The Rumble in Columbus: Veeps Attack!

[Eddie Teach]

Huck is sleazy, not nice.  There is a difference.

[Martinus]

This made me warm up to Ryan a lot, if true:

Naked, Tied-Up Paul Ryan Tells Staff He Can't Prepare For Debate Unless They Slap Him Harder

DANVILLE, KY—Lying fully nude with his wrists and ankles tied to the corners of his hotel room bed, an intense, sweat-drenched Paul Ryan reportedly told his staffers today that the only way he could prepare for Thursday night's vice presidential debate was if they slapped his naked, bound body harder and harder.

Sources confirmed the GOP vice presidential nominee had brought in a specially trained debate coach named Madame Renée, a fiercely conservative dominatrix dressed in a formfitting black corset and thigh-high pleather platform boots, to provide the preparation he requested, ranging from heavy paddling, to rope bondage, to discipline lessons, to employing a testicle-clamping device known simply as "the Humbler."

"Slap my face as hard as you can and tell me how much you want bigger government," the bound Wisconsin congressman is said to have shouted through gritted teeth as his aides recited Obama budget proposals, which he then rebutted with campaign talking points between screams of "more" and "faster." "Oh, God, yes, tell me what loopholes we have to close for our tax plan to remain revenue neutral! Tell me the loopholes!"

"Harder!" Ryan is said to have commanded, his body red and battered from hours of being struck with a studded riding crop. "Make me cry."

According to sources, Ryan then insisted that aides rake their fingernails across his chest and spit in his face while calling him a "filthy liberal slut."

Over the previous two days of debate prep, numerous fellow guests of the Sheraton hotel confirmed hearing alternating bellows of pain and pleasure emanating from the building's top floor, as well as what several occupants of the rooms below described as whip cracks, loud slaps followed by satisfied cries of "yes," and what sounded like the exact figure of the U.S. federal deficit screamed out in ecstasy.

According to sources familiar with today's session, after several hours of drills on defense spending involving handcuffs, a Wartenberg wheel, and a metal ball stretcher, aides moved on to the topic of entitlements, during which Ryan insisted he was only capable of retaining all the necessary facts and figures if he was treated like the "dirty little dog" he is. Reports confirmed that Madame Renée and various staffers then dragged the fully nude House Budget Committee chairman around by a leash on his hands and knees, repeatedly forcing him to lick their shoes and drink from the hotel toilet bowl.

"Choke me, please, Madame," the flushed, bruised congressman is said to have requested of the dominatrix as she tugged tighter on his slip collar while he stared at a chart showing the growth of the national debt under Obama's tenure. "Choke me until I'm almost passing out. Please, Madame, please."

"Tighter," he reportedly gasped, as his body tensed and arched from lack of airflow. "Oh, God, I love it! I love it!"

While noting the approach was unorthodox, campaign aides stated that Ryan's fact-retention and ability to maneuver through difficult questions had notably improved as a result of his close work with Madame Renée. In particular, staffers cited Ryan's strong response to being vigorously struck on the chest, buttocks, and inner thighs with a cat o' nine tails every time he mentioned the phrase "middle class," as well as being rewarded for answering health care questions correctly with the dripping of boiling hot paraffin on his nipples and anus.

Sources stated that following a busy and painful day of preparation, the vice presidential nominee spent several hours winding down by putting on a large diaper, suckling from an oversized baby bottle, and insisting that various staff members cradle him in their arms.

"Before the Republican National Convention, we must have slapped Paul's entire body with long wooden switches and thick leather straps for five straight hours, and he gave a great speech," Ryan spokesman Brendan Buck said in a phone conversation during which the congressman could be heard in the background grunting through a ball gag in what was reportedly a combination of pain and pleasure. "I can't tell you how this works or why he does it, but one thing's for sure, he really made a lot of progress on foreign policy after all our female staffers repeatedly kicked him in the scrotum with the points of their shoes."

"If we run through his body-language drills one more time, really double down on our position on women's health issues, and attach electrodes to the glans of his penis as he has requested, I genuinely believe there's no stopping him in tomorrow's debate," Buck added. "Provided of course he doesn't suffer any serious injury of some kind."

At press time, several top GOP strategists and speechwriters were reportedly urinating all over the vice presidential candidate.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/naked-tiedup-paul-ryan-tells-staff-he-cant-prepare,29872/

[11B4V]

I think Biden won because he had a job to do and he did it. He was supposed to be aggressive today. Yeah, the smirking and bullying turns off some voters, particularly women. But Obama already has that demo by a lot. So I think it was a strategic decision which he executed in maybe a little over the top way. Joe is not a sniper rifle, he's a shotgun. When he goes off, he hits everything in front of him.

Biden as shotgun    Excellent description.

Yeah, the smiling and smirking was a bit much, and it tailed off substantially in the 2nd half of the debate as I knew it would.  Ryan did some smirking himself, but while he didn't have the guffaws Biden did, it was more of a vacuous, freshly-tasered, Dan Quayle-like smile.

Biden's more a Claymore Mine he can hit friend and foe in a wide arc.

"Front Towards Enemy"


Biden came off like the deranged drunk uncle. Ryan like a shifty snake.

I think the Stewart/O' Reilly debate was far more interesting.

[Tamas]

So what I dislike in opinions on stuff like this is that "he won because his job was to destroy real debate and he did" and stuff.
That may be the case, but are we really supposed to be approving that? Aren't we (not 'we' the US of course, but citizens of democracies in general. Wait, that's not a "we" for me either. Anyways) supposed to decide based upon opinions and agendas? Then how can we celebrate the fact that the representative of our tribe acted like a jerk and destroyed any chance of a proper debate of issues?

[Sheilbh]

Of course debates are media nonsense, but they're useful.

What do you think destroyed 'real debate'?  What is real debate if not strong disagreement?  Isn't that partly a good point of democracy?  And though they weren't overly decorous towards one another (which is bad for debate anyway) but there wasn't any personal attacks.  I think an engaging, watchable, lively debate is better for democracy than a placid one in which two technocrats discuss their least favoured tax deductions.

Do opinions and agendas matter a huge amount in a non-Parliamentary system?

'A proper debate of issues' is normally code for one that agrees with me.  Whether it's liberals in the US bemoaning the horse-race, process obsessed media, or a Euro press officer briefing ahead of the Council, it's much the same: if only people would listen to reason (and charts! and policy papers! and think tank reports!) then they'd clearly agree with me. 

Edit: It's one of the reasons I prefer Westminster style Parliament's, with two sides facing each other in confrontation, rather than a semi-circle.  And it's been ever thus.  There's a bit, I think in Phineas Redux, were Trollope describes the dislike that grows, naturally, from facing a man down as your opponent day-in-day-out.  The leaders in that book were thinly veiled portraits of Disraeli ('..that unprincipled maniac Gladstone - extraordinary mixture of envy, vindictiveness, hypocrisy and superstition') and Gladstone (on the 'principles' of the Tory party 'all that Dizzy has destroyed').

[Tamas]

lively debate is better for democracy than a placid one in which two technocrats discuss their least favoured tax deductions.

Sheilbh, all things considered, I value your opinion and insight the most on this forum, but you have this romantic attachment to populist politicking which clearly shows you haven't encountered it in it's full force yet.

If you want rational decisions, you must have rational debates, no tribal shit-flinging contests. Yes, that means technocrats discussing numbers.
We must decide if we want society to consist of mature citizens or pockets of mobs.

I am not saying that this particular debate was shit-flinger vs. technocrat. I am talking in general terms.

[Sheilbh]

Sheilbh, all things considered, I value your opinion and insight the most on this forum, but you have this romantic attachment to populist politicking which clearly shows you haven't encountered it in it's full force yet.

If you want rational decisions, you must have rational debates, no tribal shit-flinging contests. Yes, that means technocrats discussing numbers.

Thanks.  I'm not talking populism - which is a style of politics which I think is essential.  I just think democracy is better when you have sides with differing opinions that are sharply and engagingly argued in such a way that it engages people.

As I say I like a Westminster system which isn't terribly respectful, is confrontational and loud.  It works here without leading to populist Balkanisation.  It also works in Australia and New Zealand (David Lange ).  I think the Canadians are too polite for it

But I like the debates in America because it seems like one of the few times (Sunday Morning shows excepted) when American politicians actually have to argue with each other instead of being allowed an individual monologue where they can, to an extent, set their subject and their terms of reference and then reach their conclusions.  That needs an industry of professional fact checkers afterwards.  As Bagehot famously said of Congress 'it's all prologue and no play'.  Far better is, as last night, if both candidates argue and stop one another from letting those fibs slip; and they both explain their points in comparison and in contradiction to each other.  It means you have to deal with the other side's facts too.

I don't like the bits of the Scottish Parliament I've seen (semi-circular, no heckling, regular applause)

And I hate this coalition.  The return to normal left-right, one party government will be a relief.

[Tamas]

 

[garbon]

He often seems to prefer drama and spectacle regardless of whether or not that leads to good governance.

[Gups]

He doesn't like sports enough, so politics is a substitute.

In fairness, most of us are the same. Good governance is boring. Confrontation is entertaining.

[Maximus]

I don't want to be governed by the entertainment industry, why would I want to be entertained by government?

[Tamas]

I think Sheilbh's point is that entertainment drives involvement.

However, if somebody is so ignorant that  he can only be bothered with politics when he can get a show and the chance to yell at somebody... well, I'd appreciate if he stayed away.

[garbon]

In fairness, most of us are the same. Good governance is boring. Confrontation is entertaining.

I don't think so. I don't seek to be entertained by my government.

[crazy canuck]

I don't want to be governed by the entertainment industry, why would I want to be entertained by government?

Then you should have stayed in Canada - POGG ftw!

[merithyn]

I don't want to be governed by the entertainment industry, why would I want to be entertained by government?

Then you should have stayed in Canada - POGG ftw!

Hey!

Like I said, find him (or me) a job, and we'll happily move up there.