5
   

This is interesting, and sad

 
 
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 05:32 pm
Aparently, Joe Biden has been lying about the accident that killed his family, and slandering the other driver involved.

I wonder why he feels the need to do this?

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080904/NEWS02/809040379&referrer=FRONTPAGECAROUSEL

Quote:
Since his vice presidential nomination, Joe Biden's 2007 statement that a "guy who allegedly ... drank his lunch" and drove the truck that struck and killed his first wife and daughter has gained national media traction.


Alcohol didn't play a role in the 1972 crash, investigators found. But as recently as last week, the syndicated TV show Inside Edition aired a clip from 2001 of Biden describing the accident to an audience at the University of Delaware and saying the truck driver "stopped to drink instead of drive."

The senator's statements don't jibe with news and law enforcement reports from the time, which cleared driver Curtis C. Dunn, who died in 1999, of wrongdoing


Quote:
The New York Times reported the 2007 crowd at the University of Iowa grew silent as Biden gave his version of what happened that day.

"Let me tell you a little story," The newspaper quoted Biden as saying. "I got elected when I was 29, and I got elected November the 7th. And on Dec. 18 of that year, my wife and three kids were Christmas shopping for a Christmas tree. A tractor-trailer, a guy who allegedly -- and I never pursued it -- drank his lunch instead of eating his lunch, broadsided my family and killed my wife instantly, and killed my daughter instantly, and hospitalized my two sons, with what were thought to be at the time permanent, fundamental injuries."

Biden told a similar story when addressing an audience at the Bob Carpenter Center at the University of Delaware a few days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.


But apparently, that isnt true...

Quote:
The rumor about alcohol being involved by either party, especially the truck driver, is incorrect," said Jerome O. Herlihy, a Delaware Superior Court judge who was chief deputy attorney general and worked with crash investigators in 1972.

"If it were some part of a cause of the accident, there would have been a charge, simply because if you're driving under the influence and kill someone in the process -- whether it's the wife of a U.S. senator or anybody else -- there's going to be a charge," he said.

Herlihy said investigators discussed several possible causes for the crash, including that Biden's first wife, Neilia, turned her head and didn't see the oncoming truck as she exited the intersection of Limestone and Valley roads on Dec. 18, 1972.


So why is Biden making up the part about alcohol being involved?
Is it to garner sympathy, or is it simply because he wanted there to be alcohol involved?

 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 05:37 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
So why is Biden making up the part about alcohol being involved?
Is it to garner sympathy, or is it simply because he wanted there to be alcohol involved?


I don't know, I think it would be easier for him to think it's the other driver's fault than that his wife merely made a mistake and died. Either way, it's not something he or his opponents should make political hay out of.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 05:40 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I agree it shouldnt be.
But that doesnt explain WHY he is lying about the accident or about alcohol being involved.
Robert Gentel
 
  3  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 05:41 pm
@mysteryman,
It's not supposed to, it's supposed to explain why it doesn't matter.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 05:45 pm
@Robert Gentel,
So then you are saying that it doesnt matter WHY he lied, but that it is ok that he lied?

Mame
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 06:14 pm
@mysteryman,
Anything we proffer would be speculation. If you really want to know, why not write and ask him?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 06:20 pm
@mysteryman,
I'm saying that this kind of political attack is vapid and it needs to be a lot more of a "gotcha" to even be interesting on that level.

I care if they lie about what they will do or what they did, I don't care if someone tells a tall tale on the campaign trail because I don't care about any of their personal narratives. Sometimes it's funny, like when Hillary exaggerated her Bosnia trip (making it look like it's under fire) and then it's mildly entertaining but it all shouldn't matter to real political discourse about the candidate.

I don't care if they lie about their sex life, or what back story they weave. I care about what they can do and what they say they will do. The rest is just gotcha politics and as far as that goes this is a particularly boring example.

Here's an example of an interesting or funny one (from "Barely Politics" which aptly describes what I think of this kind of thing):



maporsche
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 06:55 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I agree, this is VAPID.

Please go say the same thing on the dozen or so Sarah Palin threads that have much more vapid statements that have yet to feel your scorn.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 07:14 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:

I don't know, I think it would be easier for him to think it's the other driver's fault
than that his wife merely made a mistake and died. Either way, it's not something
he or his opponents should make political hay out of.

Well, IF he is intentionally lying, if he uses MENDACITY to influence his audience,
then we need to wonder about what else he claims to be true.
Does that say anything about his character ?




David
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 07:43 pm
@mysteryman,
"allegedly"

nobody knows what happened. people died. it's over.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 07:48 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
nobody knows what happened. people died. it's over.

Well, he appears to have claimed that he knew what happened.

What may not be "over" is the issue of his veracity.
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 10:01 pm
@maporsche,
Why? I've spoken out against it in the past (e.g. earlier today) and will in the future if I feel compelled to, but I don't think like I need to go hunt down a dozen topics I'm not that interested in to make up for my comments here.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 10:17 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, IF he is intentionally lying, if he uses MENDACITY to influence his audience,
then we need to wonder about what else he claims to be true.
Does that say anything about his character ?


Perhaps, but there is not a single candidate in the history of American presidential politics where you couldn't have posed a question like that so it wouldn't be much of a differentiating factor. You can always find mud like this on any politician, and I don't place much stock in assessing "character" when picking your representative. I am interested in what positions they take and what they are likely to do, and not what I can be made to feel about them.

And that's why almost all political branding is vapid to me. I don't think Bush is stupid, I don't think he's evil, but I still think he has been a disaster based on what he did and not who he is. I don't think Obama is significantly better a person than other politicians, I don't think he's above the ugly partisan politics (and think he's particularly hypocritical for pretending to be), but I do think his policies are the best fit for me out of the current crop of candidates.

And that's why I don't care how much Obama loves America, I don't care what he thinks about his pastor, I just care about what positions he takes and how likely he is to make good on them. I don't care if you think Biden may have lied about a personal story (in fact I'm sure he and everyone else his age have at some point) or who endured just how much torture or sniper fire.

That's all for the soap opera crowd, you can portray any of these guys negatively quite easily and that's just the entertainment and gossip portion of politics for me. Interesting only if particularly clever or funny.
eoe
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 10:25 pm
I have to agree. Why would Joe Biden lie about such a thing? Over and over?
boomerang
 
  5  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:24 am
1972?

Hmmm. I recall reading somewhere that field sobriety tests didn't really get standardized until the late 70s or early 80s. They certainly didn't have breathalyzers and that sort of thing to determine whether someone had been drinking.

It is really pretty silly to say Biden is lying and that we should doubt his character based on something like this. The general concensus might have been that the driver was drinking but there wasn't any way to prove it.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:24 pm
@boomerang,
Quote:
The general concensus might have been that the driver was drinking
but there wasn't any way to prove it.

U mean no one was convicted of drunken driving before the late 1970s or 80s ??
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:26 pm
@eoe,
Quote:
I have to agree.
Why would Joe Biden lie about such a thing? Over and over?

To convince people of something ?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 08:29 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, IF he is intentionally lying, if he uses MENDACITY to influence his audience,
then we need to wonder about what else he claims to be true.
Does that say anything about his character ?


Perhaps, but there is not a single candidate in the history of American presidential politics where you couldn't have posed a question like that so it wouldn't be much of a differentiating factor. You can always find mud like this on any politician, and I don't place much stock in assessing "character" when picking your representative. I am interested in what positions they take and what they are likely to do, and not what I can be made to feel about them.

Mr. Gentel:
Your points are very well reasoned.

When I vote,
I choose the person who 'd do the job as close to how I 'd do if, if I had the job.




David
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  2  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2008 09:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No. That's not what I mean and that is not what I said.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Sat 6 Sep, 2008 01:21 am
@boomerang,
Well, if u admit
that people WERE convicted of drunken driving in that year (as thay certainly were),
then that means that it must have been possible to PROVE drunkeness.
If so,
then how can u explain police ignoring arrest of a drunken truck driver who killed people ?

That amounts to criminally negligent homicide.

A few days ago, I was involved in a vehicular collision
wherein the other driver was arrested for drunken driving.
The police are not shy about doing that.

I think that the reason that u r defending Biden (or his lying) is that he is a Democrat
and further to the left of McCain and of Governor Palin.
In other words, its a matter of whose ox is gored, Boomer.
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » This is interesting, and sad
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 06/26/2019 at 12:31:07