[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

Did you think that Biden was expressing support or at least neutrality when he said that he “understands” why China has a one child policy and wasn’t going to second guess it?

Nay!  Nay, silly man!  He meant that he considered it a horrible practice and was like totally tell them that, or so the White House would have you believe.  Via Guy Benson, we have the official White House position by Kendra Barkoff:

The Obama Administration strongly opposes all aspects of China’s coercive birth limitation policies, including forced abortion and sterilization.  The Vice President believes such practices are repugnant.  He also pointed out, in China, that the policy is, as a practical matter, unsustainable.  He was arguing against the One Child Policy to a Chinese audience.

Now, earlier today I suggested that the explanation might be that Biden is a moron.  I take this as tacit endorsement of that theory by the White House.  Which raises the question: if Joe Biden is such a bumblefrak with the language that he says one thing and his plain words mean literally the opposite from what he meant…  why is he allowed anywhere near a delicate diplomatic situation?  Why not give him tinker toys and let him play in the corner instead?  How about a Nintendo 3DS? Something to keep him occupied…

And that is assuming this wasn’t really a Kinsley gaffe.

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

Wrong again!

The link is to Hot Air, where the latest update from Allahpundit says there is no damage to the Washington Monument, which was earlier rumored to be tilting. I’m not monitoring this closely but perhaps commenters will keep us up to date on the latest.

[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.  Or by Twitter @AaronWorthing.]

And of course, that “moron” option is extremely viable when we are talking about Vice President Joe Biden.

First, let’s establish that he is pro-choice:

I’ve stuck to my middle-of-the-road position on abortion for more than 30 years. I still vote against partial birth abortion and federal funding, and I’d like to make it easier for scared young mothers to choose not to have an abortion, but I will also vote against a constitutional amendment that strips a woman of her right to make her own choice.

That is from his book Promises to Keep, on page 105. The Amazon link allows you to search inside the book to verify that.

Now, here is what he said about China’s one-child policy.  He was in China discussing their lack of a “safety net”

But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China.  You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people.  Not sustainable.

No, Joe, that is not a pro-choice stand.  That is a pro-abortion stand.  Either that or you are a moron.

Hat tips to Hot Air (for the China quote) and to On the Issues (for the book passage).

[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]

[Posted by Karl]

Allahpundit is among those with heart-ache over Rep. Paul Ryan’s decision to stay out of the GOP presidential primary campaign, even while acknowledging Ryan would have been a long longshot for the nomination.  But Allahpundit’s analysis of a prospective Ryan run goes a long way to explain the wisdom of Ryan’s decision:

There are two great risks to a Ryan candidacy. One: He’ll succeed in turning the focus of the primaries from economic growth to entitlement reform. We can argue about whether that’s a good thing — although Americans care much more about the former than the latter, it may be that this conversation simply can’t wait another moment — but if the party ends up with Ryan’s agenda, it had sure better have Ryan as its nominee too. The worst outcome would be if he shifts the discussion but then ends up losing the nomination, leaving the nominee stuck having to champion Ryan’s goals albeit less effectively than Ryan himself would/could do. And two: A run risks destroying Ryan’s brand. If he jumps in and gets Pawlenty’d in Iowa and New Hampshire, he goes back to D.C. knowing that his reform agenda was rejected even by ardent Republican voters. That would cripple him on the Hill; even if the GOP cleaned up on election day, a new Republican Congress would suddenly be reluctant to pass his budget. He’s taking a big risk on a very long longshot and it could end up setting back not just his political career but his cause.

Beyond that, where’s he getting the money to compete with Bachmann in Iowa, Romney in New Hampshire, and Perry in South Carolina?

As it turns out, these concerns were exactly those of Ryan and his inner circle. (more…)