Tucker Case

A source for my complete quote above

Iriemon

I agree that command of relevant, important facts is an important criteria.

Talking about addressing the terrorism threat and not knowing the difference between shia and sunni as it relates to Al Queda; or not knowing the Bush doctrine, are examples of relevant, important facts to the subject being discussed.

What is so important in a discussion as to the appropriate response by the government in a financial crisis whether FDR spoke on radio or TV?

Tucker Case

Well, first of all, his point was not about the appropriate response by the government in a financial crisis, per se. It was about instilling confidence in the people that their leaders know what they are doing when they take action regarding certain major issues, such as a financial crisis. Huge difference.

In another context, the comment on it's own would not be stupid. It would simply be a mistatement. But in context it is stupid, extremely stupid because it directly contradicts the message of demonstrating that he knows what he is talking about


So let me ask you: Does the fact that the example given by Biden was pretty much made up on the fly and has no factual accuracy whatsoever demonstrate to you that Biden knows what he is talking about with Roosevelt's response to the market crash?

I say "no". Therefore the comment was amazingly stupid.


To put it more succinctly, if Biden had said, "A leader has a duty not to hide the truth or sugar coat things. They need to address the issues head on. When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.'" Then I wouldn't have a problem. I would leave it as silly mistatement, but it would be understandable and I wouldn;t think it borderline retarded.

But in the context of his specific comment, there is no excuse for any factual errors. Because his main point was about instilling confidence in the people that the leader knows what he is talkign about.

Biden's factual errors are extremely relevant in this context preciseley because they instill confidence in the fact that he doesn't know what he is talking about.




P.S. Comparing him to Obama, McCain, Palin, or Bush as a defense is pointless because I attack them all equally when they do/say something stupid. And I will defend all of them if what they said is simply a mistatement with no real import. I apply my reasoning equally and without partisanship.

GottaHurt

Agreed.

I disagree, to know all the intracacies of middle east politics and all the tribal factions, one would prcatically have to spend a lifetime there to have a good grasp. That's why you have advisors. To confuse the two in a soundbite is human.

The Bush Doctrine has multiple meanings depending on who you talk to and what time of day it is.

The financial crisis that we are currently facing, is not going to be solved by a politician. There's posturing on both sides to act as if they know what they're talking about, but really they don't. They knew how to get us in the mess, but please, let an outside source come up with a plan to fix it.

Biden with his FDR soundbite showed us once again, that he speaks without even thinking. One would think, that someone his age, and in the Senate for 36 years, would have a basic knowledge of politics in America, in the last 100 years.

__________________
Pain can be such a beautiful thing

Iriemon

So not knowing the difference between shia and sunni isn't important to you in a candidate, but knowing whether FDR spoke on TV or not is.

I can see why you support McCain.

GottaHurt

For you to pretend to know all the intracacies of the different tribal factions in the middle east is silly, but you can continue your charade.

For Biden not to know that FDR wasn't the President in 1929, or that people didn't have TV's, speaks volumes. This is a guy who was picked for his so called "foreign policy" expertise, and he doesn't even know American history from his parents generation.

__________________
Pain can be such a beautiful thing

Iriemon

Well, I gotta agree that right after saying its important to be accurate is a dumb time to mistate a fact, as irrelevant to the issue as it may be.

In the video and internet age, every flub or misstatement gets captured. Everyone does it. If you are speaking honestly and frankly, you occassional make misstatements. Everyone does. If we use the simple criteria of making a misstatement as a determinant, every candidate is disqualified. If that is the litmus test, then what candidates should do is not give interviews and press conferences were unprepared responses are called for, but limit statements to prepared text and shun appearances were unprepared responses are called for. This is the tactic that the McCain campaign has been following recently, espcially with Palin who, to my knowledge, has only given one interview and avoids press conferences.

Is that what we want from our candidates?

Now, I agree that misstatements of fact can be a factor in evaluating a candidate. But not all misstatements are of equal importance, in my view. Here are some test I apply in evaluating them:

o Is the misstatement relevant to the point being made? This is important because it is more likely to be a mistake if it is not germane to the subject. If Biden were arguing that effective use of the media was important, then misstating that FDR used television would be relevant. Biden's point was that in a situation like the country faces now, we should focus on what happened and how to fix it instead of focusing on whose fault it is. Whether FDR spoke on TV or radio is completely irrelevant to the point.

o Is the misstatement one which shows a lack of knowledge relevant to facts that are important to the knowledge a president needs.

o Is the misstatement made in an off the cuff comment or in a prepared text or advertisement. A factual misstatement in an ad or prepared text is more likely to be an intentional misstatement vs. a mistake.

o Is the same mistatement made repeatedly. A mistatement that is repeated shows either intent or inability to learn.

o Is the misstatement made to embellish or exagerrate for personal benefit. If so, it shows more likelihood that candidate is intentionally stretching the truth.

Whether FDR spoke on TV or radio is completely irrelevant tothe point Biden was making. My guess is if he reflected on it Biden would have realized that FDR's fireside chats were on radio, but I don't know that for sure. Whether FDR spoke on radio or TV is not a fact that is particularly crucial knowledge for a president to have, IMO. He didn't make the misstatement to embellish or exagerate for personal benefit. It was an off the cuff remark.

All in all pretty minor in the scheme of things, IMO.

Iriemon

Repetitive. I stand by my point.

Tucker Case

What follows is basically the same method as what I use becaus eI agree, in the day of constant coverage, flubs are guaranteed to happen.

This is where Biden's comment fails in my eyes. His point was about a leader communicating his ability to the public to instill confiddence. That is why Biden's comments fail on this point becuase it doesn't instill confidence.

True, this particular knowledge would not assist Biden in performing his presidential duties. That is why in my most recent post I said I would have dismissed it in a different context.

I concur. This was nothing more than an error adn if not for the context, I would immediately dismiss it as irrelevant.


Like Bush with Nuke-you-lar. It drives me insane.

This relates to the distortions in advertisements. It relates to being a lie or a mistatement

The only thing I disagree with is that it was irrelevant to the point Biden was making. He was talking about a leader explaining things to the public to instill confidence in their leader's ability. Getting a simle fact wrong in the process undermines the point.


Now does this make him unqualified for president/Vice President? No. Worse things could have happened.

Was it stupid? Of course, I wouldn't need to see it was Biden who made the comments to come to the conclusion that they are stupid.

And to be fair, at least I made sure to go back and watch the video to see how they related to the context before I decided on whether or not it was all that stupid.

talloulou

I think there are misstatements and then there are folks who get caught on total b.s. Biden was completely in bull**** mode and had no qualms about just flat out making **** up.

That's not exactly the same as a misstatement.