Playing Offense Without Offense?

"Big Bad Biden." That is what Frank Bruni is calling Biden after the Vice Presidential debate on October 10th. Bruni talks about Biden's attitude towards Congressman Ryan at the debate. He says, "this was listening as an aerobic exercise, muscle-taxing and calorie burning, and the message that he conveyed with it was clear: This widow-peaked pipsqueak to my side has a lot of nerve, a lot to learn and no place at the same table where I'm sitting."
Ouch. With Biden's incessant laughter and mockful smiles, it was clear he had no respect for Ryan. Bruni's article conveys his view that Biden went a little overboard with his act - "I'm not sure Biden did nearly as well."
I agree with Bruni's opinion in this article. Biden was bound and determined to not be "accused of underreacting." Obama had left many Democrats depressed after the first debate, and it was Biden's responsibility to "revivify them." But Bruni asks, "could Biden find the level of aggression he clearly wanted without tiping into a degree of obnoxiousness that would do him and Obama no good at all?"
Biden made a point to hit on all the sore subjects Obama hadn't - Romney's tax return, the 47 percent comment, challenging Romney's claims. He even reprimanded the moderator at one point.
This being said, "on substance, Biden scored many points with enormous effectiveness." On this point, however, I disagree with and ask, what effectiveness is Biden achieving? Bruni's examples of Biden's "substance" all consist of attacking Romney and Ryan's claims, or blaming problems on Bush, rather than stating Obama's clear plans for the future, which is one thing Obama and Biden have yet to share with us.  The point for these debates is for the debators to clearly state their opinions on issues, their plans to fix problems, etc. Bruni writes, "the abortion passage of the debate was one of those rare and refreshing instances when neither candidate could or did try to straddle a fence. The Democratic ticket stood on one side, the Republican on the other. Voters could see which was where and factor it into their decisions." That is what a debate is for, to give voters clear lines on where each side stands.
Throughout the debate Biden continued to "play the put-upon adult, a role he took to such heights that it attained an air of unintended buffoonery." And "in the end it was a bit much."

Are Unemployment Rates in America Really Down?

On October 5, 2012 the government released the current official unemployment rate to be 7.8% - a .3% decrease in past month. While Obama is using this to his advantage, Fox News journalist John Lott, in his article “What the 7.8 percent jobless number really means,” argues that this is not an accurate representation of the current unemployment rate in America.

            Lott refers to the decrease – “That may seem like great news. However, a more serious analysis of the job market numbers indicates continued gloom.” He then goes on to explain how this increase in jobs measures part-time workers as employed. People all over the country with families are being forced into part-time jobs because that is their last resort. Some people are even finding themselves forced from their full-time jobs to part-time within their own companies, who can’t afford to keep them on full-time. “People who are classified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as ‘part time for economic reasons’ soared from about 8 million to 8.6 million, a 581,000 increase,” reports Lott. Meanwhile, the full-time employment rate has dropped by 218,000. Can we really be excited about this .3% decrease, after knowing the truth about those numbers? Is a decrease in full-time employment by 218,000 really on the road to recovery from these unemployment rates in this country? “After all, businesses shifting workers from full-time to part-time in large numbers is not signaling a general economic upswing.”

            It is important for us to do research on numbers that we are given from the government. While it’s true that the “unemployment” rate has dropped by .3%, we have to realize what those numbers are measuring. It is good to stay well-informed and not to go with the flow when it comes to misleading statistics.