Hakeem Jeffries (Photo: Facebook)

Months into his first term, his short time in Washington D.C. has Congressman Hakeem Jeffries convinced the Tea Party is out of control.

"Every day I'm in Washington D.C., I'm focused on two things: battling the Tea Party and standing up for President Obama," Mr. Jeffries, a Democrat, said last night at a Brooklyn fundraiser for his successor, Assemblyman Walter Mosley. "The Tea Party folks, they're off the chain. From my perspective, the right thing to do for the country is to make sure we invest in our economy and we stand up for programs like Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid--and stand up for the most vulnerable people among us."

Mr. Jeffries added that he would take the fight to the whole "crew" of Republican leadership, drawing wild applause from his supporters at the Crown Heights restaurant.

"As opposed to what the other side wants to do, which is to basically balance the budget on the backs of children and seniors, working families and the middle class," he said. "And despite what John Boehner says, despite Paul Ryan, despite that whole crew, we're not going to let it happen."

Since replacing the retired Edolphus Towns, Mr. Jeffries has been appointed to the Budget Committee and Judiciary Committee. Republican Congressman Paul Ryan, one of the GOP's rising stars, chairs the Budget Committee and has aggressively pushed for spending cuts as a way to trigger economic growth.

Mr. Jeffries, needless to say, is no fan of that approach.

Hakeem Jeffries (Photo: Facebook)

Now that he's arrived on Capitol Hill, freshman Congressman Hakeem Jeffries has been appointed to the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee is chaired by Paul Ryan and, in an email to supporters announcing the appointment, his campaign sounded rather excited about the possibility for Mr. Jeffries to directly tangle with the former Republican vice presidential candidate.

"I have some important news. Congressman Jeffries was recently appointed to the powerful Budget Committee. This committee will again be chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan, and therefore be the battleground in the fight to preserve social security, Medicare and Medicaid," the email said. "Congressman Jeffries will fight hard to save these programs."

Mr. Jeffries has also been appointed to the Judiciary Committee. In the email to supporters, his campaign said they expect he will be able to "address pressing issues such as gun violence prevention and comprehensive immigration reform" as part of the Judiciary Committee.

Paul Ryan on the campaign trail in Ohio last weekend. (Photo: Getty)

Based on a Politicker investigation, Wisconsin Democratic Party Chairman Mike Tate is asking the Federal Election Commission to open an investigation into Paul Ryan's congressional campaign committee. Last Thursday, we published a report detailing how Paul Ryan, who is simultaneously running for re-election in Wisconsin’s First Congressional District and on the GOP presidential ticket with Mitt Romney, may have improperly used funds from his congressional campaign for about $60,000 in expenses at the Republican National Convention. Mr. Tate's letter to the FEC said this story shows Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign committee "co-mingled expenditures between the Committee and the Romney Committee" in violation of federal regulations. Politicker has obtained a copy of Mr. Tate's letter, which he is sending this week.

"As disclosed in an article published on October 25, 2012 in Politicker.com, a political website operated by The New York Observer, the Committee reported '$59,603.41 that was specifically identified as [Republican National] convention-related expenses between July 26 and October 17.' A copy of the article is attached to this letter," Mr. Tate wrote. "A spokesperson for the Committee is quoted as stating that the bulk of such expenses were for the purchase of twenty hotel rooms for use at the Republican National Convention, although the Committee had only five staff members."

In his letter to the FEC Mr. Tate said the explanation Mr. Ryan's campaign manager, Kevin Seifert, gave us for the expenses "strains credulity."

"It strains credulity to believe that the twenty rooms paid for by the Committee at the Republican National Convention were expended solely to promote the re-election of Mr. Ryan to the House of Representatives," wrote Mr. Tate. "Instead, these were expenses clearly meant to promote Mr. Ryan’s candidacy for Vice President, and which, under federal law, should have been paid for by the Romney Committee."

Mr. Tate also noted, as we did in our story, that Mr. Seifert's explanations for the spending "were contradicted" by some of the information in the campaign's disclosure reports. Specifically, Mr. Seifert claimed some of the more than 20 rooms purchased by Ryan For Congress at the RNC were purchased at a hotel where the Wisconsin delegation was staying, while the address listed with the payment for those rooms in the campaign's disclosure report was an entirely different hotel.

We reached out to the Romney campaign and Mr. Seifert to see if they had any response to Mr. Tate's letter. As of this writing, they have yet to respond. We also contacted the campaign of Rob Zerban, Mr. Ryan's Democratic opponent in his House race. T.J. Helmstetter, a spokesman for Mr. Zerban said they "expect the FEC to look at the case on its merits and act swiftly."

"I think your story uncovered important information for the voters and, frankly, for the FEC. From what we can see, it appears the Ryan campaign has been playing fast and loose with its campaign funds. Almost as fast and loose as the numbers in the Paul Ryan budget, which doesn't add up either," Mr. Helmstetter said. "We expect the FEC to look at the case on its merits and act swiftly. Paul Ryan needs to play by the same rules as every other candidate."

Mr. Helmstetter added that the campaign's "shifting answers" posed to the questions we raised about Mr. Ryan's spending are part of a "disturbing pattern of dishonesty" on the part of the candidate.

"Given his campaign's shifting answers to the questions posed on this RNC funding, it looks like we're getting more of this same disturbing pattern of dishonesty that we've seen from Ryan throughout the entire campaign," said Mr. Helmstetter.

Read a copy of Mr. Tate's letter, which was first reported in the print edition of this morning's New York Observer, below.

"October 30, 2012
Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC  20463
Re:   Complaint against Ryan for Congress,

FEC No. C00330894

TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL:

Pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g(a) and 11 C.F.R. 111.4, I am writing to request that the  Federal Election Commission  open a Matter Under Review against Ryan for Congress, FEC No. C00330894, (the “Committee”) the principal campaign committee of Congressman Paul D. Ryan, FEC No.  H8WI01024, and find that the Committee has violated the Federal Election Campaign Act, and its related regulations, for the reasons set forth below.

In addition to being the Republican candidate for election to the U.S. House of Representatives for the 8th Congressional District of Wisconsin, Mr. Ryan is also the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States FEC No. P80003353, and whose principal campaign committee (along with that of Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney) is Romney for President Inc., FEC No. C00431171 (the “Romney Committee”).

Federal law is clear that  “[i]f an individual is a candidate for more than one Federal office, … he or she must designate separate principal campaign committees and establish completely separate campaign organizations.”  11 C.F.R. 110.8(d)(1).  Furthermore, “[n]o funds, goods, or services, including loans and loan guarantees, may be transferred between or used by the separate campaigns, except as provided in 11 CFR 110.3(c)(5)”. 11 C.F.R. 110.8(d)(2). On information and belief Mr. Ryan has co-mingled expenditures between the Committee and the Romney Committee, in violation of such regulations.

As disclosed in an article published on October 25, 2012 in Politicker.com, a political website operated by The New York Observer, the Committee reported “$59,603.41 that was specifically identified as [Republican National] convention-related expenses between July 26 and October 17”.   A  copy of the article is attached to this letter.   The article may also be found at http://politicker.com/2012/10/paul-ryan-campaign-money/.  A spokesperson for the Committee is quoted as stating that the bulk of such expenses were for the purchase of twenty hotel rooms for use at the Republican National Convention, although the Committee had only five staff members.

As stated in the FEC’s publication “FEC Rules for National Convention Delegates” (“Rules”),  “candidates may also use campaign funds to pay the travel and subsistence expenses of other individuals (e.g., spouse, child, Congressional staff person) in connection with the convention if the individual will be engaging in significant campaign-related or officeholder-related activity on the candidate’s behalf during the convention.  11 C.F.R. 113.1(g); AOs 1996-20, 1996-19 and 1995-47.”  Rules, p. 2.

It strains credulity to believe that the twenty rooms paid for by the Committee at the Republican National Convention were expended solely to promote the re-election of Mr. Ryan to the House of Representatives.  Instead, these were expenses clearly meant to promote Mr. Ryan’s candidacy for Vice President, and which, under federal law, should have been paid for by the Romney Committee.   Further, as shown in the Politicker article, the campaign spokesperson’s further efforts to explain away the expenditures were contradicted by the Committee’s reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Based on my information and belief, the Politicker article, along with the campaign reports cited within it, are sufficient for the Office of General Counsel to establish a Matter Under Review and for the Federal Election Commission to determine that a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act has occurred.
Respectfully Submitted,

Michael Tate, Chairman
The Democratic Party of Wisconsin
110 King Street, Suite 203
Madison, WI  53703"

Paul Ryan campaigning in Virginia earlier this month. (Photo: Getty)

A Politicker examination of federal campaign finance disclosure reports submitted by Paul Ryan’s congressional campaign has uncovered indications Mr. Ryan may have improperly used funds raised for his re-election effort in Wisconsin for presidential campaign activities at the Republican National Convention in August. Mr. Ryan is simultaneously running for re-election in Wisconsin's First Congressional District and on the GOP presidential ticket with Mitt Romney. At the RNC in Tampa, Mr. Ryan's House campaign spent about $60,000. However, these convention expenses seem to go far beyond the scope of the activities and staff he had at the RNC for his bid to reclaim his House seat.

One prominent election law expert told us this is a "highly problematic" potential violation of Federal Election Commission regulations regarding candidates running for multiple federal offices. A spokesperson for Mr. Ryan's opponent in Wisconsin’s First Congressional District described it as a possibly "troubling" element of "Paul Ryan's overarching pattern of dishonesty in this race." When we reached out to Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign manager, we received a shifting series of explanations including at least one statement that was clearly untrue.

According to the quarterly campaign finance disclosure filed in October, Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign spent $59,603.41 that was specifically identified as convention-related expenses between July 26 and October 17. FEC regulations require candidates who, like Mr. Ryan, are actively running for multiple federal offices to "designate separate principal campaign committees and establish completely separate campaign organizations." These separate committees are prohibited from transferring "funds, goods, or services, including loans and loan guarantees" between themselves. Expenditures made by a vice presidential candidate while participating in national campaign activity in the course of a campaign are considered "expenditures made by or on behalf" of the presidential campaign they are associated with.

The FEC has issued advisory opinions explaining what expenses are allowed for candidates attending their parties’ conventions. In one of these, the commission notes that convention expenses cannot include "any use of funds in a campaign account of a present or former candidate to fulfill a commitment, obligation or expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate's campaign or duties as a Federal officeholder." In the same advisory opinion, the commission said "regulations covering delegate activity indicate that such costs would be for the purpose of influencing a Federal election and, hence, not a personal use." In other words, in Mr. Ryan's case, this means he would be permitted to use his campaign account only to fund expenses related to him and his campaign staff attending and holding events explicitly associated with his re-election effort, not for general convention expenses which would be considered part of the effort to boost his campaign with Mr. Romney. If a committee pays for someone to attend the convention and they participate in activities related to multiple campaigns, their expenses must be paid incrementally by the separate committees involved. Furthermore, convention guests whose expenses are paid for by one of their campaign committees must be "integral" to their campaign efforts.

However, though Mr. Ryan spent about $60,000 at the convention, his campaign manager, Kevin Seifert, told us his congressional campaign staff includes only five people and the bulk of his RNC expenses came from the purchase of over 20 hotel rooms.

Yesterday, Politicker spoke on the phone with Mr. Seifert about the campaign's activities at the RNC.

"I think, pretty much, there was only one Ryan for Congress affiliated event, which was we had a hospitality suite at the convention," said Mr. Seifert. "Beyond that, there was a Wisconsin beer and brats event. Beyond those two, nothing else comes to mind in terms of Ryan for Congress specifically."

The vast majority of Mr. Ryan's convention spending does not seem to be related to these events. Mr. Ryan's largest RNC expense was a $34,854.35 payment for "hotel rooms" at the Marriott Tampa Waterside, which was the Romney campaign's base at the convention. Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign also paid $4,183.20 for "hotel rooms" for the convention at a Hyatt hotel. Mr. Seifert told us the hospitality suite was located "in the convention hall" and the "beer and brats" event was held in a "staging area" near the convention.

"It was at the—I can't remember what they called it, it was a—basically the main staging area for these events," Mr. Seifert said, adding, "The pavilion, yeah, with the tents."

Strangely, there do not seem to be costs from either the hospitality suite or the "beer and brats" event listed in Mr. Ryan's campaign finance disclosures. During our phone conversation yesterday, we asked Mr. Seifert if he could tell us where the expenses for these two events appeared in the disclosure reports. He said he wasn't sure "off the top of my head" but promised to "look into it if you'd like." He also assured us Mr. Ryan’s congressional campaign was operating in accordance with FEC regulations and wasn’t paying for activities associated with the presidential ticket.

“There are two separate campaigns and, as such, all the finances, all the operations are separately done,” said Mr. Seifert.

Since that initial conversation, as of this writing, Mr. Seifert hasn't responded to multiple requests for information on these events and other questions about Mr. Ryan's other RNC expenses.

Mr. Seifert did follow up on our phone call with an email sent yesterday about the charges with the Marriott hotel. Though he initially told us there are only five staffers on Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign, Mr. Seifert said the campaign paid for twenty rooms at the Marriott.

"Ryan for Congress had twenty rooms at the Marriott so staff could have an opportunity to hear Congressman Ryan's keynote address," he said. "The hotel required a five night minimum stay during the convention period and those charges account for the bulk of the spending you referenced."

When we responded asking why so many rooms were purchased, Mr. Seifert sent another email claiming the additional rooms were for "other staff members." He also provided initial information about the campaign's spending at the Hyatt.

"As I said when we spoke, the 5 members of the Ryan for Congress staff were there for the full convention. Other staff members of Congressman Ryan's attended parts of the convention--most notably Congressman Ryan's keynote address," Mr. Seifert wrote. "Ryan for Congress reserved 20 rooms at the Marriott and had a couple rooms at the Hyatt, where the Wisconsin Delegation was staying."

We asked Mr. Seifert for more specific details about who used the rooms, but he hasn't responded to that request. After reviewing his email, we also noticed that the $4,183.20 was identified in the Ryan campaign's disclosure report as having been spent at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay, while the Wisconsin delegation was staying in a different hotel operated by the same chain, the Hyatt Regency Tampa. Based on their own disclosure reports Mr. Seifert's claim Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign purchased rooms at the hotel where the Wisconsin delegation was staying is untrue. Mr. Seifert has also not responded to a request asking for an explanation of this discrepancy.

While it may be theoretically possible the as-yet-unidentified “other staff members” from Ryan’s congressional campaign did in fact use the rooms, it is doubtful so many people were integral to his re-election bid. Additionally, paying for guests or essential staffers to attend the convention simply to view Mr. Ryan's speeches, which were part of his national campaign for the vice presidency, would seem to constitute a clear violation. For example, there was no mention whatsoever of Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign in his keynote speech.

Since we began working on this story, Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign released a new financial disclosure report covering the period from October 1 through October 17. That report contained an additional expense that appears to be connected to the convention. At the start of the month, Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign paid $16,411.36 for "rooms for national convention." The payment was listed as going both to a Virginia-based consulting firm called the Townsend Group and to the Renaissance Tampa International Plaza Hotel. The Renaissance Tampa International Plaza Hotel is approximately six miles from the RNC and, based on Mr. Seifert's descriptions, would not seem to have been associated with the Ryan for Congress hospitality suite or "beer and brats" event, which were both located at the site of the RNC. Mr. Seifert has not responded to a request for information about this expense. We also reached out to the hotel and the Townsend Group, but, as of this writing, we have not received a response.

Jerry Goldfeder is an attorney with the law firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP who specializes in election and campaign finance law. We detailed the convention expenditures made by Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign to Mr. Goldfeder and asked whether he thought it seemed like a potentially improper use of campaign funds.

"It sounds as if he used congressional campaign funds for national campaign purposes and that's highly problematic," Mr. Goldfeder said.

The FEC typically investigates possible campaign finance violations only after receiving a complaint. We also asked Mr. Goldfeder whether he thought the RNC spending by Mr. Ryan's congressional campaign would be investigated by the commission.

"If they see it, they will," he said.

Perhaps the person most likely to file an FEC complaint in this instance would be Rob Zerban, Mr. Ryan's Democratic opponent in his House race. When we informed T.J. Helmstetter, a spokesman for the Zerban campaign, about our findings, he said they would wait until they had more information about the situation to file an official complaint. However, he characterized the situation as part of a "pattern of dishonesty" on Mr. Ryan's part.

"It's definitely something that is troubling to us,” he said. “It's not surprising to us given, Paul Ryan's overarching pattern of dishonesty in this race, that something like this could pop up, but we're going to wait until we have all the details before we rush to judgment or jump to file a claim."

Mr. Helmstetter also pointed out that Mr. Ryan has faced allegations that his television ads in the race, which do not all specifically mention his congressional campaign, constitute improper use of campaign funds. He said both the issue of the commercials and the RNC spending raise "very important" questions.

"I think these questions are very important and the Ryan campaign needs to answer them," said Mr. Helmstetter.

Overall, Mr. Helmstetter said Mr. Ryan seems much more focused on his national ambitions than his congressional race against Mr. Zerban, whom the vice presidential candidate has avoided debating thus far.

"Paul Ryan has been as much of an absentee candidate in this race as he's been an absentee congressman for the State of Wisconsin since ascending to the national scene," Mr. Helmstetter said. “His constituents have been paid absolutely zero attention by the Ryan campaign in this race. We believe that Ryan's failure to come back to the district to debate us is yet another signal that he has moved past Wisconsin's First District. He is solely interested in his rising national stature and Ryan no longer has interest in serving the people of Wisconsin."

We contacted the Romney campaign this evening to see if they had any comment on this story. As of this writing, we have yet to receive a response.

President Obama commenting tonight. (Photo: Getty)

President Barack Obama, whose performance in his first debate against Mitt Romney was widely panned, appears to be very pleased Vice President Joe Biden's rhetorical bout tonight went significantly more smoothly than his own.

On his way back from a campaign stop in Florida, Mr. Obama descended the stairs of Air Force One and addressed the reporters who "hollered" at him, according to a pool report tonight.

"I'm going to make a special point of saying that I thought Joe Biden was terrific tonight," he declared. "I could not be prouder of him. I thought he made a very strong case. I really think that his passion for making sure that the economy grows for the middle class came through. So, I'm very proud of him."

Mr. Obama also made a point of saying he had personally spoken with his running mate after the debate.

“Yes, I just talked to him," he said.

Presumably it was favorable commentary, as, according to the pool report, that remark was made with "a smile."

Joe Biden (Photo: Getty)

This time, both candidates drew blood. After the first presidential debate, which was widely seen as a tough loss for President Barack Obama, his running mate, Joe Biden, gave a passionate, aggressive performance. While not a total knockout, Mr. Biden's faceoff with the Republican vice presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, should go a long way towards re-setting the discussion and putting the president in a prime position to retake control of the presidential race in the final weeks of the election.

Though the debate began with extensive discussion of the Obama administration's oft-criticized response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya last month, Mr. Biden still started strong, coming at Mr. Ryan with aggressive attacks, memorable lines and a sharp attitude that left no risk he would be seen criticized for being too low energy like President Obama was in his debate against Mr. Romney.

Mr. Biden really hit his stride when the debate moved to taxes, but Mr. Ryan was no pushover. He countered many of Mr. Biden's best salvos and managed to clearly articulate the Republican ticket's economic vision and view that the Obama administration has been too weak on foreign policy. However, despite Mr. Ryan's prowess, he spent much of the evening on the defensive and Mr. Biden scored serious points when he promised a definite end to the unpopular war in Afghanistan while Mr. Ryan countered with a plan that was, at best, ambiguous.

"We are leaving. We are leaving in 2014. Period. And in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion. We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now, all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security," Mr. Biden said.

Mr. Ryan said he and Mr. Romney "don't want" U.S. troops to remain in Afghanistan "beyond 2014," but he declined to set an exact date for withdrawal. The moderator, ABC News' Martha Raddatz pressed him on this point.

"He says we're absolutely leaving in 2014," Ms. Raddatz said. "You're saying that's not an absolute, but you won't talk about what conditions would justify..."

Mr. Ryan interjected.

"Do you know why we say that?"

Before he could answer, Mr. Biden interjected, asking, "I'd like to know" in a decidedly mocking tone.

"We don't want to broadcast to our enemies 'put a date on your calendar, wait us out, and then come back,'" Mr. Ryan explained before being forced to admit by Ms. Raddatz that he and Mr. Romney "agree" with the Obama administration's stated timeline for withdrawal.

"We do agree with the timeline and the transition, but what we--what any administration will do in 2013 is assess the situation to see how best to complete this timeline. What we do not want to do..."

Mr. Ryan did not get a chance to finish his remarks, because Mr. Biden cut him off.

"We will leave in 2014," the vice president said.

"What we don't want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more--we don't want to embolden our enemies to hold and wait out for us and then take over," Mr. Ryan began again.

Yet again, Mr. Biden cut him off characterizing his comments as "a bizarre statement" and pointing out that "49 of our allies" have backed the 2014 withdrawal date.

While the discussion of their respective positions on Afghanistan was the only moment in the debate where Mr. Biden seemed to completely overwhelm Mr. Ryan, there was no question the Democrat deftly handled his rival. While this debate will almost assuredly leave partisans on both sides of the aisle cheering for their candidates, there is no doubt Mr. Biden avoided the kind of unanimously declared defeat that President Obama suffered last week.

Mr. Biden may not have completely destroyed Mr. Ryan, but he dashed cold water on the discussion of Democratic debate losses that had been denting President Obama's edge in the polls following his matchup with Mr. Romney. The Obama campaign was breaking away from the Republican ticket prior to that debate and, as long as President Obama is able to avoid another disastrous outing, Mr. Biden's performance tonight should be sufficient to set the stage for the incumbents to have a strong finish in the 24 day home stretch between now and the election November 6.

(Photo: YouTube/ABC)

In tonight's debate, Vice President Joe Biden invoked one of the most memorable moments presidential campaign history in one of many back-and-forths with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan.

Mr. Biden used Mr. Ryan's argument for significant tax rate reductions as his segue.

"You can cut tax rates by 20 percent and still preserve these important preferences for middle-class taxpayers--" Mr. Ryan began.

"Not mathematically possible!" Mr. Biden interrupted.

"It is mathematically possible. It's been done before--" Mr. Ryan continued.

"It has never been done before," came another interruption.

"It's been done a couple times. Jack Kennedy increased tax rates and increased growth. Ronald Reagan--" the Republican tried to explain.

"Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy?" Mr. Biden intervened yet again, to the quiet laughter of the audience.

This was, of course, a reference to an exchange from the 1988's vice-presidential debate between Democratic Senator Lloyd Bentsen and his GOP opponent, Dan Quayle. Mr. Bentsen's remark came after Mr. Quayle countered a question about his political bonafides by saying he had as much experience in congress as JFK did when he ran for president.

"Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy, I knew Jack Kennedy, Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy," Mr. Bentsen countered.

Mr. Bentsen's remark helped create and capitalize on the impression Mr. Quayle was not exactly an intellectual heavyweight.

However, in this case Mr. Ryan, true to his reputation as a bowhunter, wasn't carrying an empty quiver and he quickly fired back with a comeback of his own.

"Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up lost ground, but I think people will be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other,” he suggested.

Watch below:

Joe Biden and Paul Ryan go head-to-head on stage. (Photo: Getty)

After a presidential debate last week that was widely seen as a loss for the Democratic ticket, Joe Biden started off the vice presidential debate by aggressively dismissing his Republican rival, Paul Ryan, with laughs, incredulous glances, head shaking and his choice phrase, "malarkey."

Mr. Biden first used the term to describe Mr. Ryan's critique that the Obama administration's responses to the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya last month, to the Iranian government's attacks on protesters in 2009 and 2010 and to the ongoing violence in Syria.

"We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting; when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people. We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights," Mr. Ryan said. "And we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we're cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak. It projects weakness. And when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us."

Mr. Ryan attempted to continue, but Mr. Biden cut him off.

"With all due respect, that's a bunch of malarkey," the vice president said.

Mr. Biden used the phrase again while addressing the criticism from the Republican ticket that President Barack Obama didn't have an in-person meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu when the Israeli prime minister was in the United States last month for the U.N. General Assembly.

"With regard to Bibi, he's been my friend for 39 years. The president has met with Bibi a dozen times. He's spoken to Bibi Netanyahu as much as he's spoken to anybody," Mr. Biden said. "The idea that we're not--I was in a--just before he went to the UN, i was in a conference call with the president with him talking to Bibi for well over an hour in stark relief and detail of what was going on. This is a bunch of stuff, look here's the deal--"

The debate moderator, ABC News Senior Foreign Correspondent interrupted Mr. Biden to ask what he meant by "a bunch of stuff."

"Well, it means it's simply inaccurate," said Mr. Biden.

"It's Irish," Mr. Ryan interjected.

"It's Irish, it is," Mr. Biden agreed. "We Irish call it malarkey."

Thanks to the colorful phrase, Mr. Biden's repeated dismissals of Mr. Ryan gained strong traction online. It was an effective, and clearly viral, way to articulate and execute the Obama campaign's strategy of casting Mr. Ryan and Mr. Romney as dishonest. With his aggressive attacks on Mr. Ryan, Mr. Biden ensured he wouldn't face the criticism of being too low energy that plagued President Obama in the first presidential debate. The vice president also put himself in a position to avoid the impression of a loss that President Obama earned very quickly in his debate against Mr. Romney.

(Photo: YouTube)

Well, the vice presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan started off with a bit of a bang. In her opening question, moderator Martha Raddatz asked Mr. Biden whether President Barack Obama's administration responded properly in its controversial reaction to the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Libya. After calling it a "tragedy" and vowing to hunt down those responsible, Mr. Biden directly went after Mitt Romney.

"When you're looking at a president, Martha, it seems to me that you should look at his most important responsibility, that's caring for the national security of the country, and the best way to do that is to take a look at how he's handled the issues of the day."

Mr. Biden went on to praise the president for the military operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden and suggested Mitt Romney would not have killed the Al Qaeda leader.

"On Iraq, [Mr. Obama] said he would end the war, he ended it; Governor Romney said it was a 'tragic mistake, we should have left 30,000 troops there," he argued. "With regard to Afghanistan, he said we will end the war in 2014; Governor Romney said we should not set a date, number one and, number two, with regard to 2014, 'It depends.' When it came to Osama bin Laden, the President, the first day in office, I was sitting with him in the Oval Office, he called in the C.I.A. and signed an order saying, 'My highest priority is to get bin Laden.' Prior to the election, prior to being sworn in, Governor Romney was asked a question as to how he would proceed. He said, 'I wouldn't move heaven and earth to get bin Laden.'"

Mr. Biden continued by saying killing Osama bin Laden "was about restoring America's heart and letting terrorists around the world know, if you do harm to America, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be." Mr. Romney, the vice president said, just doesn't grasp that.

He concluded by suggesting Mr. Romney would lead the United States to another war, saying, “And lastly, the President of the United States has lead with a steady hand and a clear vision. Governor Romney, the opposite. The last thing we need now is another war."

Joe Biden (Photo: Getty)

The Obama campaign has just released some new details about Vice President Joe Biden's debate session. Apparently, Mr. Biden relied on a strict regimen of candy, sandwiches, energy drinks and caffeine to get him in shape for his matchup with Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan. 

According to the Obama campaign, Mr. Biden's "favorite snacks consumed during prep sessions this week include M&Ms, animal crackers, as well as lots of Gatorade, coffee and tea." The vice president and his team also ordered subs from the well-known Wilmington, Delaware institution Capriotti’s Sandwich Shop for lunch during one of his debate prep sessions. Politicker called Capriotti's and spoke to a woman who said Mr. Biden used to come to the restaurant "all the time before he became vice president." She also gave us more information about what Mr. Biden's crew ordered for their debate prep lunch.

"They were all mixed up. We had Italian, Turkey, bobbies, roast beef," she said.

Perhaps it's a Delaware thing, but we were unaware of "bobbies." The patient Capriotti's staffer explained that they include "stuffing ,cranberry, mayonnaise and turkey.

"It's like Thanksgiving on a roll," she added.

Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen played the part of Mr. Ryan for Mr. Biden's debate prep sessions. In addition to Mr. Biden's debate prep menu, the Obama campaign released an utterly hilarious anecdote about Mr. Biden and Mr. Van Hollen. Apparently, both men came to Monday's session "wearing the same exact outfit" consisting of a navy blue blazer with gold buttons, a light blue shirt and no tie leading to "some chuckles" among their staffers. Clearly, these debate prep sessions were filled with nonstop excitement in addition to all of the candy and caffeine.