I want to support a candidate who understands how difficult it is to actually pass programs in the Congress, but who has done it repeatedly, and who understands what is politically possible.
I do not want to support candidates who engage in virtue-signaling and magical thinking about how the Congress will fall at their feet and magically pass their elaborate plans without difficulty.
This is not a year to stage a primary contest that features purity tests, condemnations of candidates for political incorrectness, stoking smug moral superiority for supporting idealistic programs that cannot pass, and consequences that include the re-election of a literal racist autocrat who opposes democracy and the rule of law.
Not this year.
Watch what he does, not what he says. What Democrat is he afraid to run against because he knows he will lose?
Well, which Democrat is he targeting with illegal extortion schemes involving taxpayer money and foreign governments?
@Which Democrat is he targeting …:
As I observed on the other thread, I’m not willing to let Mr. Trump decide who is best suited to be our president in 2020 — for or against.
I don’t want another President who thinks he (or she) can “work with” the GOP, and therefore targets policy at what the GOP will support rather than what the nation needs. Barack Obama didn’t figure out that he wasn’t going to get anywhere with Mitch McConnell until halfway through his second term — well after his majority in Congress was gone.
Joe Biden seems to be saying something to the effect of “Donald Trump is terrible, and the GOP is ok once we get rid of Mr. Trump.” I think that’s utter hogwash. It might have been true in the 1970s. It is not true today.
I want a President who is a bit more attuned to the optics of what his or her family does. Without in any way accepting the Trumpist view of what happened in the Ukraine, can we agree that Hunter Biden’s deal with Burisma Holdings — literally while his father was, as Vice President, attempting to play hardball with the nation — created a conflict of interest for his father and simply LOOKED appalling?
I think we can do better than Joe Biden in 2020.
Be clear and say that you support Biden and think that the programs proposed by Warren or Sanders are fantasy.
I see a lot of “you don’t understand how Congress works” or “you don’t understand the politics of the time” etc etc coming up these days about criticism of some actions in the Obama years and claim that new bold policies are DOA.
One thing I remember is Obama endorsing Joe Lieberman in 2006 after Lieberman lost the Democratic primary to Ned Lamont. Lieberman repaid that favor with endorsing John McCain in 2008. Obama said to let Lieberman keep his committee seats. And then with the ACA, a public option was killed because apparently Lieberman wouldn’t support it. We got a watered down bill because of one guy, and a guy no Dems or the administration even approached playing hardball with. Is that the kind of realpolitik you’re talking about?
Another thing I remember is a $1.5T Trump tax cut passed with lightning speed and 51 votes.
So, what’s realistic?
We can do things, we just choose not to and then say “it wasn’t possible.”
Today I attended a local climate strike. It was small, about 300 people, but it was nearly 10% of the town’s population. And I saw reports of millions of Americans engaged in similar actions (and millions more across the Globe). These actions were started by young people. Young people outraged about what has been done to the planet and furious about the inaction of politicians to address the biggest threat to their future. These young people are not focused on next year and beating a fascist, they are focused on whether they will be alive in 25 years.
I don’t know how we can look at massive mobilization like this and think we’ll go with the guy who these people don’t want. The guy who told them “give me a break” about expressing their frustration with the modern world.
I remember Nixon targeting Muskie to clear the way for the nomination of a virtuous, admirable candidate who was a true patriot and a war hero, but because his programs were too far out of the political center (where American elections are won), he also lost 49 states.
And regardless of what you, or I, or anyone else remembers, can we seriously not agree that this upcoming presidential election will be sui generous because we face a literal fascist for the first time in modern American history?
There are no suitable nor adequate historical comparisons of any kind that are ample to address our current predicament, including, in all honesty, the one I just cited.
Listening to Iowa voters talk about the candidates like they’re choosing a brand of soap is alarming.
We need a candidate who can BOTH bring out the African-American base and bring in swing voters, whether we like it or not.
HE IS GOING TO CHEAT; this needs to be a rout.
That does a huge disservice to the number of grassroots Democrats and independents who are going to all of these events and holding their feet to the fire on detailed policy prescriptions like Medicare for All or a Green New Deal.
The only candidate who sounds like he’s marketing a product is Biden. Obama tested, Obama approved. His voters are the least informed about the race and the most likely to make their decision based on media coverage of “electability”, arbitrary tenure, and warm fuzzy feelings that he’s a nice guy.
It’s the left of center candidates who have the detailed plans and that is why their supporters are backing them. Thank Bernie or Liz are winning personality contests? It’s about ideas.
That swipe at those of us supporting Biden was really uncalled for! You can support whomever you like, but please respect that the rest of us have made our choice.
Have you seen anything the other Biden supporters routinely post? All they do is disrespect our senior Senator, Bernie Sanders, and their progressive supporters. They can’t have it both ways and use Republican talking points against progressives while claiming progressives are using Republican talking points against Biden. They can’t call for civility after post after post attacking Warren and Bernie as unelectable.
I remember 1972 being nearly 50 years ago. I know that seems like yesterday to Biden and his supporters, but some of us have embraced the changing demographics of this country and the changing public opinion. A majority of republicans support some kind of Medicare for all program. A majority of Republicans want to curtail corporate power. A majority of all voters want to reduce our carbon footprint, control guns, and reduce our military footprint. Hillary lost because she failed to inspire enough progressives and voters of color to turn out, because she failed to appeal to populist independents, and because she let Trump define himself against the status quo she represented. Biden is making all of the same mistakes, without the barrier breaking virtues Clinton brought to the table.
Is it just me or are you getting increasingly bitter about Biden and his supporters? What has he done to you?
He hasn’t done anything. I’m resentful of Terry and Fred trying to have it both ways. Calling for civility and calling their opponents Trump enablers whenever their candidate is validly attacked for his shortcomings, but using Republican talking points to dismiss Warren and Sanders as magical thinkers. I’m sorry, but that DLC playbook is totally discredited and unnecessary.
Frankly it’s the same argument they made against Bernie in 2016, a candidate exit polls consistently showed would’ve outperformed Clinton. It’s this kind of thinking that limits what Democratic politicians can accomplish in office and limits the pool of credible nominees to establishment grandees that never win. I don’t have to subscribe to it to be a good primary voter.
@Are you getting increasingly bitter about Biden:
The rhetoric against those of us who prefer other candidates is intense and personal. If you don’t like the bitterness, then perhaps you can join us in encouraging the more outspoken proponents of Joe Biden to turn down the volume a few notches.
In the case of Fred I know bombast to be his personality, but I actually would not take it personally. I also don’t think they are accusing those who support other candidates as being too pure, but rather those who attack Biden. You (generically, not an accusation) can engage in the former without the latter easily. That said, I have always advocated positive diaries on behalf of one’s chosen candidate.
Understood. Having spent some face-time with Fred, I totally get what you mean. I also think he knows that my commentary is never directed at him personally.
At least on this thread, I don’t see anything excessively bitter or personal. We are all here because each of us is passionate about these things.
No harm, no foul.
We can, however, turn down the volume a notch or two. The discussion might improve.
Sick burn of the week from jconway:
This supporter was not yet born in 1972.
I was very much alive in 1972.
This exchange comes up because of the spurious claim that anybody except Joe Biden is analogous to George McGovern in 1972. In particular, the spurious claim that Ed Muskie was the candidate most likely to beat Richard Nixon.
If those who are not old enough to remember the 1972 want to express an opinion on this fallacious claim, they should at least — like you — admit that their claim is not based on any first-hand experience and is therefore very much subject to the many media distortions that have happened since then.
Richard Nixon was a very popular president in September of 1971. Hubert Humphrey was far and away the most popular potential Democratic nominee at that time. None of those contenders would have defeated Richard Nixon in the 1972 election. The margin might have been a bit narrower if Hubert Humphrey had been the nominee, but not by much.
LBJ was a very UNPOPULAR president by the time he stepped down — that’s the reason why he chose not to run for re-election. Hubert Humphrey was badly damaged by his association with LBJ.
Richard Nixon had defeated Mr. Humphrey 31.7 m to 30.9 million — a relatively narrow margin of popular votes (though with a comfortable electoral college majority of 301-191).
George Wallace took 9.9M votes, about ten times the amount needed to change the popular vote outcome.
The racists of America determined the outcome of the 1968 election and put Richard Nixon in office. Those racists would not vote for George McGovern, nor would they vote for Ed Muskie.
The fact is that Nixon himself thought Muskie was a greater threat to his re-election than George McGovern and that ‘s why he authorized his henchmen to get ‘dirt’ on Muskie to sabotage his nomination.
Trump ordered his henchman to get ‘dirt’ on the strongest challenger he fears most — Vice President Joe Biden — to sabotage his campaign for the nomination.
Sound familiar?
Those of us who remember 1972 have seen this movie before.
“History repeats itself, first as tragedy and then as farce.” Karl Marx
I met Ed Muskie. I knew Ed Muskie. Ed Muskie was a friend of mine.
George McGovern was no Ed Muskie. 🙂
History is repeating itself in the sense that the President is abusing his power to go after his political opponents. I do not doubt that. It’s actually worse under Trump since it’s involved at least one foreign government (and probably many more for 2016 though the proof is less ironclad). I also do not doubt that he thinks Biden is his strongest opponent, that does not make it so.
There are a lot of reasons its no longer 1972. Gays were a criminalized minority, with even Muskie refusing to shake their hands, and support of their marital rights is at the highest its ever been in 2019. Even among Republicans. Abortion was widely unpopular and McGovern’s now downright conservative stance (let the states decide) was considered too radical. Wallace won a lot of Northern hard hat Democrats who defected to Nixon over busing, interracial marriage, and the Warren court.
The Muskie analogy does not work since Nixon was averaging a higher than 50% approval rating his first term, a rating that went up or down depending on Vietnam ‘progress’ and went way up after the China trip which really gave him an unassailable edge in 72′. Muskie would have done better in theory, but in practice, if the man couldn’t handle dealing with an obviously forged letter and attacks on his wife in a primary, he would’ve been no match for CREEP in a general.
McGovern had unique factors that hurt his campaign. He was not nominated until 1am, his Vice President invented the ‘acid, amnesty, and abortion’ line (although he did not know it at the time), and he ended up dropping him over the electroshock therapy three weeks later. That’s when support really cratered.
Nixon elevated the head of the hard hat riots to the D.O.L and Vietnam hawk Meaney tacitly and then overtly backed Nixon. You had a very strong Democrats for Nixon and even Humphrey backed Nixon, if the tapes are to be believed.
So you had the DNC, labor, and northern whites desert the nominee before he even was nominated. That is unprecedented and would not happen today, unless you Biden people stay home if Bernie wins and re-elect Trump. That is a real 72′ analogy that’s valid.
Yeah, a repeat of 1972 would be because of Dems staying home out of spite not independents rejecting a left-wing candidate.
The real issue is that we’re much closer to repeating 2016 than anything else.
The tragedy of Nixon is that he didn’t need Watergate to win re-election handily, and he could have gone down as one of our better Presidents if not for that and related activities motivated by his inner demons. I was just responding to the ageist swipe about 1972 feeling like yesterday to Biden supporters.
No offense to you ‘youngins’ but I’m still waiting for Tom to answer my question.
Why? It’s totally irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant.
It is. Even if you’re right about that electorate, the bulk of that electorate is literally dead. The ‘silent majority’ and ‘Reagan Democrat’ is largely dead. If we are talking about 35-55 year old white working class voters who defected from the Democrats to the GOP between 1972-1992 we are talking about a largely dead cohort of voters.
2020 will be decided by millions of new voters and millions of newly registered voters. We already saw this happen in 2018. Orange County was a Goldwater bastion in 1964, one of the few places he won, and its one of the most successful places for Democrats today. McGovern still managed to carry yellow dog Democrat counties in the South that Barack Obama never could. Correlation is not causation. We are looking at a totally different electorate in 2020 than we saw in 2016, let alone, 1972.
Tom, will you at least acknowledge that your Elizabeth Warren is the most electable left candidate in the field as my Joe Biden is the most electable moderate?
@ Will you at least acknowledge:
I agree that Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden are each electable. I also agree that Elizabeth Warren is to the left of Joe Biden (to the extent that the left/right dichotomy is meaningful today).
My support of Elizabeth Warren is motivated by at least the following:
1. She brings intellectual prowess to issues that is unique among all the candidates of both parties. Elizabeth Warren is arguably the strongest intellectual of any elected official today. I compare her to the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan in that regard.
2. She correctly targets wealth concentration as the most immediate and pressing issue to address in the 2020 campaign.
3. Because of both (1) and (2), her proposals are much more likely to accomplish real progress towards the intended goals of each. Even if they are not adopted in their entirety, each is correctly aimed at making real progress towards very real concerns.
I think it’s both mistaken and strategically incorrect to reduce these to a simplistic left/right dichotomy.
We actually see something similar playing out in the Senate Intelligence Committee as we speak, regarding the Trump Administration’s outrageous betrayal of American national security interests in favor of his own (or Vladimir Putin’s) personal political agenda. Even the GOP members of the Senate Intelligence Committee recognize that that crosses a red line that is irrelevant to left-vs-right or red-vs-blue dichotomies. Even Moscow Mitch sees this. Yesterday’s unanimous consent Senate resolution is remarkable because of this.
I think the political situation of 2020 is more complex than Joe Biden paints it. I also think it is more complex than Bernie Sanders paints it.
That’s why I think Elizabeth Warren is the best candidate.
I would add to this that EW I think has found the sweet spot for uniting the head with the heart, which is why I think she has the most likely path to the nomination.
@Still waiting for Tom …:
Sorry, I was out-of-pocket most of the morning.
I’ve always agreed with you that it sounds familiar — Richard Nixon doing dirty tricks against his most feared opponent and Donald Trump doing the same.
The point of my responses is that I come to a different conclusion about the takeaway from you. I hear you saying that we should have nominated Ed Muskie in 1972, and that we should similarly nominate Joe Biden today. Somebody went so far as to suggest that any candidate other than Joe Biden will repeat George McGovern’s landslide loss in 1972. I have a profoundly different view of that election.
I think that Ed Muskie would have performed just as badly as George McGovern.had he been nominated. Contemporary polling (and primary results) strongly suggested that only Hubert Humphrey had a realistic shot at beating Richard Nixon. Democrats (perhaps unwisely) rejected Mr. Humphrey because of the taint of his close association with the much-despised LBJ.
I therefore think that main reason why 2020 and Joe Biden is different from 1972 and Ed Muskie is that at the moment there are at least four other Democratic candidates who poll higher than Donald Trump. Ed Muskie never polled higher than Richard Nixon.
The abuse of Donald Trump’s power is even more egregious than Richard Nixon’s. The burning question today is whether or not the American government of 2020 is as able to do the right non-partisan thing as the American government of 1972.
Tom, thank you for answering my question.
We just respectfully disagree about the lesson learned from history.
I honestly fear that if our nominee moves too far left of middle America too fast we will ensure the Fascist’s re-election.
Then again, who knows? We just may impeach and convict the corrupt traitor and make the whole argument moot?
And then we’ll be running against the homophobic , right-wing religious zealot!
@homophobic right-wing religious zealot:
Funny you should mention that. I’m working on a diary about that exact possibility. Stay tuned.
Might your diary — if it takes the form of a suspense novella — also acknowledge the possibility that IQ45 could be frog walked out of the White House in hand cuffs and Pencepalion might follow him to the hoosegow?
And, that there might be a theoretical possibility of a President Pelosi?
One can still dream, can’t we? 🙂
Apparently Pence also traveled to Ukraine to secure this deal. I have a feeling President Pence is about as far as the GOP Senate will be willing to go. It also creates an issue now that Trump has prevented other Republicans from appearing on primary ballots and filing deadlines are approaching…
We are agreed that all those who violated their sacred Oath of Office to protect America from all her enemies — both foreign and domestic — should be brought to justice.
*cringing at “sacred” oaths and calling shots on who’s an enemy*
Why?
There’s nothing sacred about it and what/who’s an enemy?
Russia, Trump, Obama, Clinton, Manning, Snowden? How are we deciding we’re all in agreement on who is an enemy?
The enemy is whomever seeks to undermine or harm us. Oaths have traditionally be considered sacred to some degree, which is why those who object to that are allowed to affirm rather than swear.
Amen to this Fred! I want to live in a world where Trump is removed from office for his crimes and we can go back to having a debate about policy and values instead of his loathsomeness.
I was not ageist. The candidates I am defending are also in the 70’s. The difference is, they are running campaigns based on 2020 values and targeting 2020 voters. Using 1972 standards of electability like Joe Biden or Fred seem to be using is a categorical error.
There are now more voters between the ages of 18-22 who could not vote last election than there are Obama-Trump voters. There is now a majority minority electorate in many states and counties that simply did not exist in 1972. The ‘suburban voters’ are now more likely to be socially liberal than socially conservative. A majority of the ‘silent majority’ and a majority of ‘Reagan Democrats’ are dead. These electorates literally no longer exist anymore. So why do we keep talking about them as if they do.
Amen to all of these.
There is one aspect of the 1972 vs 2020 comparison that I think is worth being more explicit about.
The racist Americans who supported George Wallace in 1968 and again in 1972 are very much alive today. If anything, there are more of them and they are a more powerful political force today than they were then. They are the core of the Trumpist voters.
Our candidate MUST be able to effectively counter that political force. That is why I found Joe Biden’s intentional reference to his willingness to “work with” the segregationists of the 1970s to be very problematic. That was a failed strategy then and I think it will fail today.
I think that racism is a disease that must be eradicated from our culture. I don’t think we do that by “reaching out” to unrepentant racists — whether they are named James Eastland, Herman Talmadge, Strom Thurmond, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, or Steven King.
We’ve already beaten the McGovern horse to death.
Richard Nixon would have beat Ed Muskie or Hubert Humphrey. The Democrats did not lose the election because we nominated George McGovern.
While it’s true that Richard Nixon targeted Ed Muskie, let’s not forget that Richard Nixon was forced to leave office because his campaign also targeted George McGovern (the Watergate break-in was designed to compromise the campaign of George McGovern).
Of course Donald Trump is going to cheat. So what?
There are no swing voters left. I think that anybody who tells a pollster that they haven’t made up their mind about Donald Trump is lying to the pollster.
I encourage you to take deep breaths. Joe Biden is not our savior. He is one of several candidates who is able to defeat Donald Trump.
Most importantly, we need a nominee who is able to govern the nation after winning the election. I am convinced that at least one candidate is better suited for that than Mr. Biden.
Tom, how can you claim with such certainty that the Democrats did not lose the ’72 election by nominating George McGovern?
Will you at least honestly acknowledge for our younger friends here that McGovern was the most left liberal nominee when contrasted to the more center moderate liberal Ed Muskie?
Um have you heard of Shirley Chisholm? Gloria Steinem says one of her biggest regrets was endorsing McGovern as the ‘electable anti-war liberal’ over Shirley. She was to McGovern’s left.
Actually McGovern and Humphrey had nearly identical voting records, what did McGovern in was his commission that took power away from the party bosses and they returned the favor with a vengeance by backing Nixon. Connolly, Meaney, Daley, and a host of other party figures tacitly or overtly backed Nixon.
There is also a strong case to be made that we’d all be better off if we followed the GOP and followed “our Goldwater” with “our Reagan”. Instead, the tepid centrist Carter got clobbered from his left and right by the consistently conservative Reagan. He then clobbered another bland white centrist named Mondale who was followed by another bland white centrist named Dukakis. Neither were particularly liberal either,both ran as deficit hawks. Mondale’s infamous tax line was part of a balanced budget pledge while Dukakis won the nomination as a fiscally centrist Governor backed by the nascent DLC. It’s Bush’s attack dogs who made him into a ‘flaming’ liberal. When we play by the GOPs rules, we will always be playing defense. Better to go on offense.
Chisholm was not the Democratic nominee.
McGovern won’t be the nominee in 2020. He is dead. So is his opponent and so are the majority of people who voted in that election.
Tom and I aren’t dead and didn’t your mother ever teach you to show more respect for the dead?
In 1972, we chose a nominee from among candidates. Shirley Chisholm was MUCH more extreme than any of Hubert Humphrey, Ed Muskie, and George McGovern.
I don’t think left-vs-right had much impact in the nomination, nor do I think it had much impact in the election. Hubert Humphrey was far and away the most electable. He won the most primary votes.
With all due respect to your youthful enthusiasm for Ed Muskie, Mr. Muskie was never more than a marginal candidate (I’m thinking Cory Booker in this primary or what’s-his-name from Baltimore in 2016). Even without the scurrilous dirty tricks from the Nixon campaign, Ed Muskie would not have won the general.
Like it or not, America in 1971 was overwhelmingly supportive of Richard Nixon and the GOP. That is VERY different from America of 2019.
I have a lot of respect for my grandfather and consider him the source of a lot of my values. He and my father both proudly voted for McGovern and he (a 300+ pound man) danced like a schoolgirl the day Nixon resigned. I wish he were around to talk about politics. He would’ve loved Obama and hated Trump.
Heh.
I lived at 270 Babcock Street, directly across the street from Nickerson Field and the BU dorms, when Richard Nixon resigned. I’m happy to say that I joined a rather large throng of people of all ages who danced on Babcock Street all afternoon that day.
I was a 22 year old new arrival in Boston that summer (I moved in on Memorial Day that year, just a few weeks earlier).
I can claim with 100% certainty that this has no bearing on whom the Democrats nominate in 2020.
The 1972 electorate was entirely different than 2020. It was majority white, majority socially conservative on questions of race, religion, gender equality, and homosexuality. Majority hawkish on Vietnam. And it is majority dead today. We can debate all we want about how dead voters from 1972 would vote in 2020, but I would rather focus on living voters in 2020.
James, my question was directed to Tom, not you.
If we get the substance of this Ukraine extortion and it turns into an impeachment, then I think Biden’s collateral damage. The deal with his son is fishy enough that Dems should cauterize the “both sides do it” argument.
Fishy indeed. Hunter Biden had no industry experience and no prior relationship to the company. Suddenly, in a bolt from the blue, he was made a director of a major Ukranian oil company just as his father was engaged in difficult exchanges with the Ukraine government.
Do we think that the similar deals done by Ivanka Trump are ok (I don’t)? How would such deal on the part of Chelsea Clinton have gone down while Ms. Clinton was Secretary of State?
I’m sorry, but this smells worse than fishy to me. I’m not defending the actions of Mr. Trump. If he had sincere concerns about corruption, he should have instructed his DoJ to initiate an investigation and his State Department to communicate with their counterparts in the Ukraine if investigative help from the Ukraine government was needed. As always, Mr. Trump instead proceeded like the autocrat and mobster that he is.
Nevertheless, the deal with Hunter Biden stunk.
This is actually depressing. Okay, go ahead, have your purity quest. I happen to know other Americans who worked on boards in the former Soviet Union. If you experienced this era in that region as I did as the director of an NGO, you would know that there is nothing “fishy” about this.
This conversation is remarkable for the sheer level of speculation, conjecture, and smearing with NO BASIS.
We deserve better. All Dem candidates deserve better, not just Trump’s current target, a target you apparently share.
Incredible.
Maybe Democrats would be in full control of things if we did indeed have a purity test. Maybe if we stopped focusing on “the money” and stayed “on message”, we’d have full control of the house, senate, White House and courts.
I’m fed up with even the hint of corruption with any Democrat.
“…speculation, conjecture and smearing with NO BASIS”?
Do you deny the facts of the situation? Is a no-show job paying more than a half million dollars a year “speculation, conjecture and smearing with NO BASIS”
You demand that I refuse to see or react to the plain facts. If you have to attack me for my “purity quest”, what what will you say to the rest of America outside your blue bubble?
I’m quite confident that if a son or daughter or Charlie Baker were awarded a half-million dollar a year no-show job with a Massachusetts company currently under investigation by his administration, you’d be right next to me going to the barricades about THAT “flagrant corruption”.
Your stance is indeed incredible.
Now you’re bringing up the Soviet Union to discredit Warren and Sanders? You have yet to provide any evidence to back up your assertions, so why should we take them seriously?
@I happen to know other Americans who worked on boards in the former Soviet Union:
I see. So it’s not corrupt if you know other Americans who do it? The Mueller report is chock full of reports of other Americans who worked in various capacities for Russian oligarchs. Are those now also OK?
Nothing is “fishy”. I thought the current GOP dealt in contentless innuendo.
It’s a $600,000 per year no-show job for a corrupt oil industry executive under investigation by the government Mr. Biden is encouraging to crack down on corruption.
I’ve been fairly explicit, I think — hardly “innuendo”. The New York Times is hardly a right-wing mouthpiece. Yet even a brief reading of it’s reporting on the story makes the stench even worse (emphasis mine):
If it’s innuendo you want, we could always talk about Hunter Biden’s contemporaneous discharge from the Navy Reserve for failing a cocaine test.
If a son or daughter of Charlie Baker were to accept a half-million dollar per year no-show job with Juul, would you also be fine with that? Particularly if said son or daughter had just been discharged from the military for failing a cocaine test?
I promise you that this community at BMG is FAR more gentle and kind than the general public will be in the midst of presidential campaign.
“What Democrat is he afraid to run against because he knows he will lose?”
That to me sounds like magical thinking. I think the reality is “Which Democrat is a big fat juicy target?”
Just keep your heads in the sand and keep ignoring the polls.
There’s a REASON that Giuliani-Cohn was on Fox News desperately slinging false bile about Biden this morning.
They know that Biden is the only candidate that will be difficult if not impossible to paint and slime.
Why? The American people know and like him.
But by all means, just keep trashing a Democratic candidate that finally seems to have teflon.
I’m much closer to Warren on most issues and I hope (and believe) she will be the first American woman president some day.
But I also know how the electoral college works. And I understand that one-on-one state-by-state polls are not fiction, however much some on the left are now talking about scientific polling post-2016 in a manner that sounds more like the Know-Nothing right than the knowledge-based progressive left.
Which polls? The polls showing a handful of Democrats beating Trump nationally and in battleground states?
I remember many polls from 2016 showing that election to be a relatively easy one for Clinton. And those were weeks before the election! In Sept 2015 polls, Clinton beat Trump by ten points (she tied or lost to other GOP candidates in polls at that time). I also remember many warning signs about a closing campaign focused solely on Trump, bad GOTV, ignoring important states, and a pervasive belief assuming that certain groups would turn out on election day. I think the head in the sand thinking is that we do the same thing in 2020 as we did in 2016 and expect different results.
I think Magical Thinking involves believing that polls a year out are the only things that matter and that a candidate’s daily gaffes, signs of mental decline, policies not exciting important voting groups, and now a scandal that will (even if completely bogus) work perfectly into the hands of the GOP, don’t matter at all. But that’s just about electability.
If polls now are showing multiple candidates beating Trump in the states needed to win, and also showing other strong indicators like the popularity of progressive policies (did you see the damn marches on Friday?!?!) or success of campaigning (Warren converting voters and rising, Sanders hitting the 1 million donor mark faster than any candidate in history) why wouldn’t you support the candidate whose ideas you like the most?
The last line of this is the money quote:
“Why wouldn’t you support the candidate whose ideas you like the most?”
THAT is why we have primaries. Our job is to put forward the candidate whose ideas we like the most. Winning elections, designing campaign strategies, creating messaging operations and all that stuff is the job of professionals who do those things MUCH better than any of us.
Our job is to tell that army of political professionals which candidate offers the ideas we like the most.
There are other considerations. I may be closer to Warren on issues and ideas, but believe Biden’s experience better suits him.
Do you include a sweetheart deal for his son from the CEO of the largest oil company in the Ukraine — and at the top of the list of companies suspected of corrupt dealings with the Ukraine government — in your view of the experience that makes him more suitable?
I really don’t like it. I think that’s exactly the kind of “legal corruption” that we ought to be stopping.
The more I read about that, the more it seems to be turning into a nothingburger.
I recall you saying the exact same thing about the emails. They ended up killing her campaign. I think we need to be reality based and recognize that the same old establishment politics is not gonna cut it in the age of Trump.
Yes, and I WAS RIGHT! The email “scandal” was even faker than this one and I will not choose candidates based on the gullibility of the American electorate!
(Actually, not THAT gullible – they did choose HRC by 2.8 million votes and Biden does seem to have the greatest affinity with and margins over Trump with voters in those key handful of states which flipped the EC against her.)
You can’t argue, as you have before, that Comey swung the election to Trump while arguing the emails didn’t matter to swing voters. You also can’t cite the popular vote win for Hillary while insisting Biden is presently the best bet to win the electoral college.
I think we win when we run on progressive values and principles, I think Biden is lacking in both areas. I’ll vote for him in a general, but frankly I am tired by the one note “electability” and nostalgia infused campaign. It’s light in substance and light on policy beyond “not Trump”. I don’t find his experience to be relevant since he’s been wrong on more issues than he’s been right.
Bernie’s been consistent and arguably has better experience than Biden having been a mayor and a house member alongside being a senator. Biden was consistently wrong as VP. He wanted to hold off on getting bin Laden, hold off on Obamacare, let the bishops dictate birth control and health insurance, a smaller stimulus, etc.
So I just don’t see a reason to vote for him in the primary and resent being called a purist or a magical thinker for believing in Warren.
Hey, Warren is my close second and still my top bet for who might actually get the nomination because I think she can unite head and heart (and things seem to be moving in the right direction for her). I’ve never said that emails did not swing votes. I’ve said they are the stupidest reason to swing votes and I refuse to coddle that. I do continue to think we must be mindful of the map AND what people actually wanted in 2016. I don’t believe I have claimed that progressive is my top criterion, but of the progressives in the top tier I much prefer our Senator.
I also think Warren is fantastic, and her politics are closer to mine. But unlike what some are saying onhere, I agree with you, Christopher. There is more to a decision about what candidate to support for president than whose idea are closest to you. This is what makes politics complex and also poetic: the broadest possible range of considerations is necessary.
Bernie is closer to my politics then Warren and I still think he is the best communicator in the field, especially to non-Democratic voters. I am voting for Warren since she has a plan to govern and to win policy victories on Day 1. Biden’s gonna hold hands with Mitch and vaguely continue what Obama did, Bernie is gonna yell and scream for a grassroots army to come to the rescue they won’t materialize. Warren is the choice for the policy informed realists in the race. No magical thinking about it.
I’m not saying we should coddle it, but I have no idea why we need to pretend it doesn’t exist or excuse the things people on our side do that invite scrutiny. Trumps impeachability is not a blanket of immunity for any Democrat who runs against him. Some of them are less susceptible to corporate corruption than others, and it remains a relevant issue in this race.
Apparently my middle name is “Purist” b/c I support the people who I think are the most Progressive in their respective primaries.
Reminds me of when Whitey Bulger hit the lottery.
Funny you should mention that, I was thinking the same thing.
I wonder how many people remember the claims that Mr. Bulger “just got lucky like anyone else”.
OK, I am curious – what is this a reference to?
When Whitey Bulger won the lottery.
At the time that Whitey Bulger won the lottery, the claim by Lottery officials and others was that Mr. Bulger “just got lucky like anyone else.”
We now know that the truth was that Whitey Bulger forced the actual winner to give Mr. Bulger a significant share of the prize. Mr. Bulger didn’t get lucky at all. He extorted the prize in the same way that he took so many other things.
Why would the Lottery lie about something like that? I assume they knew who the real winner was and benefit from maintaining the integrity of their agency. How long ago was this? I don’t recall the story at all. Not sure how this is relevant to the story at hand either. Bulger was a crook; Biden not so much.
The event happened in 1991.
The relevance is that the lottery officials told the truth, and there was nothing improper about the winning ticket itself. That part is analogous to the various parties, including the Barack Obama administration and Joe Biden himself, saying that there was nothing improper about Joe Biden’s behavior.
At the same time, Whitey Bulger was in fact a criminal. He did not get lucky, he extorted his share of the winning ticket from the actual winner after the result was already known. That part is analogous to those of who say that Hunter Biden’s directorship — and Joe Biden’s refusal to distance himself from it — was “unsavory”. Not as bad as Whitey Bulger, of course (I suspect that Bob is using hyperbole for effect), but still unsavory.
That sentence is a tautology.
This sentence is a tautology.
So long as we’re enjoying semantic juggling, I’ve always enjoyed this:
“All Cretans are liars”, spoken by a Cretan.
Expressed in formal mathematical notation, it is the basis of Godel’s famous theorems.
Joe Biden is the only that can what everyone else can do.
@Just keep your heads in the sand …:
Do you think commentary like this persuades skeptics that you are correct? Or are you instead spitting in the faces of those of us who dare to see things differently from you?
Of course there’s a reason for Mr. Guiliani’s “outburst” on CNN (more people saw that than this Fox News appearance). The reason is the same as his similar behavior during the Stormy Daniels episode — providing political cover for Mr. Trump. Like all things involving Donald Trump, this has everything to do with Donald Trump and little or nothing to do with Joe Biden.
In what world do you think Joe Biden has teflon? Do you really want a candidate with Teflon? I invite you to review our officials who are described that way, and ask whether we want our guys to be like them.
Speaking of teflon, how do feel about a sudden sweetheart deal for the sitting Vice President’s son when the sitting Vice President is dispatched to get tough with a foreign nation riddled with official corruption? Maybe that’s ok with you. It’s not ok with me. It isn’t OK that Ivanka Trump does it. It would not have been ok if Chelsea Clinton did it during her mother’s tenure as Secretary of State. That’s the kind of thing that rightly burns right through teflon. Even the Obama administration called it a clear conflict of interest.
I find your assertion that my head is in the sand insulting and offensive. It tempts me to counter with a suggestion that you remove your head from a more awkward place between your legs.
We can and must do better than Joe Biden.
From the reporting I’ve seen there is no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of anyone named Biden.
That’s not the point.
Nobody has tied Joe Biden to the deal offered his son. One of the things we say all the time about Donald Trump — and it is correct — is that it doesn’t have to be criminal to be wrong.
I understand and agree that there is no evidence of criminal activity on the part of Mr. Biden. The deal with his son is wrong on the face of it, and nobody denies that it happened.
See I am not only not convinced of the accuracy of your final sentence, but we are starting to see that there is in fact nothing wrong.
“Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk.” Thoreau
The Clinton Foundation and the emails stunk. This is activity normal people would go to jail or get fired for. Certainly me when I signed up for my three month gig at the State Dept and had a similar clearance. If Condi and Colin did the same stuff- it still stinks.
Trump stinks times a thousand, but part of his credibility comes from the self made myth and the idea he is playing the swamp creatures to benefit ordinary Joes. Biden’s whole Schtick is the ordinary Joe part and it falls apart when his kid gets slaps on the wrist for cocaine possession, is banging his brothers widower, and does deals with oligarchs. Even Kerry’s step son knew this deal stunk.
Trump absolutely should go to jail for this and a plethora of offenses, but if we run another campaign between two insiders competing over who’s more corrupt I don’t like the outcome.
Far better to go with two candidates who have never been rich, only rely on small dollar contributions, and are pledging to curtail rather than restore corporate power.
NO! The Clinton Foundation did great work and if anything HRC was trying to keep her emails MORE secure than the government would have. For the love of God, jconway PLEASE do not fall for the false equivalency narrative! As for Trump, nobody has done more than he to FILL the proverbial swamp he promised to drain while Biden was the #2 in the least scandal-prone administration in some time. In times like this you cannot even give an inch. We have to circle the wagons if he have any chance of getting anything resembling a fair shake from the media. If the world were already fair we could examine our own side more objectively, but right now we do not have that luxury.
I’m not falling for anything, my point is millions of voters fell for it and switched from D to R in 2016. It’s way easier for Biden to be attacked on this stuff than his more progressive and grassroots funded opponents.
Counties flipped, not nearly as many individual voters as you have consistently claimed. It’s a matter of turnout which is almost certainly in our favor this time. You seem to be surrendering to what other voters fell for than fighting it. Besides smearing and attacking are the GOP modus operandi. If it’s Biden this might be the smear; if it’s Warren it will be Pocahontas and Massachusetts liberal; if it’s Sanders it will be socialist tinged with dogwhistled anti-Semitism; if it’s Harris it will be her mixed heritage; if it’s Buttigieg it will be his sexuality. I thought Biden supporters kept getting lectured about leaning on the electability argument, but now that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
Keep trash-talking Dems, folks. That’s going to really help us unite after the primaries to defeat the Treason Weasel.
There really is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.
Some of us care more than just beating Trump, others here clearly do not.
I would argue calling anyone who isn’t voting for Joe Biden a purist suffering from magical thinking is name calling. Your calls for unity are one sided. Fall behind Biden or re-elect Trump. I reject that divisive binary and say we have five credible nominees who are all beating Trump in the polls and let’s pick the one we like. I think it will be easier to unite if we respect the process and allow primary voters to select our nominee. I’ve been crystal clear if they select Biden he’s my man in November. Can you say the same if they follow “magical thinking” and select someone to his left?
I have said from DAY 1, I will wholeheartedly support the Democratic nominee. Period.
Same here. So let’s have the primary and see who wins.
And while we’re at it, adhere to the Democratic version of Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment.
@ Reagan’s 11th commandment:
When I’m told that I’ve got my head in the sand, that my support for Elizabeth Warren is “magical thinking”, and similar rubbish, I’m going to object.
If you don’t like the heat, stay out of the kitchen. And if you live in a glass house than stop throwing stones.
One more aphorism — when you find yourself in a hole, it’s a good idea to STOP DIGGING.
Why is that directed at me? I don’t think supporting EW is magical thinking at all. She is my strong second choice and IMO has the best path to the nomination at this point.
@Why is that directed at me:
It isn’t. I’m just saying that Reagan’s 11th commandment has limits. The magical thinking is from the headline of the thread-starter.
I’ve never had an issue with your support of Biden, Christopher. What I reject are previous Bernie and Warren supporters saying we have to support Biden and he’s immune to scrutiny because it’s an emergency. That’s malarkey.
Interesting. I never said that.
@I never said that:
I interpret your diary, your headline, and your subsequent commentary to mean that supporting anyone except Joe Biden is magical thinking. Etc.
Really?
I wonder what candidate is running on her bold plans? I really can’t stand these posts where you feign neutrality while invoking McGoverns ghost and Republican talking points to defend Biden. At least Fred and Christopher have the intellectual honesty to admit where the stand and why.
Starting with the Biden supporters who keep trashing the other candidates and the people supporting them.
@Biden supporters:
Uprated because I agree.
Having said that, I also need to say that Fred is Fred. I’m pretty sure that he’s actually Fred B-for-Bombast, and I like that about him. Maybe Terry is the same way..
We are each entitled to our own interpretations and opinions. We are not entitled to own facts. I think some of us need to be reminded of that from time to time.
They are both upstanding individuals who’ve shown me nothing but kindness on and off site. I truly tend to look at these disagreements as a form of ball busting among friends. If I’ve crossed lines with either one of them I offer an apology, but I strongly disagree with Terry’s and Fred’s takes lately and won’t pretend otherwise.
I think the worst thing I’ve said is they have used Republican talking points and they accused me of the same thing, and we are both right to a degree. The GOP is making the same case against Hunter Biden I am, and making the same case against single payer they are. It is what is is.
For the record, I’m not a Never Biden troll either. He’s earned my vote if he earns our nomination. I just strongly reject and am beginning to resent the argument that he should be handed it without a serious primary because Obama or because Trump. We can do better than that. Maybe now that Pelosi is doing her job-we can.
“folks”? don’t you mean “purists” who are freaking out?
There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action.
It would be wrong if it were Ivanka Trump or Chelsea Clinton. It was just as wrong for Hunter Biden.
No doubt legal. Just like the parole board scandal run by the legislature was ultimately (after successful appeals) shown to be legal.
Wrong, nevertheless.
Yeah cause your a diehard Democrat willing to cut him some slack, I think voters who aren’t in that bubble will think it stinks. I think if Donald Jr. engaged in similar speculation with a foreign government we’d be rightly outraged.
But the thing is, the Trumps ARE much deeper in this than the Biden family. Do you really think THIS is the issue Trump wants to go after Biden on when it will be so much worse for him. I’ve continued to follow the story today and it becomes increasingly clear that as one commenter put it, there is no there there regarding the Bidens.
@No there there:
There is no crime there. Except that nobody is talking about crimes.
Hunter Biden could have turned down the offer. Joe Biden could have recused himself when his son refused to turn down the offer.
I reject the hypocrisy that says nepotism, no-show jobs, and similar legal corruption is horrible — even impeachable — for Donald Trump and ok for our guy.
Sorry, I don’t think that dog will hunt.
What Trump has done is much worse, extorting another country to investigate a political opponent. THAT’s the impeachable part of this story. I don’t think Hunter’s options should be limited because of what his father does.
@What Trump has done is much worse:
Donald Trump’s supporters don’t view this as extorting another country to investigate a political opponent. They view the same actions as attempting to investigate Democratic corruption. Of course I don’t agree with them, but that’s what they say.
Our argument would be stronger if Mr. Biden had recused himself, at least from dealings with Burisma, after his son accepted the directorship.
@ Hunter’s options:
I don’t think any official’s family should be knowingly profiting from their familial connection to a government official.
Do you think Betsey Devos is qualified and competent to run the Department of Education?
Published reports suggest that Hunter Biden has made a career out of cashing in on his father’s power. I think that’s distasteful. I don’t claim that it isn’t legal. I think it stinks. I think it demeans himself and his father.
I think it will hurt Joe Biden — already has.
I agree. So does this mean you oppose Michelle Obama’s millions made on her book deal? I opposed it.
Chelsea Clinton made $ 600,000 as a rookie reporter for NBC, because she has remarkable political insight? Biden’s kid has his turn at the trough. I can only imagine what Trump’s kids are going to plunder. It’s a swamp at the national, state and local level. Ever wonder why distrust of government is so pervasive.
Exactly. Democrats need to fess up and agree to fix this rigged system, or simply admit that they are no different from Republicans on economic issues and believe that the winners should take all and the poor working class slobs deserve nothing. .
At least Michelle Obama waited until Mr. Obama was out of office.
While I don’t like the money aspect of the Hunter Biden deal, I find it particularly offensive that it happened literally WHILE his father was doing his official duties. That’s really beyond the pale.
I think we should all contrast Joe Biden’s behavior with the way Jimmy Carter distanced himself from the similar situation with his brother (Billy Carter) and Libya. “Billygate” was rightly viewed as a serious issue, and damaged Jimmy Carter’s reputation. My recollection is that Jimmy Carter did a better job of handling the family crisis than Joe Biden.
I also note that Jimmy Carter did not win re-election, and BillyGate was a factor in that loss.
How dare you spell Devos’s first name the way I spell mine! 😉 LOL
Oh, my very intense bad. I apologize. Force of habit, I guess. 🙂
Oops – I did that too, sorry.
Difference is Betsey Devos is the actual public official in this scenario whereas Hunter Biden is not. She is not qualified and never should have been confirmed. We have advice and consent for a reason and it failed in this case. If Hunter Biden were up for a public post things would be different.
You have yet to refute my refutation of the polling argument. Warren is presently matching Biden. Bernie is doing better than both of them in TX and GA. I think there is a younger for new leadership, and at the end of the day, a Democrat will beat Trump. The question is do we want big structural change, a revolution, or a reversion to a status quo that left millions of angry voters behind? I want us to win in 2024 as well as 2020.
Who is better equipped to capitalize on the Trump recession? Who is better equipped to handle eight years of being president? Who is better equipped to create a movement that changes statehouses and the Congress, not just the White House? I don’t see a compelling argument for Joe Biden there. There’s no virtue signaling about it, I think he’s a weak general election candidate and will be a one term president if he wins.
Like it all we are doing is citing head to head national polls for electability, than
A) Bernie would’ve won
B) Bernie will win
I heard neither of you two defend Bernie against Hillary on the polls. In fact you ignored his better polling at the time to focus on the media fed lie that Hillary was more “centrist” and thus more “electable”.
If all we are going by is head to head polls than Bernie has beaten Trump in 20 consecutive head to head polls by double digits. He’s done far better than anybody else closing the gap in such reddish states as MS, WV, AK, OK, and KS. He does better than Biden in those places.
So why am I supporting Warren? The same reason you guys backed Hillary in 2016. She’s the best would be President in the field. She’s also closing her gaps with Bernie and Biden in head to heads and consistently beating them both in IA. I think we are looking at a three way tie. I could easily see Warren win IA, Bernie win NH, and Biden win SC. Then I think Warren has the edge in NV and CA.
The more important thing is nobody is voting yet an we are over a year away. Mayor Pete isn’t winning anything, but I think one of our top 3 and maybe Harris have a strong shot at the nomination and a similar shot at Trump. The two women do worse than the men, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t vote for them if we like them more.
Biden being a one-termer may not be the worst thing. In fact I’ve wondered given concerns about his age if he would not strengthen his hand by announcing that if he won he would not seek re-election. I actually do think Biden is in the best position to handle the things you’ve mentioned and while he is not our only electable candidate the polls I’ve seen to show him ahead by the most comfortable margins in key states.
By one termer I mean he loses re-election as an 82 year old caretaker inheriting a recession to a younger Republican nominee. 2024 will be 1992 redux with the parties reversed if we nominate Biden. He’ll beat Trump, but not by wide enough margins to carry the Senate and his anemic plans will do little to stem the hurt from the inevitable recession.
Noted, and strongly disagree.
You know better than using “polling” as an argument. I thought you were more reality based than that.
Dracula Ghouliani was on Fox yesterday attacking Biden as “Slimy Joe”. The Trumpists are afraid of fighting Joe Biden.
Yes, absolutely terrified to roll out their winning playbook from 2016.
What’s really dangerous thinking is letting Donald Trump choose our nominee and what’s really magical thinking is letting the media define the parameters of who’s electable. The same media that routinely marginalizes the most popular politician in America and treated Trump has a has been punchline until he strolled right into the White House. The same media that fired up the false equivalency machine to take down “vetted, tested, and moderate” Hillary and make her emails as bad as Russian interference and Trumps repeated crooked behavior. They have zero credibility after the fiasco of 2016.
You like Biden by all means vote for him, but stop lecturing us that only he can win and hide behind innuendoes that Warren and Sanders whom you previously supported are too extreme to win when an outright fascist with a third grade vocabulary is in the White House. It’s intellectual dishonesty and it lets the other team pick our players.
Some of which frankly it seems like you’ve engaged in a bit on this very thread:(
Stating that mainstream media attacks on the Clintons hurt her against Trump is being reality based and stating fact. I went out of my way to say there was not real false equivalency, but that Biden is more susceptible to the same stuff as Hillary than Warren or Sanders.
Biden’s response to media BS is : “I’m going to beat Trump like a drum.” Get your facts straight.
His talking points aren’t facts. I think if we pretend that they are, we set ourselves up for a repeat upset. Let’s throw out the establishment playbook that already failed to win electoral votes and use the progressive populist playbook Warren and Sanders are trotting our.
I’m increasingly weary of empty cheerleading. Chest-thumping statements like this don’t sway voters.
The facts of the Hunter Biden’s employment by Burisma are not “media BS” — the largest oil company of the Ukraine, led by oligarch who was at the top of the list of corrupt players in the Ukraine, signed on Hunter Biden at FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH. Hunter Biden had no industry experience and knew nothing about the Ukraine. His only qualification was that his father was Vice President — and was spearheading a US effort to cause the Ukraine government to crack down on corruption.
That is not media BS, that’s what happened. It is true that neither Hunter Biden or Joe Biden broke the law in accepting the deal. It is also true that neither person would have broken the law by turning down the deal.
Hunter Biden was handed more money in a month than many American workers make in a year.
This sweetheart deal positively reeks of legal corruption.
This is NOT a ‘sweetheart deal that reeks of legal corruption.”
Please get your facts straight.
Compensation for serving on the Board of Directors is determined by the company. It is not a violation of law for Board members to accept compensation for their service.
Fred, you know better than this. I’m convinced that you’re defending this because it involves your chosen candidate.
There aren’t any disputes about the facts. We differ in our interpretation of those facts.
I’ve already said, multiple times, that I agree that no laws were violated. That misses the point.
What criteria do you think was used to select Hunter Biden out of all the people in the world?
I suggest that the sole criteria was that his father was Joe Biden. That’s what makes it a sweetheart deal.
So what if Hunter Biden was chosen to sit on a Board because of who his father is? Personally, I don’t honestly know or care one way or the other why he was asked to serve on the Board.
All I really care about is the politics of this nothingburger and how it plays out in the court of public opinion. And I’ll be damned before I start drinking the Trumpist Kool-Aid on this or any other fascist propaganda BS designed to destroy Biden.
I am defending Joe Biden because he is innocent of ANY wrongdoing in this matter and so is his son, Hunter. And if you or anyone else has a problem with the optics of this or any other Trumpist BS lie, that’s just too damn bad.
This is hard ball, not bean bag. And yes, Joe Biden is right when he says this is a fight for the soul of America.
Wake up, America, before it’s too late!
Some people on this blog have no problem whatsoever with legal corruption as long as it is people on their side.
It’s depressing.
@So what:
At least we agree on the facts.
I get that you don’t care that your candidate’s son — with absolutely NO relevance to the company in question — is given $50 K a month to serve as a director. I also get that it’s fine with you that the criteria for selecting him is that his father was leading the diplomatic effort to crack down on corruption in Ukrainian government.
I just disagree with you on this one.
I agree that we are in a fight for the soul of America. That’s why I think our side has to have higher standards than their side. I think the similar payoffs being made to family members of Donald Trump — solely because he is their father (or father-in-law) are corrupt and wrong. I think giving a cabinet appointment to the sister of infamous Blackrock profiteer and founder (and major GOP contributor) Erik Prince is corrupt and wrong. I think appointing the wife of the Senate Majority Leader as Secretary of Transportation is similarly corrupt and wrong.
I remind you that it was VERY controversial for JFK to appoint his brother as Attorney General for the same reasons. That appointment is why such appointments are now against the law (even though the DoJ refuses to prosecute these flagrant violations).
I think that Hunter Biden should have turned down the deal when it was offered. I think that Joe Biden should have recused himself from all dealings with the Ukrainian corruption investigation once his son accepted the deal.
That’s not what happened.
As I said, I think I’ve got the facts straight. I think the picture that emerges about Joe Biden when we connect the dots of those facts is bad news for any American who dislikes the appearance of corruption, bad news for any Democrat who thinks that Joe Biden is an appropriate nominee to challenge Donald Trump’s nepotism and corruption, and bad news for Joe Biden’s presidential hopes.
It leaves me wondering, again, why we would choose Joe Biden when there at least two other competitors who are also polling well against Mr. Trump and who don’t carry this stinky and unnecessary baggage.
Hunter Biden is like a Trump son but with a much messier background. Chinese businessmen have tried buying influence as well, including even with gifts of diamonds.
It could be a “nothingburger” for legal consequences for Joe Biden, but to dismiss it as of no consequence and something that shouldn’t be covered is (to keep with this thread) magical thinking.
Thus asking Trump to shame us out of supporting Biden. Neither one of us should worry about how the GOP will react to the person we personally want to see as our next President.
None of the commentators came close to addressing the reality of this post, as outlined in the first sentence: “I want to support a candidate who understands how difficult it is to actually pass programs in the Congress,”
Sure their were many that viewed this comment as somehow letting Trump decide who the Dems nominate. But that just twists the words of the author, so they can dismiss the post out of hand.
But reality is reality. Passing Obamacare was a squeaker and a public option at the time would have sank it. Even today (or 2020 with a Dem President) the public option will be a real battle. It is not capitulating to Trump to suggest M4A or nothing may result in nothing. Heck, the last two GOP speakers walked away after failing to herd congressional cats. Now Pelosi is caught in her own no-man’s land between the impeachment crowd and the (currently) majority of the Democratic congress opposed to impeachment. Governing ain’t easy and it really is disappointing that many here ignore that.
Yet no one concedes this reality. You just operate with your own blinders and dismiss reality as a form of appeasement. And for the record, I’m not in Biden’s corner. I’m warming up to Warren, but still thinks she needs to accept reality as well.
@public option at the time would have sank it:
Have you ever been in a hard-nosed negotiation? Everyone agrees that a public option would never have made it into the final ACA. The point is that it could have been traded for something else. That leverage was squandered by giving away the point before the negotiations even started.
The thread-starter explicitly argues that we should nominate Joe Biden because Donald Trump is most afraid of him (“What Democrat is he afraid to run against because he knows he will lose?”). That argument most certainly does hand our choice to Mr. Trump.
Various sources reported over the weekend that Mr. Trump is starting to court Native Americans in a clear response to the ascendancy of Ms. Warren in the polls. According to the argument of the thread-starter, we should therefore nominate Ms. Warren. I don’t think that’s what the OP has in mind.
@Governing ain’t easy:
I don’t hear anybody arguing any differently. Appeasement didn’t work for Neville Chamberlain, it it didn’t work for Barack Obama, it won’t work for Nancy Pelosi, and it won’t work for Joe Biden.
Mr. Biden is claiming that he will “work with” today’s GOP. Speaking of reality, the reality is that the ONLY way to work with today’s GOP on any given day is to give them whatever they demand that day. Of all the learnings of the last decade, surely that is among the most obvious.
The public option was killed before it was even presented because Joe Lieberman said no. This is the same Joe Lieberman who Barack Obama endorsed in 2006 after Lieberman had lost a democratic primary and ran as an independent. He then endorsed McCain in 2008. The Democrats didn’t do anything to Lieberman (presumably at the behest of Obama) and he kept his chairmanship and was THE instrumental person in making sure the public option never saw the light of day. There was never a negotiation with Lieberman. No hardball. None at all. They let that dirtbag whine and water down the bill with no consequences.
Same thing happened with the stimulus, which was much smaller than it needed to be and was trimmed down in advance of going to Congress.
Instead of bringing a bill and negotiating it, these things were cut down in advance for fear of opposition. No wrangling.
None of these perfect policy ideas in this campaign are going to pass as is. But using them as goals to keep fighting and pushing is better than saying there’s nothing we can do. And if Joe Biden is so masterful at this work that he can get 90-100% of his proposed policies passed, what the heck does he have to show for it after 40 years in Congress?
What’s also reality is that in 2015 the idea of Medicare for All was absolutely nowhere in public politics. It was a dream of activists. Now it is at the center of the debate (frankly, it is THE debate on the democratic side about health care) and there is a bill in the House with a majority of Democratic support. I’m not super optimistic of it passing with the next administration (or even the next) but I know it is a goal and pushing for a goal changes what is possible.
Arguments for “reality” and “what is possible” is a guaranteed way to support the status quo.
Still not addressing the reality of getting laws passed in this polarized age.
So long as the GOP holds the Senate, laws aren’t going to be passed. It doesn’t matter who sits in the White House — it especially doesn’t matter which Democrat sits in the White House.
There are two ways to get laws passed in this polarized age:
1. Win all three branches of government (the Democratic option), or
2. Effectively dismantle the checks and balances of government, ignore congress altogether, and leverage ignorant mobs to force your agenda regardless of its legality (the GOP option).
Joe Biden’s notion of “working with” Mitch McConnell and his ilk is true magical thinking. He didn’t seem to be paying attention when Mr. McConnell schooled the Barack Obama administration on how to treat a Democrat trying to be reasonable.
Neither are you or Biden. There’s a difference between saying it’ll be hard but I have your back, as Warren and Sanders are, and saying it’s impossible to do anything because of McConnell but we’re buddies so maybe it’ll be different with me.
@not addressing the reality of getting laws passed:
There is simply NO WAY that today’s GOP is going to “work with” any Democrat.
Joe Biden’s posture towards Mitch McConnell and the GOP strikes me as looking more like a manifestation of the Stockholm Syndrome than reality.
“We can’t do anything because we can’t win the senate-vote for us!” is not a successful campaign slogan. Dubya wins by fraud in 2000 and a squeaker in 2004 and says he has “a mandate” to govern as a hard right conservative. Obama wins by a landslide and gets a filibuster proof majority and says he needs to “work with both sides” and “be bipartisan”.
Yeah I remember Obamacare, we could’ve had a public option had Obama told Snowe to screw and used reconciliation. We’ll never have 60 votes again.
Warren by the way is the only candidate proposing an end to the filibuster once and for all and unlike Bernie who supports it and opposes party politics I see her campaigning like hell for a majority in 22’.
Let me ask you what you thought pattern was when it sank in that Trump was elected President. Then you realized the GOP had the House and Senate. You new Merrick Garland was gone and before you went into shock…you got a sudden reprieve and realized everything was not doomed. You had the filibuster. The GOP needed 60 votes in order to destroy ever social program since the New Deal. What will you do the next time something like that happens?
(And your still not facing reality of getting things done in DC anymore.)
The filibuster did nothing to stop Gorsuch and the GOP as tactically smarter to eliminate it than Reid was to save it.
If we need it, we’ll restore it.
As a point of order, I think I recall that the rule change in question removed only the “easy” filibuster. I think that it is still possible for any given Senator to start actually speaking and delay a vote for as long as he or she continues.
THAT is the practice with the long history. The rule that allowed any Senator to say they were “going to filibuster” to have the same effect is much more recent.
What’s Warren doing right now as a Senator to end the filibuster? For the most part it seems like those looking for a President to end the filibuster are in desperate need of a civics lesson. Presidents should not be meddling in the internal rules of the Senate. The only possible way I can think of is to send the VP to the Senate Chair to try calling a vote if nobody is actually seeking recognition to speak, but AFAIK no candidate has specifically promised to do that.
Exactly.
She’s running for president which gives her a much bigger platform to push for these changes than she has a minority party Senator under Moscow Mitch. I’ll take that over a guy who had 36 years in the Senate to get rid of the filibuster, but was too busy hanging out with the likes of James Eastland to change it.
So you don’t believe in working with people with whom you virulently disagree to get things done? Wouldn’t it be great if everyone in the Senate thought the same way? Who’s engaging in magical thinking now?
I would argue that it is highly improper, except maybe in the very narrow way I mentioned above, for a President to intervene in the internal rules of Congress.
Yes it’s magical thinking to believe that we can work with Republicans to “get things” done. The last 11 years should have proved that decisively. You have way more faith in the Senate than it deserves.
Unless you meant working with the segregationists. Biden’s no Teddy. He wasn’t working with them on SCHIP or school lunches, but on keeping segregated schools segregated. That to me isn’t the kind of compromise I want to support or reward.
IFF we get the Senate too then we might get away with ignoring the GOP, but if we don’t getting anything accomplished will require some degree of working together. Biden abhorred Eastland’s segregationist views. Sometimes you work with people whose views you can’t stand – that was exactly the point Biden was trying to make with that example.
Anything is dead on arrival if the GOP controls the Senate with Biden or with Warren. The difference is, Warren will campaign like hell on a clear progressive agenda to win the 22’ midterms while Biden will cut deals with Mitch that sell us out in the name of “unity” and “bipartisanship”. I’d rather have nothing happen under Warren than have social security halved under Biden like it nearly was when he and Mitch proposed their Grand Bargain back in 2011. Thank God the Freedom Caucus killed that in the house.
He wasn’t working with segregationists on health care reform. He worked with them to make it harder to integrate schools.
OK, but I don’t want another round on deliberate segregation vs deliberate integration. Eastland was a segregationist; Biden’s views are closer to mine.
Neither do I. Thankfully no such people exist in the modern Senate, but I also have a feeling that they were more likely to play ball and compromise than Mitch McConnell. He cares about nothing other than pursuing power for its own sake and has done more than any Majority leader to make the Senate less deliberative and less accountable to its members.
It’s true that governing isn’t easy, especially “presidenting”. This is precisely why I go for the candidate who comes the closest to having had the relevant practice.
What big progressive issues did Biden advance as a Senator or as Obama’s VP? I can’t think of any big risks he took. His career is an example of someone putting the institution of the Senate above the party, above progressive politics, and above the voters.
The only thing I can think of is that he came out in favor of gay marriage legalization before Obama did. LOL.
When have I ever claimed I was looking for the most progressive? I tend to see institutionalism on balance as a good thing.
I don’t recall making that accusation. If anything I think you reward tenure over progressive accomplishments.
But you just challenged me to name progressive issues that Biden has advanced and what I’m saying is I’m not taking the bait because that’s not what I prioritized. I DO reward tenure over progressive accomplishments provided the person in question is not a DINO.
Progressive priorities are what I prioritize so I see no reason to vote for him in the primary. That’s my point. By 2019 standards he is a DINO compared to the other candidates in the field. He and Lieberman had nearly identical voting records as Senators.
That way of doing politics and policy may have been needed once, but it no longer makes sense today. We can win without being Republican Lite.
I always thought Lieberman got a bit of a bad rap on that count though he did drift more into DINO territory in later years. You think Biden is GOP-lite and a DINO? Oy!
Joe Biden’s interest group ratings:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/evaluations/53279/joe-biden-jr#.XYtmfXdFzIU
Joe’ Biden is a “Left-Liberal”
https://www.ontheissues.org/Joe_Biden.htm
(Not sure why I can’t figure out how to link.)
Those ratings are over ten years old. They would also give Lieberman 80% liberal ratings too. My point is that by todays standards he is no longer a liberal. I think if we want a liberal President-we have other options.
Many of the On the Issues points are a lot less than 10 years old. Even the interest groups in Vote Smart had very clear ideas of what they wanted even when Biden was still in the Senate. We shouldn’t judge views of decades ago by modern standards anyway.
Many of the On the Issues points are a lot less than 10 years old. Even the interest groups in Vote Smart had very clear ideas of what they wanted even when Biden was still in the Senate. We shouldn’t judge views of decades ago by modern standards anyway.
We should if they are running for office today.
I give Biden a pass on DOMA and even his prior support for Hyde. He is obviously 100% committed to gay rights and choice as a President. I can’t forgive and forget his Iraq War vote since it is relevant to how he will handle future situations as commander in chief. I want to be reassured and its fair for opponents and journalists to ask him about that. Ditto on race and busing. I am unconvinced he’s evolved enough on this issues. On health care he is arguably using Republican talking points and outright lying about what Bernie and Warren are proposing. That has to stop.
I think the Iraq war vote could now be excused if we Democrats had more aggressively prosecuted the prior administration for lying in order to start the war. Here’s why.
The administration, over the span of months, built a case that Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons, was building delivery systems that would be hard to monitor, and was preparing a major offensive using those chemical weapons. Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, in particular, were very credible at the time and very much in support of the invasion. Colin Powell has since characterized his famous speech as a “blot” on his record. So far as I know, Ms. Rice remains unrepentant.
Against that backdrop, the only way a responsible elected official could vote against the war was to accuse the administration of lying — making up evidence, doctoring satellite photos, purposely misinterpreting intelligence reports, and so on.
At that time, there was no such evidence. I think it is therefore defensible to vote in accordance with the available evidence of the time. Democrats were a minority in Congress, and so it was not possible to conduct hearings before, during or immediately after the invasion. It was therefore not possible to obtain evidence that would back up a vote against the Iraq war.
At least before Donald Trump, when a sitting President says that there is justification for war, it is very difficult to call him or her a liar without evidence (the infamous Tonkin Gulf resolution notwithstanding).
Soon after the invasion, we learned that it was all lies. Fabricated evidence, doctored photos, intelligence advisories purposely misread or invented from whole cloth.
It seems to me that votes for the invasion can therefore be fairly and correctly blamed on the lies of the George W. Bush administration.
The rub is that we Democrats took a majority of the House in 2006 and of both houses in 2008. In 2006, we could have demanded hearings and investigation into the lies that led up to the illegal invasion and into the crimes against humanity that were ordered by the administration after the invasion.
So far as I know, nobody did that. My recollection is that Nancy Pelosi in 2006 and Barack Obama in 2008 said, to paraphrase, “We need to look to the future.” In other words, neither had the stomach or courage to face the awful truth of what America did to the world in 2003.
Joe Biden was in the Senate in 2006, and was Vice President in 2008. He could have taken a stronger position then, and he did not.
I am more disturbed by our collective refusal to in any way censure — never mind prosecute — the prior administration for the lies, crimes, and abuses that they perpetrated than by anybody’s vote on the 2003 invasion. Our formal policies of torture are one reason we still can’t close GITMO — even the GOP understands that torture of a defendant pretty much guarantees a “not guilty” verdict from any fair court. That’s why there haven’t been trials.
Joe Biden is very proud of his record with the Barack Obama administration. That administration’s handling of the war crimes and other abuses of the prior administration is something I think Mr. Biden got very wrong.
That’s one issue that I think the other candidates are stronger on.
Given the political context and how many Dems voted for it, the Iraq vote is actually among those I am MOST willing to forgive, even though I disagreed with it at the time. I still say you are flat out wrong on how he is discussing health care.
Enjoy the circular firing squad. You are being set up by Trump to attack the Vice-President and you are playing your role perfectly.
I wonder what you will say if he is the.nominee? I guess you will feel pure and will tisk tisk while those who are in vulnerable minority groups are fodder for the fascist.
It must feel great to have the luxury to attack an admirable Democrat who faithfully served the most successful Democratic president in two generations who is also the most admired Democrat on the face of the planet.
Of course we all have the right to support whomever we wish, and to say whatever we wish, but did it ever occur to you that you are playing directly into the hands of the horror show in the White House?
You want me to say his name?
I proudly support Joe Biden to be the next president of the United States.
We need to bring decency and a spirit of a shared national credo back to our country. He is currently the candidate with the best chance of accomplishing this extremely challenging task. That’s why I support Joe Biden.
Party at all costs. We get it. It’s very clear where some here stand.
I will continue to do other work and give money to other causes because I know that electoral work, especially among the establishment of our two terrible parties is not the be all and end all of change. I’ll continue to do that if Biden is President (because it’ll certainly be desperately needed with his policies in place).
I find it funny that those who support Biden only ever talk of Trump and those who support other candidates talk about Trump, and health care, and labor, and foreign policy, and the environment, and criminal justice, and education, and etc.
If you think Trump is the source of our troubles and beating him is the cure, I suggest you check out this great speech today from Greta Thunberg. We have to do better.
I might add Bernie and Warren are also admired Democrats who are routinely getting attacked here as dangerous, and I think that also serves to help Trump more than anything else we could do. We should run on our principles and not away from them.
This man?
We’re going to have to coerce young voters to come out. Come on!
Certain Dems don’t have to be your first choice in an open primary, but have IMO earned some degree of immunity from attacks from within the party.
No. All leaders are fallible and worthy of praise and critic depending on their actions. Censorship and groupthink should not be the hallmark of this blog.
If Joe Biden is our nominee, I will probably vote for the same candidate I wrote in when John Kerry was our nominee — Mickey Mouse.
Aren’t you lucky to live in Massachusetts:(
Indeed I am.
It appears Joe Biden would be ok with that.
https://twitter.com/AndrewHClark/status/1176236079193755648
Every Biden supporter here is saying “look at the polls, look at the polls.” I wish they’d look at their candidate. This is the campaign? I hope the polls catch up soon and we end this charade that Biden is the most likely to beat Trump. If you’re paying attention at all to this campaign, it should be impossible for you to think he’s got the best chance.
LOL! I was a “Nader Trader” back in ’04 – my then-boyfriend, who lived in NH, voted for Kerry, while I voted for Nader (his first choice). Kerry won NH, so I did my job!
in 2016, I wrote in Bernie bc I just could not bring myself to vote for Hillary, and I knew my vote in safely blue MA wouldn’t count anyway.
Uprated Terry for your honesty in finally coming out as a Biden supporter.
I for one do not believe anyone has the luxury of voting for a third party candidate. I did not believe that in 2016 and do not believe that in 2020. Let’s be clear on that. Biden has my vote if he wins.
He hasn’t won yet. To quote the late Denny Green, y’all want to crown his ass then crown him, but we haven’t even had a primary yet.
I would pose the same question to the Biden supporters on this blog. His Republican style attacks on single payer and Medicare for All will be far more damaging when played against Bernie or Warren if they win than anything their more more diehard supporters on twitter say.
I am 100% sure either Senator would give Biden his full backing, I’m not so sure Biden will do the same is someone like Bernie wins.
So let’s have a real primary and see who wins. In my judgment, Biden is the least likely to govern as a progressive if he wins so he does not get my primary vote. I also think any of the top five Democrats could beat Trump. Pete is the only one who really struggles at this point.
I’ll also add there’s now a better than 0% chance Trump gets impeached before the election and we better select a nominee capable of being more than just an anti-Trump. Clinton nostalgia blinded us to new talent until Obama and I wonder if Obama nostalgia will have a similar effect this primary. Democrats win when we move forward. So will Biden if he adopts that kind of campaign instead of his half assed anemic operation.
Except for the part where he has definitely NOT launched GOP-style attacks on M4A.
Saying that seniors on Medicare will lose their health care if we switch to M4A is a Republican talking point. One used by them to kill ACA and now parroted by Biden’s So is calling it a government takeover or saying it gets rid of private or employer based coverage. Or claiming it repeals ACA. Or claiming Bernie will throw people off insurance with six months. CNN has called him out on these lies. Identical to the kind Mitch regularly tells.
What it does is give everyone access to the cost control and price reductions of the Medicare system by making that system truly cover everyone. Everywhere else it’s been attempted it lowers costs. Even you have supported it in the past here, why echo Trumps talking points in our primary?
No Democrat has said seniors will lose Medicare, which is completely silly since the whole point of M4A is to EXPAND Medicare to everyone. It DOES have the impact of repealing and replacing ACA and IS a government takeover, and WILL eliminate private/employer coverage except maybe for supplemental plans – not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with that.
@ No Democrat has said…:
The ACA is already dead. Removing the penalty for not enrolling killed it. A vine that is cut at its base will stay green for a few days, but it’s dead the moment it is cut. The ACA is dead.
There is no way to control runaway health care costs — and especially runaway health care administration costs — without eliminating private insurance coverage.
Yes, it is a government takeover. Just like the government took over providing fire services after private fire companies showed that they were unable to protect persons and property. Just like the government took over private highways after it became clear that private highway companies could not meet America’s transportation needs.
America needs single-payer government-sponsored health care, whatever we call it.
Also it’s a lie to say it eliminates private insurance. It certainly eliminates insurance as we know it, where corporate bean counters have killed way more patients than a government run plan. But even those things still exist in Canada, just in a less oppressive form.
It’s just that they are boutique plans that people elect to use if they want supplemental coverage or elective procedures. People will be welcome to buy additional coverage or pay out of pocket. Most people will be paying far less for far better coverage. Some folks won’t see a change.
I think private insurance is different from concierge health care providers. The former is insurance — you pay a premium, and the carrier allegedly pays some portion of your medical bills. The latter would be a health care provider. You pay the provider directly (no insurer) in exchange for health care. It is literally private vs public school.
Most of today’s concierge/boutique firms are different from these. Today, a concierge customer typically pays an annual membership fee (like a country club). The providers are still paid by insurance companies, and the business model is not fundamentally different from any other current health care provider,.
I don’t think a “boutique” insurance plan makes any sense, because the insurance business model can’t generate any profits. A boutique insurance plan would have only a few subscribers. That means that the insurance carrier wouldn’t have much funding from which to pay providers.
In your last paragraph, I think you’re describing how a concierge/boutique health care provider would work. These organizations would be providers who would market top-quality health care to those who can afford to pay top dollar for it. It is, again, literally private versus public schools.
I strongly suspect that Mr. Biden’s Delaware roots make it very hard for him to be enthusiastic about literally destroying the health care insurance industry. Since so many of those insurers (and myriad of secondary companies that depend on them) are Delaware companies, they are Mr. Biden’s constituents and donors.
Those who agree with me that single-payer government-sponsored health care is the only approach that is sustainable in the long-run will almost surely prefer a different candidate to Joe Biden.
Joe Biden is not going advance the single-payer government-sponsored health care agenda.
Joe Biden has. Even Hillary’s staffers are calling them Republican talking points.
This Biden quote is deliberately dishonest:
Medicare for All expands on the ACA and Medicare by making their benefits truly universal. It’s a lie to say it repeals them. He’s making the same stale “get government off my Medicare” argument and his hiatus argument even CNN called him out for reminds me of the death panels.
You’re right! Sanders plan is no different from the one pushed by Harry Truman and John Dingell in the 1950’s. No different from the Jack Kennedy health plan in the 1960’s that would eventually turn into Medicare. LBJ, no socialist, called that bill a first step to eventual universal coverage.
So Biden and his rhetoric is out of step with the party. not Sanders.
“As you know it” being the key phrase, which even the linked article acknowledges is basically true. The article goes no to interpret the comments in a way a find questionable. He also got hit for telling the wealthy that supposedly “nothing would change” for them. If Biden has a problem it’s syntax, not policy.
I would rather we not replace one syntax challenged President with another.
Right, because syntax is Trump’s biggest problem. /s
I think Trump set himself up to be impeached because he is an imbecile. We should never pretend he is playing 3-D chess or is some political savant. He is in many ways an even more accidental president than Dubya and even less experienced or sure of what he wants to do. Far more lawless sad to say as well.
It should also be noted that as far as I’ve heard no Dem candidate for President is using this Ukraine thing and the Hunter Biden connections to attack Joe, which I could see as tempting to bring him down a peg to their advantage. They seem unanimous in their assessment that Trump is in the wrong to go after someone they know is a highly likely general election opponent and if they weren’t on board with impeachment already they are now.
I look forward next year to voting for someone who didn’t call the Ukrainians and threaten to withhold American aid unless they either 1)launch an investigation of their potential opponent, or 2) fire the prosecutor who had been investigating his son.
Hope I don’t have to vote for the Green Party candidate to accomplish this
You can always write in your favorite cartoon character. Donald Duck, Mickey Mouse, and Roger Rabbit are each easy to remember.
Here is some evidence from NPR.
“So in March 2016, Biden makes one of his many trips to Ukraine and tells the leaders they have to get rid of the prosecutor if they want a billion dollars in U.S. aid. Here’s how Biden told the story last year at the Council of Foreign Relations. . . . .
JOE BIDEN: I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here. And I think it was – what? – six hours. I looked. I said, I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a b****…
(LAUGHTER)
BIDEN: He got fired.”
This is corruption, plain and simple. And meddling in the internal affairs of a foreign country. And blackmail. The weasel words used to defend Biden don’t change that one bit.
Having a foreign power decide who gets to prosecute does not strengthen the fight against corruption–it completely undermines it, which was probably the point.
Vice President Joe Biden went to Kiev with a message from President Obama to Ukraine :
Unless you fire your CORRUPT prosecutor who is NOT prosecuting rampant corruption in your country, you will not get $1 billion in American aid.
This was the same message to Ukraine from European countries including Germany AND the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Either clean up the corruption or funding aid from ALL of us in the international community will be cut off.
Get your facts straight.
Typical of Fred telling me to “Get your facts straight” when my comment is basically a transcript of Biden’s own words. It’s like arguing with a parrot.
This is the best breakdown of the Ukraine issue I’ve seen. It only takes a couple of minutes to read and I hope people will especially note “The Biden Angle” section. I for one have absolutely no patience for “it looks bad” or “it smells bad” arguments.
In “The Biden Angle” of your link, I find the following (emphasis mine):
I’ve never suggested that there was any substance to the alleged “Biden conspiracy” — just as there was never any substance to the “Billy Gate” attacks on Jimmy Carter.
I’ve said just what this piece says — that Hunter Biden’s directorship smells bad. Whether or not you have patience with it, your link is saying the same thing.
I also agree that Donald Trump is attempting to manufacture a scandal where there is none. Nevertheless, as your link points out, there are some voters whose takeaway will be “Joe Biden did something dubious in the Ukraine”.
I also agree that Mr. Trump is overplaying his hand. In his statements today, he says he demanded the investigation of Joe Biden as a quid pro quo for US military aid. That’s impeachable on its own, and would be even if the “Biden conspiracy” was real (which it is not). Nevertheless, the deal with Hunter Biden makes our case less persuasive.
There, unfortunately, parallels to the endless Benghazi hearings and of course the Hillary Clinton email scandal (specifically, the James Comey “October surprise”). The GOP heavily invested in both during the campaign, and that investment most certainly hurt Ms. Clinton. She herself says that the Mr. Comey’s October surprise is what defeated her.
Both of those (Benghazi and the emails) were in full force long before Ms. Clinton won the nomination. Had Mr. Sanders been nominated, they would have been neutralized.
The key difference between 2016 and 2020 is that we have at least one and arguably several candidates who are much stronger than the second tier of candidates in 2016.
Elizabeth Warren is MUCH stronger in 2019 than Bernie Sanders was in 2015.
Six 6’s to Thomas from Somerville. Wonderful comment.
I saw the bolded phrases too and the reason I used this article is that I’m trying hard to avoid confirmation bias and thought this one was fair in the sense of noting the negative points. However, the overall thrust of the piece seems to back up my claim. I figured an article like this would be more credible than a straight up spin piece from the Biden campaign. I remain extremely reluctant to base my choice for nominee on how Trump and the GOP might treat him/her. The other top tiers also have their vulnerabilities. That’s just political life these days:(
I want to be crystal clear the only person committing impeachable offenses in this episode is the President. Chuck Todd shut down the Biden false equivalency, so maybe the media is learning from its 2016 mistakes. It’s still a huge risk to nominate someone with Biden’s liabilities.
That doesn’t change the fact that Hunter Biden has spent his entire adult life trading money off the family name, abusing drugs, using prostitutes, wrecking marriages, and palling around with shady oligarchs. All activity we rightly called out Trump for engaging with.
Meanwhile Warren’s daughter co writes policy tomes with her.
When Hunter Biden runs for office we can take all that into consideration. Meanwhile, just as the sins of the father should not be visited on his sons, that mantra should work in the other direction as well.
@When Hunter Biden runs for office:
Oh come on.
Even Jeff Sessions found a way to recuse himself from a situation where he knew he was compromised. Jimmy Carter did not simply ignore Billy Carter’s behavior in Libya.
Joe Biden mishandled the situation his son put him in. Joe Biden IS running for office, and this is another situation that he mishandled while he was Vice President.
But as the article I provided above noted, that would have required the co-operation of scandal-free Obama.
She also presides as chair on the board of directors of an organization that gave money this year to another organization that endorsed her mother for president a couple weeks ago…
https://twitter.com/CANCEL_SAM/status/1176265744868417538
Condemning “virtue signaling” (taking a public position) is a right-wing tactic.
If you’re going to use that to discredit people, then you need to understand that you’re rejecting every conceivable candidate.
It appears this diary has made it into the elite 200+ comment club!
Were it a remark on Twitter, it would likely have been mercilessly ratioed as well.
I’m not on Twitter so I’m sorry, but I don’t know what ratioed means (and apparently neither does my browser which just flagged the word as misspelled).