List of Biden's Political Blunders

• On June 25, 2010, Vice President Biden was visiting a custard shop outside Milwaukee when the shop manager told him his dessert would be on the house if he lowered taxes. 
  

  "Don't worry, it's on us," the manager said. "Lower our taxes and we'll call it even." 
  

  Biden replied: "Why don't you say something nice instead of being a smartass all the time?" 
  

• On May 6, 2010, Vice President Biden said in an address to the European Parliament in Belgium that Brussels could be the "capital of the free world." 
  

  The comment came at the top of a speech used to discuss the threats of nuclear proliferation, climate change and international terrorism. 
  

  "As you probably know, some American politicians and American journalists refer to Washington, D.C. as the 'capital of the free world,'" Biden said. "But it seems to me that in this great city, which boasts 1,000 years of history and which serves as the capital of Belgium, the home of the European Union, and the headquarters for NATO, this city has its own legitimate claim to that title." 
  

• On March 23, 2010, Biden stated the obvious when he told President Obama, "This is a big f---ing deal," during the bill-signing ceremony for the health insurance overhaul. Biden apparently thought the exchange was private, but the television microphones picked it up. The president must have realized what happened Biden later said in an interview that Obama was "laughing like the devil" after the event. 
  
• On March 17, 2010, Biden used a St. Patrick's Day celebration at the White House to honor the memory of the Irish prime minister's mother though she was alive. 
  

  "God rest her soul," Biden said as he introduced Brian Cowen and Obama. Biden quickly corrected his mistake, noting that Cowen's father, not mother, was dead. 
  

  "Wait ... your mom's still, your mom is still alive. It was your dad (who) passed. God bless her soul. I gotta get this straight," Biden said. 
  

• On July 16, 2009, Biden gave a blunt summation of the administration's approach to stimulus spending. 
  

  "People, when I say that, look at me and say, 'What are you talking about, Joe? You're telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?" he said at a stop in Virginia. "The answer is yes." 
  

• On July 5, 2009, in an interview with ABC's "This Week," Biden conceded that the White House team "misread how bad the economy was." His confession came as unemployment hit 9.5 percent, despite the administration's insistence that it would hold to 8 percent with the stimulus plan. 
  
• On April 30, 2009, Biden gave advice on dealing with swine flu that seemed to contradict President Obama's warning not to panic. Speaking on NBC's "Today," Biden, a longtime Amtrak rider who has commuted for decades daily from Delaware to Washington, D.C., said he wouldn't advise family necessarily against going to Mexico, the source of the H1N1 outbreak, but he wouldn't tell them to get into any small area like a subway car, automobile, classroom or airplane. 
  

  "I would tell members of my family, and I have, I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places right now," Biden said. "It's not that its going to Mexico, it's that you are in a confined aircraft when one person sneezes, it goes everywhere through the aircraft. That's me." 
  

• On March 13, 2009, Biden addressed a former Senate colleague by saying, "An hour late, oh give me a f----ing break," after he arrived on Amtrak at Union Station in Washington, D.C. The vice president's expletive was caught on a live microphone. 
  
• During a Feb. 25, 2009, interview on CBS' "Early Show," Biden encouraged viewers to visit a government-run Web site that tracks stimulus spending. When asked for the site's web address, Biden could not remember the site's "number." 
  

  "You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?" he asked an aide standing out of view. "I should have it in front of me and I don't. I'm actually embarrassed." 
  

• At a Jan. 30, 2009, swearing-in ceremony of senior White House staff, Biden mocked Chief Justice John Roberts for his presidential oath blunder on Inauguration Day. 
  

  "Am I doing this again?" Biden said, after Obama asked him to administer the oath. When Biden was told the swearing-in was for senior staff and not cabinet members the vice president quipped, "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts," prompting a stern nudge from Obama. 
  

• On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20 2009, Biden misspoke when he told a cheering crowd of supporters, "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart." Justice John Paul Stevens not Stewart swore Biden in as vice president. 
  

  When criticizing former GOP nominee John McCain in Athens, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2008, Biden said, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs." 
  

• In a Sept. 22, 2008, CBS interview, Biden misspoke when he said Franklin D. Roosevelt was president when the stock market crashed in 1929. 
  

  "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," he said. 
  

  Herbert Hoover not Roosevelt was president in 1929, and television had not yet been invented in 1929. 
  

• During a Sept. 12, 2008, speech in Columbia, Mo., Biden called for Missouri State Sen. Chuck Graham, who is wheelchair-bound, to "stand up." 
  

  "Oh, God love ya," Biden said, after realizing his mistake. "What am I talking about?" 
  

• At a Sept. 10, 2008, town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., Biden said, "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me." 
  
• Biden mistakenly referred to Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the "lieutenant governor" of her state during a town hall meeting on Sept. 4, 2008 at George Mason University in Manassas, Va. 
  

  "I heard a very, by the way I mean this sincerely, a very strong and a very good political speech from a lieutenant governor of Alaska who I think is going to be very formidable, very formidable not only in the campaign but in the debate," Biden said. 
  

• Biden said he was running for president not vice president during a Sept. 1, 2008, roundtable discussion in Scranton, Pa. 
  

  "Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there," Biden said. 
  

• Biden referred to John McCain as "George" during his vice presidential acceptance speech on Aug. 27, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co. "Freudian slip, folks, Freudian slip," he explained. 
  
• Biden confused army brigades with battalions when speaking about Obama's plan for sending troops to Afghanistan. 
  

  "Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?" 
  

• During his first campaign rally with Obama as his vice presidential running mate on Aug. 23, 2008, Biden introduced Obama by saying, "A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States Barack America!" 
  
• On Jan. 31, 2007 the day Biden announced his presidential bid the Delaware Senator was roundly criticized for calling Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
  

Does anyone else see a pattern? Like Chicago style politics!

Dec 8,2008:
Rod Blagojevich arrested for trying to sell Obama's senate seat.

 

May 29, 2009:
Obama's DOJ refuses to prosecute Black Panther member on voter intimidation charges in 2008 Presidential election.

 

September 27, 2009: For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused -- by Democrats -- of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, Deputy Chief of Staff offered a job in the Obama Administration to Andrew Romanoff, if he drops challenge to Senator Bennet. In the Colorado case, the Post reported that while Romanoff refused comment on a withdrawal-for-a-job offer, "several top Colorado Democrats described Messina's outreach to Romanoff to The Post, including the discussion of specific jobs in the administration. They asked for anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject."

The Post also noted that the day after Romanoff announced his Senate candidacy, President Obama quickly announced his endorsement of Senator Bennet.

The discovery that the White House has now been reported on two separate occasions in two different states to be deliberately committing a potential violation of federal law -- in order to preserve the Democrats' Senate majority -- could prove explosive in this highly political year. Who in the White House had this conversation with Congressman Sestak?

* Did Deputy Chief of Staff Messina have the same conversation with Sestak he is alleged to have had with Romanoff -- and has he or anyone else on the White House staff had similar conversations with other candidates that promise federal jobs for political favors?

* They keep logs of these calls. How quickly will they be produced?

* How quickly would e-mails between the White House, Sestak, Specter, Romanoff and Bennet be produced?

* Secretary of the Navy is an important job. Did this job offer or the reported offer of the US AID position to Romanoff have the approval of President Obama or Vice President Biden?

* What did the President know and when did he know it?

* What did the Vice President know and when did he know it? (Note: Vice President Biden, in this tale, is Specter's longtime friend who takes credit for luring Specter to switch parties. Can it really be that an offer of Secretary of the Navy to get Sestak out of Specter's race would not be known and or approved by the Vice President? Does Messina or some other White House staffer -- like Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel -- have that authority?)

* What did White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel know, and when did he know it?

* What did Congressman Sestak know and when did he know it? Was he aware that the offer of a federal job in return for a political favor -- his withdrawal from the Senate race -- could open the White House to a criminal investigation?

* What did Senator Specter know about any of this and when did he know it? .

* What did Governor Rendell, who, as the titular leader of Pennsylvania Democrats, is throwing his political weight and machine to his old friend Specter, know about this? And when did he know it?

* Will the Department of Justice be looking into these two separate news stories, one supplied by a sitting United States Congressman, that paint a clear picture of jobs for political favors?

* Will Attorney General Holder recuse himself from such an investigation?

 

February 19, 2010: In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a "high-ranking" government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania's Democratic primary."

 

Misconceptions about Arizona Immigration Law...

Did you know that the new Arizona law is more restrictive than Federal Immigration law? Under the new Arizona law, a state or local law enforcement official, must be engaged in a lawful stop, have reasonable suspicion with regard to legal status, and cannot use race to establish that suspicion.

None of these criteria is required under Federal law. A Federal enforcement official can stop anyone and demand identification papers, does not need to be involved in any other legal manner with you, and can base their suspicion purely on race or ethnicity?

It would be nice if our President and members of his administration were actually familiar with what our laws say, before they criticize and condemn them!

I also think it is reprehensible that members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, gave President Calderon a standing ovation in his speech when he condemned the Arizona law.

Environmental Disaster

Well, the accident on the oil rig off the coast of New Orleans is sure to setup a new round of battles between left and right on the subject of offshore drilling. Both sides will agree that this accident is tragic, first in loss of life, and second to the environment. That is about where the similarities will end though,

There is no doubt the left will use this as a prime example of why we should not expand drilling, and for that matter shut down existing drilling because of the perceived threat to the environment. But is this the best move for our country?

• Will it reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?
  
• Will it drive the price of gasoline high enough to encourage development of alternative energy sources?
  
• Will it "save the planet"?
  

Currently there are over 3,500 drilling platforms operating offshore in the United States. A large number of these platforms are in the Gulf of Mexico. The last major spill involving a drilling platform offshore was in 1969, off the coast of Santa Barbara. That spill left a scar on American energy policy that stills prevails today. compared to this accident, that was a minor spill! Now 40 plus years later another accident occurs which most likely have a crippling, longer lasting impact on policy, than the environmental impact itself.

As a result of this accident over 220,000 gallons of crude are spilling out every day. Over 3500 other platforms are pumping out similar amounts daily, and have been for years with no detrimental environmental impact. These oil platforms survived Katrina without spilling a single drop of crude oil into the gulf. They survive hurricanes, year after year, without an accident. Does a single accident in 40 years mean we should curtail, limit, or eliminate offshore drilling? I think not. We need to have an effective policy, remain diligent to mitigate the possibly of an accident, and react efficiently and effectively when an accident does occur.

Immigration Law

Ok, I admit I am somewhat of a simpleton… that is my perspective on many things are very simple. I am baffled by all the uproar about the new Arizona immigration law. Based on the uproar, you would think the state of Arizona is trying to upstage Federal Immigration law and set independent immigration policy. I have read the entire law and I do not see it. The first paragraph states:

The legislature finds that there is a compelling interest in the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona. The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona. The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.

Clearly stated is the intent to apply Federal Immigration laws, not Arizona Immigration law.


The next argument I hear about the new law is that is implores racial profiling and is racist in nature against persons of Hispanic decent. The second paragraph of the new law states:

"For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town, or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person. The person's immigration status shall be verified with the Federal Government."

The new law clearly states "that the person is an alien" not the person is Hispanic. This law applies equally to Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, European, etc. Is it a fact that the majority of Arizona's illegal immigration involves persons of Hispanic decent? The obvious answer is Yes; but the law applies equally to all persons where a reasonable suspicion exists.


Current Federal Law regarding the rights and responsibilities of all legal immigrants requires them to "Carry proof of your permanent resident status at all Times, and change your address online or provide it in writing to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) within 10 days of each time you move."
Based on this requirement, Arizona authorities are not asking immigrants to do anything new or different. If I was a legal immigrant to any country, I would not find it unreasonable for that host country to require me to carry proof of legal status at all times. Several prominent leaders have equated this new law to Nazi Germany requiring Jews to carry identification papers at all times. There is one big difference here. Those Jews were German citizens, not immigrants. The correlation is misguided and faulty!


If the Federal Government, under Republicans or Democrats, would enforce existing immigration laws and protect the borders and the citizenry as required in the Constitution, Arizona would not have been compelled to spend precious time and resources on this bill! Following Arizona's lead 5 other states are considering passing similar legislation in their own states.