Personally, I think it is a great phone.  However, at least as of now, if you want to still use my Context Group Version, it will cost you.  Not to me, but to a third party app developer.  You see, the Palm Pre runs using an entirely new operating system: WebOS.  

It is a pretty good OS, but stuff that ran in the old OS (like PalmBible+) don’t run directly on the new OS.  However, all is not lost.  Like when Apple went to OSX, they provided an emulator to let you run the older OS9 apps.  The good news is that just such an emulator is available for the Pre.  So you can use it to run PalmBible+ and still use the CGV.

The bad news?  It was not written by Palm and it does not come with the phone.  Instead it is a downloadable app that comes free for seven days.  After that it costs $ 30.  I bought it, but I have to admit it is mostly a stop gap method.  I hope PalmBible+ ports to WebOS, but I see no rumblings in that direction.

So for now, keep your present Palm device or get the Pre (which is a ball!) and Classic to run your old Palm apps (not just the CGV)!  You will find that once Classic loads, the apps actually run faster.  

If there are any other Palm or Palm Pre addicts out there, let me know how you like (or dislike) the devices.  Also I would be interested in any sugestions as to what direction I should go in distributing the CGV.  Which of the Palm Pre bible programs do you like (though I anticipate more to follow).  If you had to pick one to work with to roll out the CGV, which one would it be?  SimpleBible? BibleZ?  Another? Let me know.

However, after some careful study, I believe that the last book written in the Bible was not the Revelation, as is often assumed. Instead, there is good evidence, both internally and externally, that the last book was the Gospel According to John. In fact, in order to fully understand the Gospel of John in its context, it would have to have been written after the Book of Revelation; that is, after AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. But I get ahead of myself.

First I must prove—or if not prove at least improve the probability—that the Book of Revelation was not only written prior to the Gospel of John but that it was at least substantially if not completely composed prior to AD 70. It is to the latter of these propositions that I will turn to first.

Most, if not all, commentaries and study Bibles place the writing of the Book of Revelation in the date range of AD 90 – 100. However, there is starting to develop a level of doubt regarding this date, at least in terms of compositions of major portions of the text. For example, the introduction to the Book of Revelation in the New Jerusalem Bible (hardly a conservative publication) notes the following:

As for its date, the most common opinion is that it was written in the reign of Domitian, about AD 95; others, with considerable justification, believe that parts of it, if not all, were composed shortly after Nero’s death, between AD 68 and 70.

As the NJB implies, some scholars theorize that the book was not written all at one time, but was composed in sections over several years, then unified later into a single work by a disciple of the author.
Also of the opinion are Bruce Malina and John J. Pilch in their Social-Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation, 2000, page 11:

According to indications in the Book of Revelation, the prophet experienced the visions of the cosmic son of Man who gave edits to the angels of the seven Asian Jesus-groups, while he was on the island of Patmos, off the coast of Ephesus (western Turkey). This is the vision set out in the letter that forms the framework of the present composition. There is no reason to believe all the other visions in the work happened at the same time and place. For example, the first insert (4-11), dealing with the land of Israel during the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (“where their Lord was crucified” 11:8), surely dates before 70 C.E. Similarly, the final visions of the new Jerusalem descending from the opening in the vault of the sky would take place near that opening, in the land of Israel.

Kenneth Gentry, Jr.’s book, Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, does a substantial job of showing the evidence for dating Revelation, as a whole, before AD 70. Also, A.T. Robinson (of Honest to God fame) postulates that not just Revelation, but all of the New Testament was written prior to AD 70. (I think he is wrong about the Gospel of John, but right about all the rest.)

However, some date the book even earlier, claiming it is not a work of John the Apostle at all. Instead, the author is the other famous John of the Gospels, John the Baptist! According to this theory, only later were the prophecies of Jesus’ cousin compiled and “Christianized” by a disciple of both the Baptist and Jesus (which would not exclude the Apostle John, as he was both). Nor is this opinion confined to the fringe. It was held and expounded by J. Massyngberde Ford in her contribution to The Anchor Bible commentary series, Revelation, 1975. As Massyngberde explains:

Originally, however, Rev 4—11 in its oral, not written, form would be assigned to the time of John the Baptist and therefore to an era prior to Jesus’ public ministry. Rev 12—22 would be dated in the mid-sixties as the Roman War gathered momentum. Part III [Chapters 1—3, 22:16a, 20b, 21—Ed.] appears to be later than this. Thus, the original apocalypse, comprising 4—22, with some additions in the last chapter, was almost an entirely Jewish and/or Jewish Christian work. (Page 4)

A John the Baptist authorship was also expounded by my fellow Clevelander, Maurice A. Williams, in his more recent book, Revelation: Fall of Judea, Rise of the Church, 2008. A partial-preterist with a Roman Catholic twist, Williams states:

If these scholars [Ford among them—Ed.] are correct, these visions were not composed after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, but were composed before Christ began his ministry…There seems to be supported by Scripture. “John (the Baptist) beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after is, is preferred before me: because he was before me” (John 1:15). The big question is whether John preached only a few sentences, or did he preach chapters 4 through 11. I think John preached a very clear explanation of whom and what Christ is. Chapters 4 through 11 contain that clear explanation. (Page 2)

Now I am fairly convinced that the author of the Revelation was the Apostle John and not John the Baptist, but certainly such an opinion makes the possibility that the book was written prior to AD 70 more palatable. I mean if scholars can propose that substantial portions of Revelation were written by John the Baptist, who after all, died decades before the destruction of the Second Temple; then my assertion that the entire book was written by the Apostle John only a few years before that event is not beyond the pale.

So, though Revelation is the last book in the New Testament, the potential exists that it was not the last work written. I shall next set out to explore the evidence that the honor belongs to the Apostle John’s other work, his Gospel. Nor is this excursion a idle or “ivory tower” exercise. My intent is to prove that John’s works cover both sides of the AD 70 divide; that is, one was written before the destruction of the second temple, the other after.

Or to put it in Preterist terms, one was written before the second coming, the other after. Revelation warned of that impending event; the Book of John tells us how to regard our lives after that event. I don’t think you can get more relevant than that!

Photos were taken with my brand new, purchased for the occasion, Panasonic FZ28. A great camera with amazing features.

And no, the good looking guy posing with my son in the freeze frame is not me. It is my brother in law. Not certain how that got to be the frame, but he is better looking than me anyway.

Perhaps it is a sign of aging, but I don’t memorize as well as I used to do.  So blogging is taking a sabbatical (unfortunately, I am not) while I work at this task.

I thank you all for your patience.  Check back sometime in the middle of February, 2009 for new contributions or look over some of the past essays.  I think you will find them amusing.  I unlimited the sidebar so all of the blogs now are accessable.

As the cab began to pull away, the 80-year-old priest fell to the ground and hit his head, fracturing his skull. He was taken to Advocate Lutheran General Hospital in Park Ridge, where he was in critical condition, friends and family said Saturday afternoon.

“Right now he’s critical but stable, very stable,” niece Laura Durkin said. “Doctors are hopeful and pleased with his progress from [Friday] to [Saturday].” Greeley, who was wearing a Barack Obama baseball cap when he fell, suffered bleeding on the brain.

As of this writing, the priest remains in critical but stable condition. My prayers are with Father Greeley and the whole event saddens me more than I can say. You see, Father Greeley and I have an odd history together though we have never met. Perhaps he more than anyone else on this planet is responsible for my remaining a Christian. His influence touches almost everything I think and write. (This despite the fact the Greeley, especially in this election cycle, is a rabid—some take that literally—Liberal Democrat and I remain a conservative I don’t know what.)

Back when I was in college, I took a course on Contemporary Catholic Thought. The book used as the basis of the course was Greeley’s The Jesus Myth. Greeley is using the term “myth” in its more sociological fashion of a story with more than historical implications rather than the more common usage of “fable.” If you can get a copy of this book, it is well worth the time to read. Greeley opened up vistas of my application of Jesus unlike any other author. I was excited to read the scriptures after that; and the joy of being Christian as a result has almost never left me.

It’s that good.

After that, I pretty much devoured all he wrote, long before he became the author of romantic fiction. As I wrote to him via email several times thereafter, I always preferred his non-fiction to his fiction. It always opened my eyes to new vistas and challenged some of my more encrusted assumptions.

For some reason, he didn’t take that as a compliment.

I can also contend that Greeley wrote about what is now called “Covenantal Nomism” long before it was so labeled in his book, The Sinai Myth. In that book, published in 1975, he discussed the fact that for the Jews the Law was the sign and response of a people to God’s passionate love rather than their means to acquire that love. Later on, when Sanders book, “Paul and Palestinian Judaism” came out in 1977 and started the New Perspective on Paul, for me it was been there, done that. Greeley got there first.

On a more personal note, my girlfriend (now my wife) actually did meet Fr. Greeley. He had just published his first bestselling novel, The Cardinal Sins. My wife was in Chicago and was able to go to his apartment complex to get her copy autographed. He was gracious enough to come down to the lobby to sign the book for a person he did not know.

And now for the record, Greeley was the major author who tried to get my comic strip, “Joshua’s People” published. He was not successful (obviously), but I am forever grateful for the effort.

When my niece was born, my brother-in-law asked my wife and me to be the god parents. Since we were no longer Catholic, I was conflicted as to what I should do. When I email Greeley about the problem, per the address on his website, he responded. His council was, as to be expected, quick and to the point. It was also effective.

Again, this for a person he never met.

Careful readers of my work will note a similarity in writing style between Greeley and myself. That is not accident. As a famous comedian once said, “If you are going to steal, steal from the best.” One can’t read 50 or more books by someone and not be influenced.

On my wall in my basement is a large cloth banner with a quote from Greeley sewn into it. “Life, for all its tragedy, is still a comedy. Indeed, it is a comic, playful dance with a passionate, loving God.”

As his biographer, John N. Kotre, said of the quote, that is the heart of Andrew Greeley. It should be our heart as well.

Get well, Fr. Greeley.

Still, the election brings up some curious results. First of all, I was wrong. The Evangelical Vote was not split nearly as much as I had assumed in a previous post. In fact, the white Evangelical vote was the only constant the Republicans had in 2008. According to the Washington Post:

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week found McCain collecting about 68 percent of the white evangelical vote, compared to Barack Obama’s 22 percent. That number is very similar to level of support President Bush received in June 2004, when he led then Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry 65 to 30 among white evangelicals.

Also according to the National Review, the Evangelicals remained rock steady in their support of the Republican Ticket, if not John McCain himself. Their voting is probably the factor that made the election a 52-48 win for the Democrats instead of a major blowout.

White evangelical/born again christians voted McCain/Palin 74-24 in 2008, which is slightly lower than the 78-21 breakdown in 2004. But their share of the total vote was larger this time than last time (26 percent in 2008 versus 23 percent in 2004), so on balance the white evangelical/born again contribution to the Republican vote was probably about the same size as it was in 2004.

The same article noted almost consistent losses by the Republicans in all of the other major groups (save gun owners) that gave them the edge in 2004. Only the Evangelicals remained, if you excuse the expression, faithful.

Yet, as is typical of politics, it is now this grouping that may be abandoned by the Republican party in 2012. One can read rumblings in that direction in many of the post election analysis being fostered upon us by the party elite. The analysis below by David Frum is not unique. Using “Joe the Plumber” as a talking point, he suggests:

College-educated Americans have come to believe that their money is safe with Democrats – but that their values are under threat from Republicans. And there are more and more of these college-educated Americans all the time.

So the question for the GOP is: Will it pursue them? To do so will involve painful change, on issues ranging from the environment to abortion. And it will involve potentially even more painful changes of style and tone: toward a future that is less overtly religious, less negligent with policy, and less polarizing on social issues. That’s a future that leaves little room for Sarah Palin – but the only hope for a Republican recovery.

In other words, the Evangelical vote, one of the only groupings to remain solidly behind the Republican base, is about to be kicked under the bus by the Republican elites faster than Barack Obama did his grandmother and former pastor. The “values,” if they can be called that, of the college educated, are suggested as the new flagship of the Republican guard. The Evangelicals, as thanks for their support, are to be relegated to the back of the bus.

I say, if that happens, I renounce my previous post regarding Christians voting for a third party. If the Republican party does not want the Evangelicals I see no reason for them to continue their support of that party. I see no reason for them to contribute to a party that consciously rejects them and instead seeks to build upon sand.

Should that happen, the ungrateful louts will receive no support from me. Instead, I will seek the Constitution Party or perhaps save my heart some restless nights and avoid the voting process altogether.

On a related note, though at the end I lost some of my luster for Sarah Palin, I find the current savaging of her reputation by the same Republicans almost comical, if it were not so classless and crass. For example, Newsweek and other news feeds report the following issues leaked from the McCain camp following their loss at the poles.

Months of bubbling frustration with Sarah Palin from within the McCain campaign finally exploded in the wake of their ticket’s crushing defeat as Republican insiders began making embarrassing allegations about the Alaskan Governor.

Other McCain insiders told news outlets that Palin, the former mayor of small town Wasilla, Alaska, could not name the three countries in the North American Free Trade Agreement — Canada, the U.S. and Mexico — and that was from the governor who promoted negotiating experience with Canada throughout the campaign.

Unnamed McCain aides have told the media that Palin wasn’t aware that Africa was a continent, and her family behaved like a band of “Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus (an upscale American clothing store) from coast to coast.” (emphasis added)

The obvious vitriol aimed at Palin is shocking. Even if the “unauthorized” spending spree were true, the added color of calling Palin a “hillbilly” shows the disdain the Republican elites have for both the blue collar people Palin represents and Alaska for that matter. Nor can one dismiss the possibility that the McCain camp is jealous as anyone who attended the McCain rallies could see that Palin was drawing more crowds than McCain himself. Also, I cannot help but suspect that at least part of the motive for this attack on Palin was her unabashed Christian beliefs (even if I disagree with some of them).

Yet is this attack not a two-edges sword? If true; if Palin is really such a  stupid and classless “bimbo” then why did the Republican’s allow her to be selected as V.P.? Does that not reflect upon them more than Palin, who merely accepted the nomination? And if it not true, then it reflects even more on the Republicans who would ruthlessly resort to character assassination of their own? In either case, it is the Republican elite who must take the blame (and lose their jobs) and not Palin. She, after all, still has a state to run.

And as for my previous complaint about Palin’s demeaning performance on SNL? View the video of her press conference below in responding to the Republican charges:

I only ask, where was this Palin during the campaign?

We, the United States citizens, have elected the first declared radically left wing President. It does not matter if the popular vote in favor of this change was 52% of the populace; this country works in terms of the electoral college and on those terms it was a mandate. Those in power will act on those terms. With the construction of the congress—potentially as of this writing, filibuster proof—and the soon to be Supreme Court, Nancy Pelosi and her kind are likely to control the direction of this country for at least the next two years and probably longer.

In opposition to  the neo-cons who switched to Obama while declaring their hopes that he “would not do what he says he is going to do,” I must make the assumption that Obama will not only do what he says; he will do what the ultra liberals tell him to do. After all, he did it 97% of the time in the past. It is not likely to change once he is in office.

Using Obama’s stated objectives over this election, one could easily develop the following scenario. When I use the words “they” or “them” unless the context says otherwise, I mean the Obama/Pelosi/Clinton/Reid cartel. When you get to the “results section” the numbers in parenthesis will refer to the previous actions by this cartel.

1. First they passed the Fairness Doctrine and I did not care as I have not listened to Rush Limbaugh in years and consider him an arrogant blowhard.

2. Then they passed Hate Speech legislation, but I didn’t care because I was not a wild-eyed, fundamentalist, homophobic preacher.

3. Then they taxed business and executives who made over $250,000 a year and I did not care because my paycheck was not nearly that high. In fact, I got a tax cut!

4. Then they fought against coal powered electric plants, demanding that they retool or be bankrupted by fines, penalties, and taxes and I did not care as I did not work in a coal mine or at a power plant.

5. Then they passed legislation in accordance with the UN Resolution on the Rights of the Child and I did not care as my children were already grown.

6. Then they took greater control over the medical system and I did not care as I already had benefits and expected that I would now save on the premiums.

7. Then they legalized the previously illegal immigrant workers who became eligible for social security benefits, hospitalization, and the minimum wage protection of the government and I did not care as I did not live in a state (or so I thought) with an illegal immigrant population.

Then I lost my job because my employer decided to pay for his tax increase by eliminating my position. When I tried to find another job, I found businesses had stagnated or had moved to another country where the tax burden was less (3).

Then I found that my food costs were higher (7 and 3); my electric bill doubled (4); and my medical benefits became rationed (6). While waiting for a heart transplant, my wife of 30 years was determined to have less value than the 20 year old previously illegal alien that received one (7). She died.

Then I went to the church for explanations and solace, they were afraid to mention anything that had to do with politics or social issues (2); so they in essence told me to bend over and pray for Vaseline and a heavenly reward for suffering thereafter.

I tried to live with my grandchildren, but they were belligerent ruffians who told me I had no right to impose on their lives (5). So I became a homeless wanderer. As I walked to find a spot under a bridge to sleep for the night, cars drove by with their windows open and radios blaring. All that came out was musak and baking tips (1).

As it turned out, they didn’t even have to come for me.

****************************************************************

This blogsite will not be like the church noted above. It will embrace political and social issues as I seek, in part, to develop a better social theory for Protestant Christianity. I have already laid the groundwork for this process in previous posts. I will note, along with William Stringfellow, that Christianity can avoid political pronunciations only if they avoid the gospel itself, for the Gospel is inherently political.

American experience as a nation…confounds the notion that the Bible is apolitical. What is surprising is that the latter belief persists even though many of the biblical symbols are explicitly political—dominion, emancipation, authority, judgment, kingdom, reconciliation among them—and even though the most familiar biblical events are notoriously political—including the drama of Israel as the holy nation, the Kingdom parables in Christ’s teaching, the condemnation of the apostolic congregations, the controversies between Christians and zealots, the propagation of the book of Revelation.

One may note that William Stringfellow was a homosexual and a liberal and would therefore be in accord with the listed potential practices of an Obama government. I don’t think Stringfellow is so easily categorized—but even if true—his statement is a knife that can cut both ways.

Finally, though this blogsite will not be commanded by it, the author dedicates himself to becoming part of the disloyal opposition on Obama’s inauguration day. I find the standard bible verses used to support our dropping our differences and “honoring” and “obeying” the “governing authorities” are being universalized out of a specific historical context. Most were written in a context of being under a dictator/emperor that could expel you from the city (Acts 18:2). In that situation, you would advise your fledgling communities to walk carefully and not incur that wrath again. As bad as it may be, we are not under a dictatorship yet. Therefore, our options are a little more expansive.

Also, can anyone serious say Paul himself was always submitting and obeying the governing authorities? One is not whipped by the Romans and the Jewish authorities, imprisoned by the Romans, and beaten with stones (2 Cor. 11:23-27) by just being in a get along, “submissive” mood—at least as we interpret those words. Obviously Paul himself butted heads with those self same authorities and was none too timid in the process.

So in the Spirit of Paul I proclaim the following video to best objectify my mission over the next few years.

Both candidates voted for the “bailout” or “rescue” of the mismanaged banking industry. By so doing, they enabled the rich executives to escape the consequences of their borderline fraudulent activity and retain their jobs and perks. I do not begrudge them their rich salaries should they earn them; but normally if you make a decision that tanks your company—not to mention the entire economy of the country—you should have some negative consequences, like losing that job and those benefits.

Nor did the Vice Presidential candidates enthrall me either. I have detested Biden since he led the effort to “Bork” Robert Bork in 1987. It was a smear campaign that made this year’s election process judicious by comparison.

I liked Palin, but after watching her prance around on the SNL show last night, my respect has diminished. She looked just like the bimbo the Democrats have accused her of being. Someone who is one heart beat from leading the supposedly most powerful nation on earth has got to figure out the nature of professionalism and dignity. The commentators found it humorous; I found it disrespectful of the office she wished to obtain.

So, despite my written sermon against voting for a third party candidate that had no chance of winning, I confess my hand hovered over the candidates from the Constitution Party. It hovered again over the Libertarian Party people. But finally, through a force of will, I marked the McCain/Palin entry. It almost took two hands for me to fill in the circle.

I also must confess, for the first time in my life my hand also hovered over the name of Dennis Kucinich. The man is an entrenched Democratic politician in my district, and associates his name with some of the most wacky politics this side of the Rockies. However, at least he had the guts to vote against the “bailout.” I considered rewarding his courage, but then reviewed again his rabid “pro-choice” stance and could not sign away those lives. I marked the Republican and prayed for forgiveness.

In the end, it is as I noted before: I voted for the candidates who would be least likely to increase the persecution against the American church. Obama has already pledged to vote for the “Freedom of Choice Act” that would undo even the small gains the pro-life contingent has accomplished over the last twenty years. Since Christians, especially the Catholics, have led the charge in this area, the repeal of these actions is tantamount to excluding them from the political process.

Also, I have a strong suspicion that there is a lot of pent up anger against the Religious Right that will be uncorked should Obama win and the Democrats gain absolute control of both houses of congress. Witness the tirades against “JesusLand” from the last election. Do you really think that level of vitriol and contempt is not going to be expressed in legal suppression. Certainly we are going to see the implementation of “hate crime” legislation that will border on that found in Canada; suppressing the free speech of Christians in regard to morality. Even outside that environment such “human rights” commissions are suppressing the rights of Christian photographers to avoid jobs at homosexual weddings. In Canada, a pastor has been forbidden to even preach from the chapters of the Bible that call homosexuality a sin. I suspect such suppression is going to increase under an unfettered Democratic Party controlled government.

I may be wrong, but I really don’t want to take the chance.

Yet even that standard is not as rock solid as I would like. Obama gives some indication that the support of Isreal that has a strangle hold on the Republican Party would diminish. Why conservative Christians support a nation that openly persecutes their Christian brothers and forbids evangelization is beyond me. (Okay, it is not; but eschatology should not determine such an allegiance.) Obama lessening our ties to Israel—though for reasons obviously different from my own—is a move in the right direction.

I say a nation that persecutes their Christian population and forbids missionaries deserves no foreign aid or support. This includes China. This includes Israel. No political advantage should weight over our commitment to our Christian brothers. None.

On the same vein, though again for different reason, Obama indicates he will reduce our involvement in Iraq and may pull out the troops altogether. One of the unintended consequences—among many—of George Bush’s displacement of Saddam Hussein in that country is an increase in the persecution and even execution of Iraqi Christians. In the past, I assumed that an early withdrawal of our troops from that country would cause a bloody revolution among the Muslim tribes that make it up. I still think that is true, but now I don’t care. For what they have done to my brothers, I say let them slaughter each other. It would be justice.

Though Obama won’t do it, my policy in Iraq at this stage would be to either install a dictator who would protect the Christians or pull the Assyrian Christians out with the troops and let the country take care of itself. No more American blood spent for those who kill Christians. Yet, the Obama method of withdrawal will bode for an increased slaughter of the Assyrian Christians rather than less. At least long term, the McCain plan may stabilize the region enough to keep some of them alive.

Yet that is an ugly choice to make. That is the reason I marked my ballot with fear and trepidation. Many of my brothers died to give me the ability to vote in this election. How many more will die as a consequence?

Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate, and he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.

[Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.]

Gird your loins. We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy

I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy [Obama] has it. This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?‘ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision.’ Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.

All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place. We have the ability to straighten it out. It’s gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us.

After reading the above quotes, I had the immediate image of Biden waking up after hearing about the Powell endorsement and knowing now that that the election was in the bag. He must have thrown off the sheets and yelled to the ceiling of his bedroom, “Hey, we are actually going to win this thing. Not only that, we are going to win the entire control of the U.S. Government! Wheee!”

Then the specter of buyer’s remorse set must have set in. Reality reared its ugly head and slapped him hard on the left cheek. “Hey, wait a minute. People are actually going to expect us to accomplish something! They are going to demand that we do what we promised! The entire attention of the people is going to be on the Democrats and on Obama—and me. And we can’t blame it on ANYONE ELSE if we don’t make things better. The Republicans won’t have enough chairs to even start a filibuster to slow down much less stop any of our legislation.”

Visions of Saturday Night Live routines aimed at the Democrats instead of the Conservative Republicans must have flashed before his eyes. Letterman and Leno opening monologues whispered in his ears. And Bill Maher! He would become absolutely vicious! No one changes sides faster than politicians or left wing comedians in search of an object of ridicule. The Republicans have been the pasty fall guys of the media for years. Even when Democrats has the presidency, they did not control the congress. There was always someone else to blame. Always! Even Clinton had the escape hatch of “gridlock.” No more.

So he started the time honored tactic of lowering expectations. Lowering? Hell, Biden is attempting to dash them to pieces and hide them in the basement. “I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?”

It is also interesting that Biden sets his window of opportunity at two years. “We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years.” Why only two years? Biden is pessimistic enough about the results of an Obama presidency that he anticipates losing at least the overwhelming Democratic majority in the following congressional elections.

Now there’s a man who believes in his own Presidential candidate’s policies.

I think the real Biden was the one who was stumping for the presidential nomination himself some months earlier; the man who publicly stated that Obama was not ready or experienced enough to be president. Maybe it is latent Catholic guilt coming through, but it sounds like he has realized that he has helped put that “not ready or experienced man” within grasp of the top office in the land. And that prospect scares even him.

Note, Biden did not say the anyone who wins the presidency will be tested (as the titterers on The View contend). No, he said Obama will be tested, and he will be test precisely because he is as young and inexperienced as was John Kennedy. Whatever may be claimed about McCain, he is definitely not young nor inexperienced. Only Obama fits Biden’s description and warning. And from what I remember, John Kennedy made a mess of foreign relations. After all, U.S. involvement in Vietnam was started by him, not to mention the Bay of Pigs or the Cuban Missile Crisis. Until his death, JFK was an extremely unpopular president who probably would have lost his bid for a second term.

The world has become 10 times more dangerous, on and outside American soil since then. Biden appears to have smelled the coffee and realized just that level of danger. Mockery on Saturday Night Live may be the least of Biden’s problems in the next two years.

Biden may as well have said to all his fellow Democrats, “Be careful what you wish for. God may curse you and supply it.” Before it is over, it is likely that all of America will be sharing Biden’s Buyer’s Remorse.