“Bizarre” might be the most appropriate word to describe what transpired in the VP debate last night, and the centerpiece of Bizzaro World was the rude, disgusting behavior of our current vice president. Never in my many years of watching and analyzing political debates have I encountered such a boorish display. I’ve witnessed rudeness before—think of Al Gore’s massive “sighs” in his debate with George Bush—and supreme arrogance—John Kerry at all times—but Joe Biden left all contenders for the title of “Most Reprehensible Candidate” in the dust.

I’m not alone in this assessment. Veteran newsman Chris Wallace declared this was the most disrespectful treatment of a political opponent he had ever encountered in his career. Britt Hume looked absolutely stunned by what he had seen and heard. Every time Paul Ryan spoke, the split-screen revealed Biden laughing derisively, vehemently shaking his head, and rolling his eyes. That was only the opening act. As the debate progressed, the vice president continually interrupted Ryan, not merely as an attempted corrective to what he was saying, but in a boisterous manner reminiscent of the schoolyard bully used to getting his way. The tally for the number of times he interrupted stands at 82. Quite simply, Biden’s “performance” was embarrassing. One headline afterwards caught the spirit of what had occurred: Smirkathon.

I have to give tremendous credit to Ryan for maintaining his poise in the midst of this tactic, and it was truly a planned tactic. Obama was so listless in his debate that the overall strategy for this one seemed to be to make up for it by exuding energy and taking control of the event. Ryan, subjected to this barrage, attempted nevertheless to keep the audience focused on the issues. How well he succeeded was borne out of the Insta-Polls that followed. Of the four I read about, he won three. The obligatory Frank Luntz focus group of undecided voters was, in my opinion, as befuddled as any group of undecideds I’ve seen lately. None of them indicated that this debate had helped them make their decision. As I’ve noted many times before, to be an undecided voter at this point in the campaign reveals the absence of any concept of a philosophy of government to begin with. If one cannot choose between these two distinct visions of how government should operate and what the future of the country ought to be, perhaps the best option would be not to vote at all.

Lost in the haze of Biden’s immature behavior was the substance of the comments on both sides. Let me start with Mr. Biden. Any decent analysis of the truthfulness of his comments must take into account at least three of his claims. First, he blamed the intelligence operatives for not providing the administration with the facts about the attack on the American consulate in Libya and the murder of four Americans there, including our ambassador. He took no responsibility whatever for the administration’s false narrative about a YouTube video being the cause of the attack. But that’s a pattern for Obama and his people—always blame someone else.

Second, he declared the administration had never been given any indication that there were security issues at the consulate, directly contradicting the facts that came out clearly just the day before in a House investigation of the matter. State Department officials admitted that embassy personnel in Libya had repeatedly requested a security upgrade, and that they felt threatened by the turn of events there. The ambassador himself had sought help. All requests were denied by the Obama State Department headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Third, Biden blamed the Bush years for the massive national debt rather than the wildly reckless spending of the past four years, which far outstripped anything Bush did in eight years. Further, he said he had voted against spending money on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fact, he voted in favor of those wars. What we have here is a lie so blatant he ought to be called out on it by every media outlet. Will that happen?

What about Paul Ryan? I’ve already noted he kept his composure under very trying circumstances. He didn’t descend to Biden’s level, although he did get in what might have been the sound bite of the night when, after Biden criticized Romney for talking about the 47% on the government dole, Ryan told the vice president that he, of all people, should understand that what comes out of one’s mouth is not always the way one intended for it to sound. It was a deftly placed comment on Biden’s tendency to be a human gaffe-machine. That line earned what seemed to be the only genuine laughter from the audience throughout this debate ordeal.

Ryan was direct on the failures of the Obama administration in foreign policy, and he did very well, as expected, when talking about the economy, which is his forte. His closing statement was directed straight into the camera to connect with the television audience, and it was crisp and specific. For me, though, his best moment came when he defended his views on pro-life. He not only referenced his faith as a basis for believing as he does, but also drew the audience’s attention to the science behind the fact of when life begins.

Joe Biden tried to turn last night into a circus. He succeeded in a limited way: he came across as the clown.

I don’t know who started this, but after the debate, both on Facebook and in the Twitter universe, a Bible verse started making the rounds.

Proverbs 29:9—When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, the foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.

Perfect.

Last night’s presidential debate wasn’t even close. It turned into a Romney rout. That’s not merely my judgment nor the judgment of Republican backers of the candidate, but of practically the entire political world, Right and Left, and everyone in between.

When even Bill Maher—the million-dollar-Obama donor—tweets that the president needed his teleprompter, and radical celebrity filmmaker Michael Moore moans, “This is what happens when you pick John Kerry as your debate coach,” you know Obama had an awful night. It was so bad I almost questioned whether my personal beliefs were getting in the way of evaluating the debate without an undue bias. Obama just kept endlessly repeating the same tired talking points. He was uninspiring and flat. As many commentators noted afterwards, he acted like he didn’t really want to be there.

Romney was the polar opposite. He was eager to jump in and give his perspective on taxes, the deficit, Obamacare, and how to get the economy running again. He had reason to be eager; his command of the facts was superb and his delivery was forceful without being arrogant or overbearing. Further, he, at times, channeled a bit of Ronald Reagan when he lifted the debate above the mundane economic facts and spoke of his vision for the country. Particularly satisfying to me was his reference to the founding documents—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—and his pointed reminder that there is a Tenth Amendment in that Constitution that says the federal government doesn’t run our lives, that the states and the people, respectively, are to have most of the governmental authority. One cartoonist, before the debate, predicted the essence of what took place on that stage:

Insta-Polls taken by CBS and CNN immediately following the debate showed an overwhelming victory for Romney. CBS gave him a 46-22 edge; CNN’s poll was even more amazing: a 67-25 Romney advantage. A focus group moderated by Frank Luntz on Fox News stunned Luntz. The majority of the 20-odd people in his group said the debate changed their minds, and they were now planning to vote for the Republican challenger. He said he’d never, in all his previous experience, witnessed such a turnaround.

How is this going to affect the polling going forward? Will this debate prove to be the watershed event of the campaign season? Will public opinion begin to trend toward Romney? That all depends. There are two more presidential debates; Romney has to continue what he started last night if he’s going to seal the deal. He will still have to battle a media that desperately wants Obama to be reelected. Pollsters are going to have to be more honest in their samplings and realize this is not a 2008 electorate. A lot depends on how many of each category—Democrat, Republican, independents—they include in their polling. There’s also the character and leanings of the pollsters themselves to consider; questions can be framed in such a way as to lead the electorate to the “proper” answer:

Next on the docket is the lone vice-presidential debate on Thursday, October 11. Paul Ryan has to make sure he is as well prepared as Romney was for last night’s debate. Frankly, I would be shocked if he didn’t deliver as strong a performance as Romney’s; Ryan is well prepared all the time, since he practically lives and breathes policy. He has another factor working in his favor—he gets to debate Joe Biden.

Biden rather infamously, in a speech earlier this week, decried how the middle class has been buried the last four years, apparently forgetting who has been in charge all that time. Even some Democrats refer to him as a human gaffe machine. May he live up to his reputation.

Last night proves there is still hope for a genuine change. It’s now more than a four-year-old empty slogan.

Tropical storm Isaac never really threatened the Tampa area. On Monday, I was wondering how bad it was going to be when I went out in the car. I found out it was almost a normal day. A little rain, even less wind, no problem. The Republican convention played it safe by calling off all activities that day; that’s understandable. If they hadn’t, the media would have bludgeoned them forever as insensitive. Some will do it anyway simply because Isaac is now upon New Orleans. In their view, all of life must come to a standstill over this storm.

Well, life goes on . . . and so does the convention. If you’re watching any station covering the proceedings besides Fox News, you have to prepare yourself ahead of time for what you will hear:

Protesters can be seen in the streets doing their usual thing. Even Joe Biden is coming to Florida during the convention. He had planned to be in Tampa, attempting to divert coverage and offer some of his typical inane commentary, but his handlers apparently thought better of it at the last minute. Their cover was that his presence would have interfered with any emergency situations that might arise. Well, that could be the real reason, but then again, given Mr. Biden’s predilection for foot-in-mouth disease, one can be excused for believing otherwise.

Meanwhile, the president is busy focusing on the essential issues facing the nation:

I wonder how long he’s going to try to get away with that?

There has been criticism lately from both Left and Right over President Obama’s policy of selecting terrorists to kill in drone strikes. I may surprise some of you by offering a qualified endorsement of that policy. We are at war against terrorism, even if some in the administration would like to have us believe that war is over. A president does have the responsibility as commander in chief during a war to take out the enemy. Yes, I know we haven’t made an official declaration of war; that should be done. But Americans’ safety is the overall concern.

The critique from the Right, though, has been the manner in which this is carried out, along with the loss of valuable intelligence. If we kill all terrorists, we don’t have the opportunity to interrogate them for what they know. That has proven invaluable in recent years. The Obama approach wipes out not only the terrorist, but any chance of extracting more significant information that could lead to taking down an entire network. Also, his method of micromanaging the so-called “kill list” is eerily reminiscent of LBJ’s handling of Vietnam. That went well, didn’t it? And then there’s the collateral damage of relying almost exclusively on drone strikes—the innocent may die along with the guilty. I’m not saying the drones shouldn’t be used, but there are other factors this president apparently isn’t taking into consideration.

By the way, I got a sneak peak at the new Obama Kill List. You may find this fascinating:

By this standard, he’s been remarkably successful. If you don’t think so, let him explain:

That’s a pretty optimistic self-assessment. Here’s another one closer to reality:

Many Democrats are nervous. They have spoken out against Obama’s attacks on genuine capitalism that creates jobs. Meanwhile, his own policies have led to the highest unemployment and lowest productivity at a sustained pace since the Great Depression. Yet you don’t find any in his party willing to say he should step aside in favor of his vice president, now do you? Wonder why?

The last four years have been a national nightmare. Perhaps in five months we’ll awaken once again.

The campaigns are well underway now; no one is holding back. The Obama team apparently has come up with the new buzzword. In 2008, of course, it was “Hope and Change.” That obviously won’t work this time around because people would be thinking, “yeah, we do need a change—that might be our only hope.”

So now Democrat legions are to be inspired by the one simple word “Forward,” which is supposed to be a positive message. However, it seems to have gone awry already:

Obama has never broken his bad habit of blaming everything on Bush. Don’t expect that to stop. He’ll have plenty of help, too, from an obliging press corps:

Voters, though, may have a different response when they realize his idea of progress comes at their expense:

Another embarrassing fact that has come to light is that “forward” has historically been a favorite slogan for communist/socialist movements. Did the Obama people know this ahead of time? I find it hard to believe they were unaware of its history. Apparently the association doesn’t bother them all that much. If, though, we see a sharp turn away from the new slogan in the coming days, we will know they have decided it won’t work.

On the Republican side, with the suspension of the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns, Romney is the nominee-in-waiting. While he hasn’t enjoyed the enthusiastic backing of many conservatives, he is the only alternative to another Obama term, so most Republicans have resigned themselves to the inevitable:

The political world is now speculating who will take second place on the ticket. It’s an important decision for Romney, particularly if he wants conservatives to rally to him. Hopefully, more serious thought will go into that choice than was demonstrated four years ago on the Democrat side:

I keep coming back to how the future of the country truly does rest on the outcome this November. This might be the most significant election thus far in my lifetime.

What does my title today mean? It means I’m tired of thinking for now and just want to throw a few cartoons at you. They are on a variety of subjects, but all pretty effective, I believe. Let’s get started. How about the reluctance of Republican primary voters to fall in love with Mitt Romney’s candidacy?

While we’re on the subject of politicians, here’s another one on Barney Frank’s announced retirement that captures the true spirit of the man:

We must not ignore the Occupy Wall Street fiasco:

And finally, here’s a commentary on the degradation of American culture:

Enjoy your weekend. It’s a gift from God.

The budget/debt ceiling bill passed the House last night, and the Senate is slated to vote on it today. Half of the Democrats opposed it; sixty-six Republicans also said no to it. The Democrats’ objections were that there were no tax increases, there were spending cuts, and it called for the Congress to send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification. Republicans’ objections were that most of the spending cuts were too far down the road, there is the possibility for tax increases in the future if a special commission deems them necessary [although they would still have to pass both houses to take effect], and the debt ceiling was raised in the process.

I don’t have any sympathy with the Democrat objections, but I understand why some Republicans couldn’t bring themselves to support the measure. This is not a bill that makes a fundamental change. At the same time, I understand why the majority of Republicans went along with it: when you control only one part of the Congress and there is a president who will veto anything stronger, you go for the best deal you can get, and it does change the debate at least. No longer will Congress be pushing new spending programs; the discussion will now center on how to make effective cuts in spending. In other words, I see the strengths of both Republican positions.

What we have here is not a basic philosophical difference among most Republicans, but merely a tactical one. Is this not supportable because it doesn’t do enough, or is it instead the first step along an arduous policy road on the way to the ultimate goal?

I know some people’s passions are running high on this issue, and there are those calling for new leadership in the Republican party. Yet from other accounts I have read, even many of the Republicans who rejected this bill had words of praise for Speaker Boehner and his leadership team. They recognize he did his best, and they appreciate his efforts in a tough political climate. Although they may have voted against this specific piece of legislation, they are hopeful that it really can be a first step after all. They certainly need to pull together now if anything more significant is to be achieved. Initial reports indicate they can go forward unified in what they seek to accomplish overall.

It’s always nice to see harmony. Then, of course, there is the opposite of that. Yesterday, Vice President Biden met with disgruntled House Democrats to explain why he and the president support the bill. By all accounts, it was a heated meeting, and in the midst of that heat, a few verbal shots were fired. Apparently, the VP and/or other members of the Democrat caucus called members of the Tea Party “terrorists.”

Once again the Party of Civility leads the way into a new and brighter future where mutual respect forms the cornerstone of our political system.