Does God Exist, or Did God Exist?

I am a fan of debates on the topic, “Does God Exist”. I’ve listened to many debates by atheists and agnostics against theists of different sorts. Many theists were trained “apologists” who learned arguments and techniques in the craft of making the invisible seem plausible. The apologists’ tactic I find most annoying are the various “philosophical arguments”. These syllogisms, some of which are literally thousands of years old, attempt to show the necessity for a god we cannot otherwise detect purely through rational argument.

Philosophical arguments include the Cosmological (1), Teleological (argument from design) (2) and Fine Tuning (3) arguments, among others. These assert the existence of a God of the First Cause, also known as a Creator God or the Deistic God. Christians and Muslims argue these points with gravity and seriousness even while they fully realize that the existence of a deistic god lends no support whatsoever for the god of their religion.

Counter arguments from the atheist or agnostic side attempt to refute the validity or soundness of the syllogism. For example, faced with the cosmological argument one might point out that the creation of a universe is of a different class than the creation of objects within the universe as a way of undermining the validity of the premises. While this attack on the argument valid, to the theist mind it falls flat. The premises and conclusion are, to them, intuitively true and beyond question, and the 2500 years this syllogism has been around provides them with certainty of its soundness. Attempts to turn an apologist against their beloved philosophy will be futile.

To be clear, the cosmological argument does not conclude anything about the cause of the universe. It simply asserts that a cause existed for the universe to begin to exist. Craig and his predecessors derived a creator god — with specific attributes — through a process of deduction. It is that deduced conclusion that is vulnerable to attack.

The following is a counter argument that puts the onus back on the theist to demonstrate the existence of the god they believe in. It starts by accepting the claim of a cause, even acknowledging the cause was god, and then it provides a logically consistent argument for a godless, natural universe.

A foundational source of the Cosmological Argument is the intuitive belief that “something can’t come from nothing.” It is not possible, the argument goes, for a universe to have come into being from a state of nothingness without an external cause. In the words of William Lane Craig, the universe was caused by “an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe” who is “beginningless (sic), changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.” (4)

Note that the last attribute is “enormously powerful”, not “all powerful.” This reflects a fall-back position from the idea of an omnipotent god for whom nothing is impossible that dates back at least to Thomas Aquinas some 900 years ago. It’s a recognition that the concept “all powerful” has inherent contradictions. For example, could an all powerful god create a stone so large he cannot move it? Yes and No answers both result in an act god cannot perform, and thus a god that’s not all powerful. There are two ways out of this conundrum; assert that logical contradictions are not a problem for god, thereby exempting god from rationality, or assert a god that is able to do everything that is not impossible. The latter is expressed as a god that is “enormously” or “maximally” powerful.

Bringing this maximally powerful being back to our starting point, there is now a conflict with god creating “something from nothing”, which you will recall was claimed to be impossible. A maximally powerful god is capable only of doing that which is not impossible, and so is unable to create something from nothing. This presents us with three possibilities. 

1. It is not impossible to create something from nothing.
2. Before the universe, there was god and something else.
3. Before the universe there was only god, but god had a “not impossible” way to create the universe.

Under the first scenario, creating a universe from nothing is not impossible. However, if this is this case then god is not required. The universe could come from nothing without a creator because it’s not impossible for that to happen. Lawrence Krause has recently pointed out that the laws of physics support this claim. (5)

Under the second scenario, prior to the universe god was not alone. Something else existed from which the universe could be created. In this case there is also no need for god because the universe could have come from that “something else” without god.

This brings us to the third option, in which god is alone but with the means to create a universe. Without the ability to do the impossible, god requires a resource from which to create the universe, and he has one: himself. And so, in response to the Cosmological Argument, I assert that the event we call the initial singularity, or the Big Bang, is what happened when god ceased to exist. Think of this event as a phase change in which the immaterial “god-stuff” transformed into energy, mater, space, time and the laws of physics. This transformation created a natural universe: the godless realm of natural materials and processes that we find ourselves in today.

In a debate with a theist, arguing for a “phase-change” creator god would nullify the argument by conceding the point, while at the same time making the case for an atheist view of the universe as the more logical conclusion. The phase-change god is a better fit for the cosmological argument than is the “still-existing creator god” because the former provides an explanation of how it was possible for god to create the universe, while the latter relies upon god doing the impossible. 

To argue against the phase-change god a theist would need to do one or both of the following:

1. Demonstrate how it’s possible for a god to create a universe from nothing without resorting to an omnipotent deity.
2. Demonstrate that a god continued to exist after the singularity.

The theist will likely resort to special pleading by claiming that something cannot come from nothing except when god does it. Or they may, as the great minds in Notre Dame’s Philosophical Theology course (6) would argue, claim that god can create a rock too big for himself to lift and also lift it. That is to say, the rules of logic do not apply to god. When faced with someone willing to embrace this line of reasoning, continuing the conversation is futile. Such a mindset is indistinguishable from mental illness. Or, more charitably, is like a 6 year old child to whom the world is populated by magical faeries.

The power of the phase-change god is not limited to the cosmological argument. It speaks as well to the teleological and fine tuning arguments. Yes, the universe is fine tuned: the phase change god essentially sacrificed himself for the creation of the universe, something he would not have done for a universe incapable of creating life. A life-supporting universe in which things give the appearance of design is the only type of universe that immaterial god-stuff could create. God’s existence, therefore, need not continue past the moment of creation for fine tuning and design to be attributes of the universe.

Before concluding, let’s return to William Craig and his immaterial god. He claims that the creator god must be immaterial, spaceless and timeless because the existence of any those elements in god would of necessity place him within the universe he’s supposed to have created, which is impossible. Let’s examine those attributes. 

What do we know of that is immaterial? That is to say, what does not contain any material (matter nor energy)? Nothing. What can we point to that is spaceless? Nothing. Timeless? Again, nothing. It’s not that we know of nothing with those attributes. No. It’s that those attributes are the very definition of Nothing. A thing is a material object — an object consisting of matter. Nothing is “no thing” and thus is immaterial. It seems that for Mr. Craig, something cannot come from nothing — except for god!

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
4. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P20/is-the-cause-of-the-universe-an-uncaused-personal-creator-of-the-universe
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing
6. https://www3.nd.edu/~jspeaks/courses/2012-13/20810/handouts/2-God/assets/player/KeynoteDHTMLPlayer.html#118

538 reasons Obama's victory was not a surprise

As predicted by Nate Sliver and his 538 blog, the President was re-elected by a comfortable margin in the Electoral College. Obama's 2.2% margin over Romney in the popular vote was sufficient for at least 303 EC votes, and probably 332, because his campaign's strategy focused on that metric.

I'm a long-term, diehard 538 blog fan, so I pretty much knew how things would turn yesterday. But I also knew there was uncertainty in the validity of polling methodology, and therefore was not terribly confident or comfortable until the reporting precincts in Ohio creeped upwards of 70%. In retrospect, I should have been assured in the outcome.

Mr. Silver's model was nearly perfect, calling all 50 states and missing the popular vote by fractions of a percent. It's interesting to think about how the success of Nate's poll aggregation, statistical model approach will impact future elections. Surely it will result in more personal fame and fortune for Nate Silver, but what will it mean for the media's reporting on future elections and, indeed, voter behavior?

Will TV's so-called news journalists get away with claiming an election is a "razor tight" toss-up when evidence shows a clear lead for one candidate? Will partisan pundits be able to claim their candidate is leading by cherry-picking polls that favor them, or will program hosts point out the invalidity of that approach?

How will it affect voters' behavior when they are able to "see into the future" by peeking at a website or mobile app? Will the leading candidate's followers become complacent, or energized? Will the underdog's troops be dispirited, or will they rise to the challenge? Does a proven forecasting model alter the ability to forecast?

To the latter questions, I expect there will be no measurable change in voter behavior. Aggregated polls, processed intelligently, will be able to accurately predict most future elections as they did this time. Unless contests are exceptionally close, suspense will not be part of our election experience.

To the former questions, I'm uncertain how different media coverage will be. I do anticipate a plethora of "polls-of-polls" to be up and running by the next midterm election. There is only one Nate Silver, so all but the highest bidding cable or broadcast station will be in need of their own polling model guru. (But since Nate is the only one who's proven himself, most will tweak their models to match his results.) Most stations will move toward a stance of predicting a winner, versus their current tendency to label races as "too close to call".

In the old paradigm, it was in everyone's interest for races to be suspenseful. TV programs need drama to build and hold their audience. Winning politicians want to keep their followers engaged and energized. Losers don't want their voters to be dispirited and disengaged. So a "razor-tight" race is a win-win-win.

What will it be like when the question is not, "who will win Ohio", but, "at what point in the ballot counting will the expected victory be verified"?

Congratulations to Nate Sliver. Last night, you changed election forecasting – and reporting – forever.

Libya-gate: All smoke, no fire

There seems to be a lot of hair-on-fire concern in certain circles about the President denying Navy Seals (or Marines, or Global Response Staff, or Oliver North) from being allowed to enter the battle at our Libyan embassy. POTUS is guilty of treason, incompetence, neglect or something worse, they say. Nobody knows just what happened, but they are certain Obama is to blame for it.

I certainly don't know what happened at the embassy. It sure seems as though security was inadequate. That seems obvious, actually, except that I also don't know what is customary when it comes to securing an embassy against the possibility of mortar attacks. Was the Libyan embassy woefully unprepared, or was the situation normal and reasonable relative to other embassies and standard procedure? I don't know. We should find out, though.

The entire event – before, during and after – must be and certainly will be investigated. Whoever is at fault should be held to account, from POTUS on down. (Of course, we all know how government officials are punished for such failings. Not so much. But that's a different story.)

It's possible that Obama is culpable for neglect and malfeasance. He may have known security was too light, and when the attack was underway perhaps he chose not to react as strongly as the situation justified. It's further possible that in the aftermath of the disaster, and with full knowledge of his failings, he attempted to deny, divert and otherwise deflect the fallout prior to the election.

If he is found responsible for providing inadequate security he should pay a heavy political price. If he made bad calls during the incident, his judgment should be questioned. If he's guilty of attempting to limit the damage afterward to avoid fallout during election season, then, well, duh. What politician wouldn't have done that?

My sense is that security may have been inadequate for the known threats, but also that the extreme level of the actual threat was unknown. I think many people in government, from the CIA up to POTUS, believed the infamous YouTube video was in fact a catalyzing incident. I suspect a 9-11 terrorist attack was also suspected initially, but unproven.

I don't think that it matters whether it was called an act of terror or not – even if the reason for not using the "T" word was to avoid political damage in the heat of an election. Really, besides the Obama-Romney contest, what impact would applying the terror label have had?

This criticism, I believe, is driven by a sense of lost opportunity rather than actual outrage. Republicans dearly want a bona fide terrorist attack to hang around Obama's neck. After nearly four years without one they finally think they have it, but the prize is being denied them. (Poor Dick Cheney! He and his daughter (the straight one) spent 2009 popping up on the teevee to tell us we were unsafe with Obama at the helm and they've got nothing to show for it.)

In reality, there is as much reason to delay using the terror label as there is for being quick to do so. Events of this type always take time to understand and dissect. Had it been labeled al Qaeda immediately, then proved not to be, that would have also been bad.

Many people feel outrage because of the accusations of what Obama did or didn't do. I don't think these folks realize the total lack of evidence for, and highly suspect nature of those who make, these claims.

The accusations that marines were not allowed to carry live ammo, etc., have been categorically denied by everyone in a position to know. The charge that Seals were told to stand down seems to only exist on a Facebook image – Fox news, in their "exclusive report" (based on unnamed sources) doesn't even make that claim.

Did Facebook really ban the user who first posted that image, as claimed?
I don't know, but I do know others who posted it without being punished.

By the way, the URL on that image is registered to "Political Media Inc" and redirects to a contributions page for specialoperationsspeaks.com – an organization whose mission statement is to remove Obama from office. Facts and outrage or lies and opportunism?

The only other source on this topic that I can find is the father of a Navy Seal who died at the embassy. This father is expressing his grief by going on Glenn Beck's show to make bizarre accusations about Obama, Biden and Clinton. Apparently the father could tell that none of these officials really felt grief about the incident in their hearts. Mrs. Clinton promised him they would arrest and prosecute the film maker. Uh huh. Sure she did. Forgive me if I'm not moved to outrage by that freak show.


The question of security at the embassy is a meaningful one. Finding the truth will not bring anyone back to life, and it will not result in criminal punishment for any bureaucrats or elected officials. But the answers should be found and made public. (It should not be used to tie up Obama in impeachment hearings throughout his second term.)

The other accusations have no supporting evidence. The one about Obama denying the Navy Seal's request doesn't pass the smell test. Obama has proven himself to be pretty aggressive and willing to take risks when it comes to deploying the Seals. But regardless of that, do Navy Seals really call the President to request a mission? I think it works the other way around.

So let's all calm down on this one. Yes, Fox will continue to talk about it right up until next Tuesday (and probably beyond), but there are no smoking guns here. Let's turn our attention back to Fast and Furious, ok?

Lies and Distortions: Gas Prices part 2

Yesterday I began a look into the popular "Gas went from $1.84 to $3.85 under Obama" meme by pointing out that sub-two dollar gas price existed only for the last three months of Bush's reign, and only because of the financial meltdown.

Today, I want to talk briefly about what a President can do to affect gas prices.

If you are inclined to blame the President for our current gas prices, then clearly you must blame Bush and his policies for the even greater rise during his tenure. (Of course you'd also give credit to Bush for lowering prices through his policy of Global Financial Meltdown, so I guess he gets a pass on this one.)

It is not a great insight to point out that President's have little impact on domestic gas prices. One need only look at how closely Canadian prices match US prices over time (albeit with a significant additional tax). One could argue that the Canadian market is dependent upon the US market, and while there is truth in that, it is more the case that both countries are dependent upon the global market.

Canadian prices in red, US in blue

Gas prices at the pump are derived from the price of crude oil, which is driven by global economic and political realities including supply, demand, stability, and growth. Certainly US policies on energy and foreign relations can affect the realities and attitudes which govern crude oil prices. We can increase costs by decreasing stability, and lower costs by reducing demand, for example.

But war and conservation are not what Obama's opponents look to as a cause or solution to our high fuel costs. What they promote is, "Drill, baby, drill." That is, increased domestic production is their solution to energy costs. This is quite likely the least significant opportunity the US has for lowering gas prices.

Oil is a global market. Domestic oil is no different than Middle Eastern oil when it comes to the price at our pumps. Oil from all sources is priced on the global market. The only impact our domestic oil has is to increase the global supply.

America is the third-highest oil-producing nation, supplying nearly 9% of the world’s oil. If we were to double our oil production (which we can’t) that would increase the global supply by less than 10%. A 10% increase in supply would mean a nominal reduction in crude prices, and an even smaller decrease in the price of gas.

The only way domestic production would reduce gas prices is if our oil resources were nationalized, exploited, refined and sold internally at cost. Ignoring all the domestic and international problems with this approach, we consume nearly four times as much oil as we produce. Domestic production will not insulate us from world oil prices.

Like it or not, we're dependent upon the global oil market, and we cannot produce enough oil to significantly reduce market prices.

If lower prices are the goal, lower consumption is the solution. We can't solve the supply side of the equation. We can, however, make dramatic changes on the demand side.

You can read in the news that hurricane Sandy may reduce demand and lower gas prices by shutting down the eastern seaboard for a matter of hours or days. While a severe event impacting a region of our country is one way to affect demand, a better way is to spread small changes over our entire nation.

Conservation – scoffed at by people like Dick Cheney – and alternative energy sources would have a dramatic impact on our thirst for petroleum in a relatively short timeframe. 

What Dick Cheney doesn't get, companies like WallMart do. WallMart has an aggressive stance on conservation, reducing their stores' energy consumption by up to 30%, lowering their trucking fleet's fuel consumption by 25%, and is even pushing suppliers to use sustainable farming techniques and less packaging.

Private sector efforts such as these will reduce our national consumption. The Federal Government can do much more by increasing efficiency in their buildings and fleets, and by providing incentives (and dis-incentives) to promote conservation and alternative energy.

Presidents cannot determine oil and gas prices. They can set policies (along with Congress) that move us toward efficiency, thereby reducing our demand for energy and lowering our energy costs.

It's important to note that conservation reduces energy costs regardless of the price of that energy. Consuming less means paying less, even if the unit price doesn't fall. And paying less is the bottom line goal.

Lies and Distortions: Gas Prices

This election year, as with every election year, the airwaves, cables and tubes have been filled with all manner of lies and distortions. It’s hard to know where to start, but one particularly inane nugget that has gotten under my skin is the price of gas. 

We are told that in the last four years gas has risen from below $2 per gallon to above $3.50 today, and we’re told it is due to Obama’s policies. This, of course, is dishonest at best.

It’s a lie on two fronts. First, gas prices were not low or falling, but rising steeply during the Bush years. Second, US Presidents have little direct impact on domestic fuel prices.

Ask someone when was the last time they paid less than $2.00 for a gallon of gas and they’ll probably say they don’t remember, or they’ll guess some time in the 1990s. The fact is, though, that gas sold for about $1.90 per gallon when Obama took office.

So why don’t people remember that? Because it only hit those levels in the last two months of 2008! Within months of Obama taking office the gas prices climbed back towards more "normal" levels. 

The implication and intent of those who are promoting the $2 per gallon meme is that the prices when Obama took office were normal and that Obama deserves blame for the price rise. Those are simply not true.

Prior to the tumultuous last months of Bush’s administration, prices at the pump vacillated considerably while increasing steadily over time. A chart of the Bush years shows gas prices rose steeply from 2002 to July 2008. In that time prices tripled from below $1.50 to nearly $4.50, in today’s dollars.

http://zfacts.com/gas-price-history-graph

Conspiracy theorists of the day blamed the rise to Bush’s close ties to the oil industry, while a more mainstream explanation was the Iraq war and related Middle East instability. The latter cause could clearly be seen in the record price of crude oil: $147 per barrel in July 2008.

Only when the financial crisis started to become clear, and the stock market went over a cliff, did the price of gas start to fall in September ‘08. And it fell steeply, along with the price of crude. By December 19^th, the day Bush approved a $17 billion federal bailout of General Motors, crude oil was selling at $40 per barrel.

Crude oil has rebounded over the last four years to just above 2006 levels, selling in the $100 per barrel range. Prices at the pump are around $3.50. Listening to the ads and pundits you would think current prices are unprecedented, when in fact they are much more normal than was the brief $2.00 gas of late 2008.

Those are the historical facts on prices. Under Bush, prices rose steeply and consistently. He left office with low prices, not because of his energy policies, but because of the global economic crisis. Obama inherited sub-two dollar gas – along with an unprecedented financial meltdown.

Tomorrow, is the President to blame for domestic fuel prices?

Round Three - The last and least decisive round

Obama and Romney are starting their third and final debate as I type. Mr. Obama came back from a dismal first outing to hold his own in the second go-round. My expectation tonight is that we'll see essentially a replay of last Tuesday. Obama will be aggressive and relaxed, while Romney will be steady and somewhat stiff. In the final tally, the "winner" will lead by a small margin.

Unfortunately for the President, the first debate represented his biggest opportunity to gain and hold voters, for two reasons:

First, more viewers tuned in with, if not open minds, at least impressionable minds. It was Romney's first toe-to-toe with Obama, so nobody knew how he'd stack up. Most people had paid little or no attention to the Republican debates (except for the gaff reels) and hadn't seen Romney in the debate setting. Expectations, in spite of both camp's attempts to talk down their candidate's chances, were that Obama's eloquence would allow him to sink Romney. Mr. Romney, therefore, inherently had the largest up-side coming into the first meeting.

Second, a large percentage of the population was looking for a reason to vote for Romney. They were ready to bail on Obama for reasons having to do with the economy, government policy (especially the debt), and race. The only thing that stood in the way was their discomfort with The Other Guy.

Romney's credible performance, and Obama's incredible incompetence, was a double hit. Not only did it provide a positive impression for Romney, Obama's meek and weak showing allowed people to give up on him. The results are perfectly clear in the polling since October 4th.

The second debate was a clear success for Mr. Obama, however it was not a clear defeat for Mr. Romney. Unlike the first debate when Obama supporters (poor Chris Matthews) could clearly see that the President did poorly, after the second debate partisan viewers mostly felt it was a win for their guy. Obama "won" by a modest margin in public opinion, but it was far from a blowout.

Obama's polling was in a free fall until the V.P. debate. After Mr. Biden's performance the poll numbers bounced back in Obama's direction. (I'm not saying this was a direct result of the Biden/Ryan debate, but it did coincide.) Since then the numbers have been mostly flat. They seem to be trending upward slightly after Oct. 16th, but it's been essentially flat.

So what happens from here?

The president is unlikely to see much bounce from tonight's debate, even if he scores a clear victory, simply because fewer people are tuned in and there are fewer undecided or influenceable voters left.

There are three possibilities that I see: Polls could trend modestly in Obama's favor, they can hold flat, or move slightly towards Romney. I don't foresee a significant move in either direction.

Currently, according to FiveThirtyEight blog, Mr Obama has a lead in the swing states sufficient to give him the win 70% of the time. That sounds pretty good, but given the uncertainty of polls the margin is uncomfortably slim.

At this point in time the race is quite close to a toss-up. Both sides will be in full court press mode from here on out. The focus will increasingly be on turnout as independents and undecideds become non-existant.

Post Script:

The debate is at the one hour mark as I type. Romney has been holding his own for the most part, but the President has scored some uppercuts to the jaw. "We have fewer horses too" was a great line. That's going to lead the news cycle tomorrow. Obama's response to the "apology tour" old saw put Romney against the ropes. Obama seems to be finishing strong.


As a parting shot, my crystal ball says that it's still Obama's to lose, and after his performance tonight I don't foresee him losing it. I just wish I was more confident about that, because, after all, the American people – who brought us 8 years of W Bush – are the ones who make the choice.

Way to go, Joe!

My feelings about Biden's performance are mixed, but overall I thought he did quite well. On the substance, he hit most of the points I was hoping for and he directly challenged the veracity of Ryan's statements. Win, win.

On style, though, he walked close to the edge with his amused disbelief of what came out of Ryan's mouth, interrupting too frequently and displaying an angry demeanor. Ryan, meanwhile, was mostly steady and measured, showing a glimpse of dickishness only once; when explaining the order of the seasons in Afghanistan ("Spring, summer, fall. It's warm, or it's not.").

The bottom line is that partisans from each side likely came away feeling their guy won and the other guy was terrible. Liberals were fired up by Biden's intensity and truth telling, while believing that Ryan was lying and smug. Conservatives will feel that Ryan was more of a statesman and Biden was rude and wrong on the facts.

Britt Hume felt he was looking into a funhouse mirror that reflected version of himself; a cranky old man, but with a smile.

The second bottom line (I only have two bottom lines, not three) is that VP debates have never moved the needle on presidential races, so the outcome is unlikely to significantly change the overall trend line, but hopefully it will contribute to stopping the current tailspin of the Obama campaign.

The Top 10 List:

1) Romney Lies
On the topic of sanctions for Iran Biden said, "Governor Romney says we – we should continue. I may be mistaken. He changes his mind so often, I could be wrong." Romney's many changing positions is probably a bigger weakness than his falsehoods.

2) Ryan Lies
Very early in the Debate, Biden said in response to Ryan, "With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey." On the topic of Libya, Obama/Biden are not in a strong position, but Biden pointed out that Ryan cut the security budget and Romney tried to make political hay out of an ongoing tragedy.

3) 47%
Biden mentioned the 47% quote 5 times, and also a "30% are takers" quote from Ryan that I had been unaware of. He tied this comment to Norquist's pledge and to active military. In response to Romney's recent backpedaling on that statement Biden said, "if you heard 47 percent and you think he just made a mistake, then...I got a bridge to sell you." 

4) Legitimate Rape
Biden hit this point well at the end of the debate with, "I guess he accepts Governor Romney's position now, because in the past he has argued that there was - there's rape and forcible rape. He's argued that in the case of rape or incest...it would be a crime to engage in having an abortion."

5) 716 Billion
Ryan did indeed raise this claim, and Biden swatted it back by explaining that it is a savings, not a cut, and touted the support of the AMA and AARP. Rather than state that Ryan's plan includes the same savings, he said "They want to wipe this all out."

6) Deficit
Biden did a good job early on linking the deficit and recession to the Republicans and Romney/Ryan when he said, "they talk about this Great Recession if it fell out of the sky... It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, to at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion-dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there. I voted against them."

7) Enough Time
Biden didn't use the "not enough time" quote, but he did scoff at Ryan's lack of details and refuted the assertion that filling in details later is "how you get things done." This was one of Biden's most agressive, perhaps rude, moments.

8a) Number One Priority
I did not hear Biden mention the McConnel statement about making Obama a one term president. He scoffed at the idea of Republican bipartisanship, but not in an effective way or with enough emphasis.

8b) Let Detroit go Bankrupt
This point was made strongly.

9) Ayn Rand
This was, not surprisingly, not mentioned.

10) We've seen this before
Reagan was mentioned, but in a positive way regarding how he worked with Tip O'Neill and Biden. Biden did challenge the math of the Romney tax plan, but didn't harken to the Reagan example to make the point. Biden mentioned about 75% of my Top Ten list, and he hit the essence of a couple more.

My third bottom line, I have to give him high marks for going after Romney/Ryan on the facts, and calling them out on their positions and statements.

It was a good debate for Mr. Biden, though again it was a performance that partisans will see very differently. Unlike Obama's performance, which even most liberals could acknowledge was very poor, Ryan did a credible enough job that those predisposed to liking him would count Ryan the winner. Unlike Romney, Biden's demeanor veered off the statesman course, which may have turned off some in the middle who would prefer that we all just get along.

 I score this as a strong win for Obama/Biden. It has righted the ship, so that when Obama takes the helm again on Tuesday he has the opportunity to get back on course.