1
   

Senator Joe Biden for president---in the primaries

 
 
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 10:33 am
Biden: SC Will Pick the Next President
by Shelby Highsmith
Posted November 6, 2007

The following piece was produced by the HuffPost's OffTheBus.

Over five weeks of backpacking around Ireland, one of my lasting impressions of the Irish -- my brethren in moniker only for this Polish-Catholic "Fighting Irish" alumnus -- was that they definitely do not share the same sense of personal space that your average American has, becoming nose-to-nose chums with you as soon as you belly up next to them at the bar. Delaware Senator Joseph R. Biden, "grandson son of Ambrose Finnegan" as he described himself to the IAFF, clearly inherited this trait from his father's side of the family, and it's an indispensable part of his political repertoire. Perhaps it's just a benefit of being in the so-called "second tier," but while I've seen more celebrated candidates (in person and on C-SPAN) move along "rope lines" dispensing handshakes, Biden's events are more familial affairs, where an arm thrown over your shoulder is almost the minimum ante when meeting the man of honor.

After leaping, or rather, spilling out of bed at oh-dark-hundred on a Saturday morning in Atlanta and driving across the foggy finger lakes of South Carolina as the sun came up, I sure wished my hands weren't full of camera equipment so I could have a cup of coffee at the Anderson County Democratic Party breakfast. The ACDP had moved their usual 9:00 a.m. gathering up to 8:00 a.m. to accommodate their special guest, and I don't know what their usual attendance is like, but their reserved dining room at the Golden Corral was standing room only and spilling into the wings by the time Joe Biden arrived. He worked the crowd, leaning over waffles and bacon and dodging trays of hot coffee, as the county party chairman started in on a little preliminary business. This was Biden's fourth of nine events in a twenty-four hour swing through the palmetto state.

While every candidate is betting the farm, so to speak, on the first caucuses in Iowa, Joe Biden sees South Carolina as the other bookend that will determine the electoral story of 2008 and is not shy about saying so. Biden for President was the first campaign to open an office in South Carolina because the argument he makes to the Anderson County Democrats in November is the same one he made to the Lee County Democrats in March. "I've been saying for the last two years: South Carolina is going to determine who the next president of the United States is going to be," he tells the crowd. "And I'm not joking when I say that, it's not hyperbole," he says, because by the time Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada cull the field, "there's only going to be two or three [candidates] in South Carolina."

To take Joe Biden at his word, he is almost never joking or being hyperbolic, all kidding aside, when he tells you what what is literally, literally the case in American politics today. With all of his disclaimers, one almost expects to hear Inigo Montoya step in and chastise him, "You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means." And yet to hear him say it in person, it is easy to see that Joe Biden believes to his core the almost grandiose points he makes: that this is the most important election of our lifetimes, and that the next president will have the opportunity to "literally, literally change the direction of the world."

And why else would Biden want to subject himself to this race, particularly when all it seems anyone cares to blog about him are his abortive 1988 bid and his handful of verbal gaffes? One justification some attribute to what they consider "hopeless" campaigns is the national soapbox available to an otherwise unrecognized politician for self-promotion. But Biden's ubiquitous presence on the Sunday morning talk shows was already a topic of conversation, with Joe "Meet the Press" Biden conceding to the Anderson Democrats, "I'm on them too much."

The other possible motivation, frequently attributed equally to Biden and New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson, of vying for a VP or Secretary of State nod -- a post arguably no more attractive than the pedestal of a Foreign Relations Committee chairmanship -- was itself the basis for Biden's capstone argument to the ACDP why he should earn their vote. "My colleagues Bill Richardson and Hillary and Barack...say, 'Biden would be the best possible Secretary of State we could have.' And they say that hoping that no one will think of me as President." His breakfast audience laughed, but chuckles subsided to smiles and finally to very serious, stoic faces as he continued with a challenge. "But let me ask you a rhetorical question: in this election, are you ready to vote for anyone for president who's not fully capable of being Secretary of State. And ask yourself the other rhetorical question: would you appoint any one of them Secretary of State?"

He continued with his "brief" opening remarks for about another eighteen minutes, daring to touch on the topic of electability: "I know it's not appropriate in some people's minds to talk about electability. I think it's pretty important not only who can get elected, but how they can get elected, and where they can win." If the Democratic nominee in 2008, he argued, has to rely on the same twenty-blue-states-plus-one strategy as in the last two elections, upon reaching the White House "they will not be able to govern," because they will not have the kind of mandate they need to sway congressional votes from redder states.

Closing his speech, Biden went on to answer a few questions for another twenty minutes and change. When the answer to his final, quick question -- taken under the admonishment from his staff that it was time to think about getting to the next event -- was stretching into its seventh minute, I could only imagine his handlers' heart palpitations as I realized my opportunity for the interview I requested was quickly evaporating. Biden's reputation for being loquacious is well-deserved, but then so was President Bartlett's on NBC's "The West Wing," and I know few Democrats who wouldn't vote for that fictitious world leader right after Al Gore if they had their druthers. This also might be why the six-term senator has a hard time breaking out of the second tier when his main platform is a series of debates that are little more than aggregated sound bites.

As the entourage tried to build momentum toward the door, Biden's campaign press secretary, Mark Paustenbach, asked me if I wanted to horn in on the microscopic press availability in the foyer for the local paper. "Are you kidding? It's almost 9:40," I pointed out, and the candidate was allegedly taking part in a parade in Greenville, 30 miles away, at 10:00.

Looks like I'm going to Greenville. So much for watching another Notre Dame defeat on the telly.

The last place you want to be in a pack of speeding cars is at the very back, but not having expected a second campaign stop in my day, and not having printed out the appropriate Google map, that is exactly where I found myself. Fortunately for me, I made it to Greenville with neither the ounces of gasoline I had left burning past vapors nor a South Carolina highway patrol falling in behind us to spot my lack of a 2008 sticker on my license plate (it's in my glove box, I swear). Fortunately for the candidate, we delivered him to the starting intersection of the inaugural parade for the HBCU Classic precisely as his convertible prepared to roll out. "Just in time" delivery, the key to American competitiveness!

I parked my car illegally in some parking lot I would soon forget the location of, threw all my fake-reporter gear back on and ran as un-awkwardly as I could back to the police barricade the motorcade had explained its way through. A couple of campaign staffers were triumphantly watching their candidate ride into the distance and told me they were about to return to the cars and drive over to the end of the procession where the next press availability ought to be. "No thanks," I said, and hoofed it down the street, camera rolling, under the delusion I could catch a car while carrying a small internet television station on my back.

I caught up with the Bidenmoble at the terminal parking lot as Sen. Biden disembarked and resumed working the crowd. One of his South Carolina hosts, state Representative Fletcher Smith, was in his orbit, talking to observers wondering what was the fuss about this vaguely familiar-looking guy with the cameras around him. Smith had only endorsed Biden's bid for the nomination a few weeks earlier, stepping down as co-chair of Bill Richardson's state committee due to differences in their views on a sensible withdrawal from Iraq. "You watch him in Iowa," he told onlookers of Biden, "you'll be surprised."

A real reporter with more chutzpah would have taken advantage of the emerging down time, as the marching band marched off and the rest of the crowd started to think about going to watch some football, to grab Joe Biden by the arm and put him in front of another camera, background noise be damned. I am not a real reporter, so I stood idly by shooting B-roll footage as Biden inquired about his schedule and mused about finally getting a bite to eat. The entire entourage, which had grown since Anderson county, started moving toward vehicles talking of lunch, and I clung like a remora fish hoping there'd be time for questions between bites of a sandwich. But a few fragments of conversation were tossed back and forth, the momentum sputtered, and the entourage went back into hover mode -- and the candidate, with the state chair behind the wheel, disappeared.

Even "second-tier" candidates need some quiet time.

But unlike the celebrity candidates who need their time in public managed like a troop deployment and crowds controlled like flood waters behind a dam, Biden only sneaks his respite in after he's managed to put an arm around every last person in shouting distance. In four personally observed campaign trips, there's never been a "get me out of here" moment; it's always the candidate that the staff has to tear away from the crowd and not vice-versa. A reporter for The Item in Sumter, SC chided me that not following Biden to the local Huddle House for a late dinner back in March was a major journalistic mistake on my part, as he was still as willing to make his case "after hours" as when the long day had begun. When media-controlled elevator pitches aren't enough to mount an effective insurgent campaign, Biden knows that every minute of face time he can get in the first four states is vital to his bid for the nomination.

The campaign reassembled at the Allen Temple Community Development Center to tour a college fair associated with the HBCU parade events. A dozen or so area colleges and a few employers were tabling in the auditorium, and a local Biden supporter -- the driver of the Bidenmobile in the parade -- sat at an unadorned table handing out stapled packets of Biden's presidential plans to potential young voters and their parents. There was a press conference supposedly promised with the event that Biden was going to take part in, but the only media outlets that heeded the press advisory were the local Fox affiliate, whose lone cameraman milled about collecting his own B-roll footage, and, well, little ol' me.

But Biden didn't turn tail to make the next event on time because of the lack of cameras. He was back in his element, at least as much here as when discussing the wonk-tastic fine points of international security: his wife, Jill, who recently completed her doctorate in education, teaches at Delaware Technical and Community College. He grabbed a group of boys coming out of the auditorium and drew them into a huddle, asking them about their college plans before telling them about the beat-down tackles he had to run from in his early days of football when the boys' answers turned to athletic plans.

Biden himself has made education one of the underpinnings of his agenda for domestic revival. When asked that morning in Anderson about creating more jobs, he dealt with the expected talking points on fair trade before explaining his education proposals to make America more competitive in the world market. "Do you realize the average kid we compete with around the world puts in somewhere between twenty-five and fifteen percent more class time than our kids do?" To correct this, Biden proposes a sixteen year education system over our current twelve year setup: two more years of pre-school at the beginning "if their parents choose to do it," and guaranteeing a two-year associate's degree by assisting those who can't afford it.

"Just imagine what we could do," he said quietly, surprising me at my side while I fidgeted with my camera and he gazed out over the several dozen kids talking to recruiters. "Four hundred thousand of these kids can't go to colleges they get into," because of financial constraints -- a chief obstacle he hopes to eliminate with his plan, and one he had to skirt himself when his father couldn't get the loan required for his college tuition at the University of Delaware. When it came to his own children's college and post-grad education, he said, "I was lucky, I had a house that actually appreciated in value," which he sold five years ago to pay off the average of $82 thousand of loans each between his three graduates.

And Biden's love of talking education with anyone who will listen would be the next harbinger of doom for my interview plans. Paustenbach was already looking nervous about time again when he told me to set up outside for my chat with the senator on their way to the car, as they had affairs to attend to before a football game at which Biden would be tossing the opening coin -- an event that cannot be delayed on account of some presidential hopeful. I deferred to college football and settled for two of my half-dozen intended questions: what are those recent bills sponsored on Burma and the International Violence Against Women Act, and what the hell do we do about Pakistan?

"The single most significant thing that we could do to change the international environment according to most scholars is literally to empower women in countries where they're not empowered at all," he said after dealing with the latest round in the Biden-Giuliani street fight. And then, there was Pakistan -- which, unbeknownst to either of us non-Blackberry-wearing fellows, was at that very moment going down the kind of spiral that Biden had warned, in a debate four days earlier, was more frightening than Iran's furtive nuclear program. I asked him, on the heels of Karen Hughes's second departure from the Bush administration, how we worry about Pakistan as a threat while bringing up our 15% favorability rating among its people.

"You've got to have a Pakistani policy and not a Musharraf policy. This administration has a General Musharraf policy. So what you have to do is -- there's a vast majority, a significant middle of the population of Pakistan, [that] is democratic and middle-class. But what's happening is, absent free elections, you're forcing them underground, radicalizing them, and you're giving great sway to that portion of the population that's already radicalized," he said, and argued that aid to education with an eye toward economic development is more conducive to long term goals in the country.

Absent free elections in Pakistan? Get out. That's crazy talk.

"If we were ever to attack Iran," he continued after tying in our strategy in Afghanistan, "we will radicalize Pakistan beyond anything it is now. You'll see Musharraf fall, you will see the circumstances in Kabul change drastically -- all these things are connected. And my sense is none of the Republicans except John McCain understands it."

I lacked the journalistic instincts to ask him if any of the other Democrats understood it; I just thanked him for his time and wished him speed on the road.

"Thanks for covering me," he said with his satellite-detectable grin and a vigorous handshake as he started to walk to the car that had been creeping up on us, anxious to whisk him to the next appointment. But with a mainstream media discussing almost nothing but "inevitability" while paying little mind to the guy more than one political analyst describes as many Iowa caucusers' "favorite second choice," how could I not?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 4,542 • Replies: 100
No top replies

 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 10:36 am
Biden to Pakistan: Restore Democratic Freedoms
How I wish Joe Biden was our president.---BBB

Biden to Pakistan: Restore Democratic Freedoms Or Lose US Funding
by Beverly Davis
Posted November 5, 2007

Des Moines, Iowa---After a nearly 40 minute stump speech to over 100 caucus goers at the Des Moines Zoo Sunday night, the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Democratic presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden gave HuffPost's OffTheBus his prescription for solving the current and dangerous situation in Pakistan: Restore democratic freedoms or you don't get the military aircraft or an annual $1 Billion check from the U.S.

Senator Biden: "I just spoke with former [Pakistani] Prime Minister Mrs. Bhutto this morning to discuss the situation. I fear what will happen if he [Musharraf] forces the vast majority of Pakistani moderates to move in league with the more radical elements to overthrow him and then we'll have a similar circumstance we had with the Shah twenty-five years ago - where you have the moderates in league with the ore radical elements to get rid of a figure that is despotic in their view - and that's what's going to be my message to Musharraf tomorrow [Monday morning] when he calls me and that was my discussion that I had with Bhutto today."

HuffPost's OffTheBus: Do you have an ally in Mrs. Bhutto? You said you spoke with her this morning.

Senator Biden: "I have an ally in a sense that Mrs. Bhutto wants - she took a bit of a risk and as did Musharraf - he originally dropped all the criminal charges and corruption charges [against her] and in turn, she agreed to come back and hold free elections. So, the key to this is - this is still able to be dealt with, if in fact, Martial Law is lifted relatively quickly and he [Musharraf] assures the world that there will be general elections held for the parliament within 60 days. I think we can get by this and we can begin to form this new coalition that may be possible to keep radicalization of Pakistan from occurring."

HuffPost's OffTheBus: What would you do as President to restore democracy in Pakistan?

Senator Biden: "Yes. Look, Musharraf is not an independent actor. Musharraf is in a situation where the military, it matters to the military, if they have the P3's, these aircraft and these F16s [that the U.S. has promised to deliver] and I would make it clear that if he, in fact, is going to continue to keep Marshall Law in place and not hold these parliamentary elections. If I were president, I'd make it clear I would withhold these sales. Because I think you're going to see a lot of pressure build, not only in the Pakistani society but within the Pakistani military, if he in fact starts to jeopardize their relative strength relative to India.

HuffPost's OffTheBus: Do you have a relationship with Musharraf?

Senator Biden: "Yes. When I said relationship, I've met with him many times and he knows who I am, I know him well, we've spoken. I had a similar conversation with the head of the security service for the Pakistan, a general at the time, a day after 9/11. He was in town and I called the Ambassador and insisted on speaking to him and I made it clear to him as one senator, Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, that they had to withdraw their support of the Pashto and the Taliban and if they didn't, they'd be in real trouble....I think we have to have straight talk with these people."

HuffPost's OffTheBus: And if he doesn't, other than not sending the P3's, I mean we spend a lot of money over there - a billion dollars.

Senator Biden: "Yes...we send $1 Billion dollars there and it has to be tied to continued democracy and cooperation for the money he's been given.

What I would be doing is what I've been arguing that we should do if I were President for the last four years. We should be beefing up our presence in Afghanistan. We should be changing our mix of troops in Afghanistan including intelligence assets as well as Special Forces.

We should be moving into position where we demonstrate not only to the Europeans, who will then join us more in Afghanistan, but also to Musharraf to embolden him to begin to cooperate with us more than he has been doing.

I believe this Administration is part of the problem. This administration, when it walked away from Afghanistan figuratively speaking, I think that was a sign to Musharraf, I'd better cut my deal with these folks, and I think that began the unraveling of this and the greater radicalization of Pakistani society.

I think if we were to demonstrate that we were there to stay in Afghanistan and put the proper mix of forces in Afghanistan, I think you'd see Musharraf much more emboldened to cooperate with us for the money he's been given."

HuffPost's OffTheBus: "We also have a situation in Turkey with the Kurds. The Turkish government is really on edge and has requested that the United States to get involved. If you were president, how would you respond?"

Senator Biden: I know you know this but your listeners or readers may not know this, the fact is the PKK, which is the radical element of the Kurds, has been very engaged in trying to destabilize the situation in eastern turkey.

There are about 4 million Kurds there. I think we should have - a long time ago - been reassuring the Kurds that we were in no way supportive of the PKK.

I would be putting significant pressure - and I've had this discussion with Talibani [Iraqi President Jalal Talibani] in my office personally, thatthey have to step up to the ball, stop providing havens for the PKK.

But we have a little bit of a problem. The PKK is sitting on the Iranian border as well as on the Turkey border, but I think, we should have as a policy non-support of the PKK and use our assets to help identify where they are and not allowing them sanctuary...and I think that's the demonstration we have to make to the Turks, they are our NATO ally."
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 10:39 am
The Biden-Gelb Plan for a way forward in Iraq
October 6, 2006
Press Release

Iraq: A Way Forward

President Bush does not have a strategy for victory in Iraq. His strategy is to prevent defeat and to hand the problem off to his successor. As a result, more and more Americans understandably want a rapid withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war. Both are bad alternatives.

There is a third way that can achieve the two objectives most Americans share: to bring our troops home without leaving chaos behind. The idea is to maintain a unified Iraq by federalizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis control over their daily lives in their own regions.

The central government would be responsible for common interests, like border security and the distribution of oil revenues. The plan would bind the Sunnis - who have no oil -- by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenues. It would convene an international conference to secure support for the power sharing arrangement and produce a regional nonaggression pact, enforced by an Oversight Group of the U.N. and major powers. It would call on the U.S. military to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq by 2008, with a residual force to take on terrorists and train Iraqis. It would increase economic aid but tie it to the protection of minority rights and the creation of a jobs program and seek funding from the oil-rich Gulf Arab states.

The central reality in Iraq is deep and growing sectarian violence between the Shiites and Sunnis. . Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Massive unemployment is feeding the sectarian militia. Sectarian cleansing has forced more than 2 million Iraqis to flee their homes. At the same time, Al Qaeda is now so firmly entrenched in Western Iraq that it has morphed into an indigenous jihadist threat. As a result, Iraq risks becoming what it was not before the war: a haven for radical fundamentalists.

There is no purely military solution to the sectarian civil war. The only way to break the vicious cycle of violence - and to create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw -- is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully. That requires an equitable and viable power sharing arrangement. That's where my plan comes in. This plan is not partition - in fact, it may be the only way to prevent violent partition and preserve a unified Iraq. This plan is consistent with Iraq's constitution, which provides for Iraq's 18 provinces to join together in regions, with their own security forces, and control over most day-to-day issues. This plan is the only idea on the table for dealing with the militia, which are likely to retreat to their respective regions. This plan is consistent with a strong central government, with clearly defined responsibilities. Indeed, it provides an agenda for that government, whose mere existence will not end sectarian violence.

The example of Bosnia is illustrative. Ten years ago, Bosnia was being torn apart by ethnic cleansing. The United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords to keep the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations. We even allowed Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of U.S. troops and others, Bosnians have lived a decade in peace. Now, they are strengthening their central government, and disbanding their separate armies. The Bush administration continues to hope that Iraqis will rally behind a strong central government that keeps the country together and protects the rights of all citizens equally. But that vision has been engulfed by the flames of sectarian hatred. There is no trust within the central government, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity by the government to deliver security and services - and no evidence that we can build that trust and capacity any time soon. There are two other ways to govern Iraq from the center: a foreign occupation that the United States cannot sustain or the return of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, who is no on the horizon.

That leaves federalism as Iraq's best possible future. But unless we help make it work for all Iraqis, it won't stop the violence. We should start with a major diplomatic offensive to convince the major powers and Iraq's neighbors that a federal Iraq is the best possible outcome for them, too. Then, together, we should convene a Dayton-like conference to move all the Iraqi parties from civil war to the negotiating table. Through a combination of pressure and reassurance, we would persuade the Sunnis to accept federalism and press the Shiites and Kurds to give the Sunnis a bigger piece of the pie.

The course we're on leads to a terrible civil war and possibly a regional war. This plan is designed to head that off. It offers the possibility - not the guarantee - of producing a soft landing for Iraq. I believe it is the best way to bring our troops home, protect our fundamental security interests, and preserve Iraq as a unified country.

The question I have for those who reject this plan is simple: what is your alternative?

Joe Biden

A Five Point Plan for Iraq

1. Keep Iraq Together Through Federalism and Local Control

• Federalize Iraq in accordance with its constitution by establishing three or more regions - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd -- with a strong but limited central government in Baghdad

• Put the central government in charge of truly common interests: border defense, foreign policy, oil production and revenues

• Form regional and local governments that give Kurds, Sunni and Shiites control over the fabric of their daily lives: security, education, marriage, social services.

2. Secure Support from the Sunnis

• Gain agreement for the federal solution from the Sunni Arabs by guaranteeing them 20 percent of all present and future oil revenues -- an amount roughly proportional to their size -- which would make their region economically viable

• Empower the central government to set national oil policy and distribute the revenues, to attract needed foreign investment and reinforce each community's interest in keeping Iraq intact and protecting the oil infrastructure. Provide for an international oversight group to guarantee a fair distribution of oil revenues.

• Allow former Baath Party members to go back to work and reintegrate Sunnis with no blood on their hands.

3. Enlist Help from the Major Powers and Iraq's Neighbors

• Initiate a major diplomatic offensive to secure the support of the major powers and Iraq's neighbors for federalism in Iraq.

• Convene with the U.N. a regional security conference where Iraq's neighbors, including Iran, pledge to support Iraq's power sharing agreement and respect Iraq's borders

• Engage Iraq's neighbors directly to overcome their suspicions and focus their efforts on stabilizing Iraq, not undermining it

• Create a standing Oversight Group, to include the major powers, that would engage Iraq's neighbors and enforce their commitments

4. Responsibly Drawdown US Troops

• Direct U.S. military commanders to develop a plan to withdraw and re-deploy almost all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2008

• Maintain in or near Iraq a small residual force -- perhaps 20,000 troops -- to strike any concentration of terrorists, help keep Iraq's neighbors honest and train its security forces

5. Increase Reconstruction Assistance and Create a Jobs Program

• Provide more reconstruction assistance, conditioned on the protection of minority and women's rights and the establishment of a jobs program to give Iraqi youth an alternative to the militia and criminal gangs

• Insist that other countries take the lead in funding reconstruction by making good on old commitments and providing new ones -- especially the oil-rich Arab Gulf countries
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 11:27 am
JB to me is the most qualified Democrat but for reasons only the media can explain, can not get out of the shadow of the Clinton and Obama.
0 Replies
 
Rude boy mc
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 11:30 am
Yep
Nah hes a pussy man
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 11:35 am
woiyo
woiyo wrote:
JB to me is the most qualified Democrat but for reasons only the media can explain, can not get out of the shadow of the Clinton and Obama.


I've always said the Press (including TV Media) actually have the most influence in determining the outcome of national elections. The only thing that might cause a change this time is the Bloggers.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 11:41 am
Are you guys kidding?

Biden is the quintissential big-business democrat. He isn't Liberal in any way, really. He will consistently vote for whatever will make Corporations the most money.

Senator Biden, D-MBNA, will never be president.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 12:12 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Are you guys kidding?

Biden is the quintissential big-business democrat. He isn't Liberal in any way, really. He will consistently vote for whatever will make Corporations the most money.

Senator Biden, D-MBNA, will never be president.

Cycloptichorn


In your opinion, of course.

"He isn't Liberal in any way," Which is why I like him, a JFK Democrat.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 12:13 pm
Re: woiyo
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
woiyo wrote:
JB to me is the most qualified Democrat but for reasons only the media can explain, can not get out of the shadow of the Clinton and Obama.


I've always said the Press (including TV Media) actually have the most influence in determining the outcome of national elections. The only thing that might cause a change this time is the Bloggers.

BBB


Agree especially this coming election. What better theatre than a Black man and a (so-called) women competing against each other!
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 01:01 pm
BBB
Joe Biden is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

My political heart is much further to the left of Biden. When I consider presidential candidates, I judge them on their ability to govern effectively. I believe that presidents and their cabinet departments can only govern effectively from the political center.

We've seen what a disaster George W. Bush has been in attempting to govern from the far right. We've never had a far left president, so there's no way to compare.

Joe Biden is the candidate that I believe would be the most effective president of all of the country, not just the left or the right wings. We need that balance to bring people together for the good of America more than ever in this election.

BBB
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 02:36 pm
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
Joe Biden is a social liberal and a fiscal conservative.

My political heart is much further to the left of Biden. When I consider presidential candidates, I judge them on their ability to govern effectively. I believe that presidents and their cabinet departments can only govern effectively from the political center.

We've seen what a disaster George W. Bush has been in attempting to govern from the far right. We've never had a far left president, so there's no way to compare.

Joe Biden is the candidate that I believe would be the most effective president of all of the country, not just the left or the right wings. We need that balance to bring people together for the good of America more than ever in this election.

BBB



I agree, political center is the way to go. Otherwise you have half the country hating the other half. It's hard to have a positive outlook on your country with all the fighting/bickering and pandering.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 04:03 pm
I couldn't disagree more with you two.

People don't like governing 'from the center.' It gives you weak and crappy governance as you try and please both sides at once. It gives you big-business Democrats like Clinton, Biden and Rockefeller. No thanks.

I'd rather present a clear message to people and give them their choice about what to do, then to split every baby down the middle like some would have happen.

You people need to realize that the center moves. Strong leadership shifts the center itself. Biden isn't that guy and it's amazing that anyone could think that he is.

His vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill alone should be enough to dissuade people from thinking that he has anyone's interests in mind whatsoever other then his Corporate masters.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 04:42 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
His vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill alone should be enough to dissuade people from thinking that he has anyone's interests in mind whatsoever other then his Corporate masters.


I supported the bankruptcy bill. I think debtors in this country need to be taught a lesson, which is also why I'm so pissed about the housing market and the fed bailing them out.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Nov, 2007 04:52 pm
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
His vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill alone should be enough to dissuade people from thinking that he has anyone's interests in mind whatsoever other then his Corporate masters.


I supported the bankruptcy bill. I think debtors in this country need to be taught a lesson, which is also why I'm so pissed about the housing market and the fed bailing them out.


Before I rip into you for this, can I ask: are you really familiar with what the Bankruptcy bill does?

I assume that you are not in fact familiar with this, or else you would never have written anything so silly. It has very little to do with debtors and very much to do with those who have engineered the debts.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 07:41 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
His vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill alone should be enough to dissuade people from thinking that he has anyone's interests in mind whatsoever other then his Corporate masters.


I supported the bankruptcy bill. I think debtors in this country need to be taught a lesson, which is also why I'm so pissed about the housing market and the fed bailing them out.


Before I rip into you for this, can I ask: are you really familiar with what the Bankruptcy bill does?

I assume that you are not in fact familiar with this, or else you would never have written anything so silly. It has very little to do with debtors and very much to do with those who have engineered the debts.

Cycloptichorn


I did not realize you were the conscience of all opinions. Rolling Eyes

Anyway, that bill clearly favored lenders and was a bad bill. Now, the House committee wants to expand this bad bill to include foreclosures

WASHINGTON -

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee could vote on a bill as early as next week that would make changes to bankruptcy law aimed at helping borrowers with subprime loans avoid foreclosure, the body's chairman said Tuesday.

"Time is of the essence," Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., told reporters after a hearing on the topic. "If we're going to do something, we're going to have to do it right away."

Reps. Brad Miller, D-N.C., and Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., introduced a bill last month that would allow bankruptcy judges to change some mortgage terms on a borrower's primary residence, potentially changing the interest rate and other features of a loan.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/10/30/ap4280860.html

I do not believe anyone, either the lender or the borrower, should be granted any special favors as a result of either the lender knowingly making a bad loan or a borrower making a bad decision.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 07:48 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I couldn't disagree more with you two.

People don't like governing 'from the center.' It gives you weak and crappy governance as you try and please both sides at once. It gives you big-business Democrats like Clinton, Biden and Rockefeller. No thanks.

I'd rather present a clear message to people and give them their choice about what to do, then to split every baby down the middle like some would have happen.

You people need to realize that the center moves. Strong leadership shifts the center itself. Biden isn't that guy and it's amazing that anyone could think that he is.

His vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill alone should be enough to dissuade people from thinking that he has anyone's interests in mind whatsoever other then his Corporate masters.

Cycloptichorn


Back on topic, not so sure I agree with you labeling Biden as a Centrist. While he may be more center than Clinton and most of the repub's he will tell you exactly what he thinks and why. That is refreshing considering the opponents he is facing, especially those like Romney and Clinton.

Being on the extreme is what we have now and have had for the past 16 years. I think candidates like Biden can work work with a disjointed Congress. However, he does lack Governing experience. The only candidate who has a LONG record of success in governing is Rudy, but not sure he can work with that Congress.

Either way, too bad Biden has no shot since the Clintons are running and they suck all the air out of the room.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 09:51 am
A President of All the People
Gary Hart describes the very thing I object to. A president who only represents his political base, not the entire nation: The religious Right and corporate interests. ---BBB

A President of All the People
by former Senator Gary Hart
Posted November 6, 2007

In the grand scheme of things, and particularly in a critical election year, the issue of presidential audiences is probably not of the greatest importance. Except that where and to whom a president speaks tells us a lot about how he views his relationship to the people he is oath-bound to serve. Before we see the last of the incumbent president, I hope someone takes the trouble to review all the public speeches the president, and for that matter the vice-president, and for that matter the entire cabinet, have given and the nature of the audiences to whom they spoke. The point is simple: this administration's officials from the top down do not speak to general audiences representing a cross-section of the American people.

This Bush administration has systematically, and cynically, chosen to speak only to audiences whose acceptance and acceptability are guaranteed. Without any research whatsoever, and based only on observation of the staged backdrops to presidential and other speeches, I am willing to wager that George W. Bush and virtually his entire cabinet have never, during this entire administration, spoken in a forum whose doors were open to all.

Think back. Can you remember a presidential speech where the audience was not hand-picked? My guess is this paranoid manipulation and hand-selection of favorable audiences dates to the second Nixon administration, where the president became so unpopular he could not appear before ordinary Americans. This, of course, was also the period that gave rise to the Cheney-Rumsfeld, Addington-Yoo, blue state-red state carving up of America into us versus them and the anti-Constitutional "unitary executive" imperial consolidation of power.

If you are out to set up an imperial presidency and an imperial foreign policy, you are probably well advised to speak only to audiences of carefully selected robotic ditto-heads, those who surrendered objectivity, critical judgment, and reflective thought a long time ago and who will chant "stay the course" and "support the president" every time stage manager Rove flashes the cue. But if you still believe, as I do, that we live under a Constitutional government where are leaders are elected to serve all the people under a system of checks and balances and are to be held accountable in every regard to the people they serve, then we should demand leaders with the courage to face all their constituents on all occasions and address all relevant issues of the day.

By the way, I also don't recall even one press story in the past seven years calling into question this undemocratic practice of imperial audience staging.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 11:08 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
His vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill alone should be enough to dissuade people from thinking that he has anyone's interests in mind whatsoever other then his Corporate masters.


I supported the bankruptcy bill. I think debtors in this country need to be taught a lesson, which is also why I'm so pissed about the housing market and the fed bailing them out.


Before I rip into you for this, can I ask: are you really familiar with what the Bankruptcy bill does?

I assume that you are not in fact familiar with this, or else you would never have written anything so silly. It has very little to do with debtors and very much to do with those who have engineered the debts.

Cycloptichorn


I am quite familiar with this bill. I work for a major credit card company so I keep a pretty close eye on matters that affect my business.

This bill has to do with the debtors. No one is forcing anyone to charge up their credit cards. Should lendors be held liable as well, sure, but the bankruptcy process in this country before was a joke, and still is in many ways.

I've never met anyone who had to declare bankruptcy (absent a medical bill, and for this I think we need universal healthcare), that was not living outside their means or trying to afford a life they couldn't.

Just look at what people in this country think of people who declare bankruptcy, there isn't even a social stigma anymore.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 11:38 am
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
maporsche wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
His vote in favor of the Bankruptcy Bill alone should be enough to dissuade people from thinking that he has anyone's interests in mind whatsoever other then his Corporate masters.


I supported the bankruptcy bill. I think debtors in this country need to be taught a lesson, which is also why I'm so pissed about the housing market and the fed bailing them out.


Before I rip into you for this, can I ask: are you really familiar with what the Bankruptcy bill does?

I assume that you are not in fact familiar with this, or else you would never have written anything so silly. It has very little to do with debtors and very much to do with those who have engineered the debts.

Cycloptichorn


I am quite familiar with this bill. I work for a major credit card company so I keep a pretty close eye on matters that affect my business.

This bill has to do with the debtors. No one is forcing anyone to charge up their credit cards. Should lendors be held liable as well, sure, but the bankruptcy process in this country before was a joke, and still is in many ways.

I've never met anyone who had to declare bankruptcy (absent a medical bill, and for this I think we need universal healthcare), that was not living outside their means or trying to afford a life they couldn't.

Just look at what people in this country think of people who declare bankruptcy, there isn't even a social stigma anymore.


Credit Card Companies provide the "drug" that most people can not handel. then Credit Card Companies, raise credit limits, send out blank checks telling you to write one to yourself, then Credit Card companies raise rates to MAFIA levels then complain when the debtor can not pay the bill.

Credit Card Companies are nothing more than drug dealers.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Nov, 2007 11:40 am
woiyo wrote:

Credit Card Companies provide the "drug" that most people can not handel. then Credit Card Companies, raise credit limits, send out blank checks telling you to write one to yourself, then Credit Card companies raise rates to MAFIA levels then complain when the debtor can not pay the bill.

Credit Card Companies are nothing more than drug dealers.


So....along these lines, do you also not think we should hold drug users accountable for the drugs they possess/use, since it's the dealer's fault? Should they not be held accountable for what the actions they take while using drugs?


I won't deny what you're saying, there is obviously no way to defend SOME of the practices out there, and I would support legislation to curb some of these practices, but that is a seperate issue.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Senator Joe Biden for president---in the primaries
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 12:32:37