative rights' need to be defended because the alternatives to such are all roads to where Hayek said they went?

I dunno. Think it's the latter.

The 'functional' electorate is divided between partisans of each side who are aware of the issues but whose opinions thereof are vitiated by the taint of bias - these partisans may be paying attention but they view all through distorting glass. There indeed are moderates in each camp of a more reasonable and objective bent who are susceptible to breaking off and adhering to the other if properly motivated, but one suspects that the more ideologically rancorous a campaign becomes the more likely these moderates 'keep the faith' and stay close to home - this no doubt why Obama all along has been running such a negative race based on class warfare rhetoric, character assassination, racist innuendo etc etc. One would hope that moderate democrats would be inclined to shake off their chains and wander given the state of the economy and the sad state of the country in general, but polling suggests these potential 'free elements' can be held in place by blaming Bush - and accordingly Obama's stock response by way of explanation viz current trouble is to blame Bush - witness too Clinton's tour de force of Bush blaming at the convention.

The 'dysfunctional' part of the electorate [these assignations obviously quite relative given that under the cold light of reason the entire electorate is essentially dysfunctional and to a jaundiced cynic like me probably beyond all hope of salvation] belongs to the independents - unlike partisans, these intrepid souls cling to their ignorance of the issues, either because of a native dislike of politics or more likely simply out of laziness or indifference. On the plus side, this lassitude tends to leave them free of ideological prejudices - of course it also leaves them quite vulnerable to simplistic messaging and impulsive rationalizations. The keen insight of this esteemed group decides elections.

Which brings us to the fourth estate and the media in general - if independents decide elections and at the same time are highly vulnerable to easy manipulation - and we add to that the reality that increasingly our perceptions are controlled by simplistic, exploitative media and this media has an undeniable liberal bias and in the case of Obama a bias so visceral that one smells the rank rot of a desperate and utter corruption - well, isn't that a rather toxic and fragile delineation? Are we not straddling the abyss here? Does this election fascinate because the dynamics of it might finally throw into sharp focus just how close we are to a dangerous upheaval or a despairing decline?

[this why I tended to believe that should Obama end up winning when by all rights he should be toast, in the final analysis probably the only person who had a chance to beat him was Christie - the big guy couldn't have reversed media bias of course, but given how appealing a character he is and how that would have made it hard for the media to contain him or falsely pin him to a narrative, these qualities would have stood him in good stead and well positioned to effectively counter-act Obama worship, to level the playing field as it were. Ryan helps Romney in this regard, and should he convincingly destroy Biden in the debate that will help a great deal - but only if Romney also does well in the debates. With the help of media bias painting Reagan as a dangerous, dimwitted right wing extremist, the wholly undeserving Carter was leading well into October of 1980 - but then the debates revealed a Reagan at odds with the media portrait of him and the rest is history. Romney will likely have to pull off the same kind of reveal - unfortunately, Romney is no Reagan - on the bright side, 'undecideds' tend to break against an incumbent, and if one believes recent analysis that suggests the polls are not capturing the true disposition of things, ie Romney is actually ahead, then carrying the bulk of the undecideds should be enough to show Obama the door regardless of the media's fervent desire to not let their cherished liberal dreaminess crash and burn]

[cause when you think about it the uber left and their media cohorts absolutely need Obama to win in order to save themselves, to preserve that dreamy prism through which they view the world and their place in it - Obama's a manifestation of every naively idealistic bit of nonsense they believe in, without a second term in which to rewrite the history which at this point will label him a Carter-like disaster of a president, what becomes of them? Even they may not be able to summon up the vast amount of denial and dissembling that will be required to drown out this reality - although, if anyone can do it it's these people]

[fair to say though that likewise I need him to lose in order to preserve my narrative - right now everything has played out the way I predicted in 2006 viz Dear Leader, so given that odds may incline one to think that a second term couldn't possibly be as bad as the first, there's a risk there to me - still, I'm pretty confident in my judgement that Dear Leader is an absolutely awful fit for CEO of America - he should be out giving pretty speeches to the hopelessly deluded, that's what he's good at, that's where he belongs]

Oh, dear... the world is spinning out of control... and the editorial board of the New York Times assured me that electing the black guy who gave pretty speeches would fix all this... can't even trust the givers of light anymore... all is darkness.

Well. I remember that sycophantic, whinging uber liberal EJ Dionne announcing - no, proclaiming with enthused pride the day after Gaddafi was dispatched that Dear Leader had just won through the economical brilliance of leading from behind a far greater victory than Bush ever did or could with his marauding, imperialist armies.

And how people like me laughed with such sad bitterness at the astounding naivety of such sentiments. Yet still the fools preen and laud their grand illusion. I click on Politico's website this morning and what's their headline? The GOP's foreign policy muddle. These people are redefining what it means to be a pathetic toady on a daily basis.

And now Obama has asked Google to pull the offending video? Really? That's what it's come to? The Chief Executive of The United States of America blowing the first amendment out of the water in order to censor some amateurish piece of shit video on YouTube in a vain attempt to placate the ever unplacatable fucking Muslims? Wow. Worst-President-Ever.

"But what’s strange is that so many people don’t find it strange at all — that at a critical moment in the affairs of the republic the ruling party should assemble to listen to a complacent 31-year-old child of privilege peddling the lazy cobwebbed assumptions of myopic narcissism."

This from Mark Steyn's latest on Sandra Fluke - not necessarily one of his best pieces but makes a good point about something that bugs me constantly - the myopic nature of so much that passes for political debate in this country - the way that so much of the discussion seems rooted in the vague neediness of some personal, emotionally contextualized response to issues rather than the dictates of logic and reasonable, coherent, objective insight. Listen to Obama's supporters - it's as if they've completely detached themselves from reality, as if they inhabit a dreamland where they're sustained on a steady diet of shallow cliches, empty rhetoric and airy hypotheticals. A world full of Flukes - held aloft on the flatulent reek of a vain and vapid idealism.

This myopia is on full display with liberal advocacy of gay marriage - we're talking about an issue that at most probably impacts about two percent of the population, and that may be wildly over stating it - and yet liberals go on about it as if no greater crisis threatened the country - and of course that's because this advocacy for them is like wearing a big, bright badge of honor that announces to all and sundry "look at what a wonderful and enlightened person I am - I support gay marriage! Yea for me!". It's pathetic. Now, I oppose gay marriage, mainly because I consider it an affront to common sense and logic to pretend there's not a wide existential gap separating the categorical imperatives of fecundity underlying all heterosexual love from the generative 'neutrality' of the rut that dare not speak its name - but the more practical side of me is inclined to say "sure, go ahead - why on earth a gay person would want to get married is beyond me - but whatever, let's just get it over with cause the country has bigger problems than the love interests of a handful of gays and we should really be TALKING ABOUT STUFF THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS!".