Biden Delivers Call for National Unity at Philadelphia Rally

[applegrove]

Biden Delivers Call for National Unity at Philadelphia Rally

May 18, 2019 at 4:05 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 175 Comments


https://politicalwire.com/2019/05/18/biden-delivers-call-for-national-unity-at-philadelphia-rally/

"SNIP....

“Joe Biden, sometimes known to Democrats in this city as Pennsylvania’s ‘third senator,’ returned to the state of his birth on Saturday to deliver a forceful call for national unity, looking past the Democratic presidential primary to directly appeal to the voters who helped power President Trump’s victory in this state and across the country in 2016,” the New York Times reports.

“Mr. Biden… trained his eye squarely on the general election as he cast the contest against Mr. Trump as one for the soul of the country. And he struck a defiant tone toward those in his own party who had expressed discomfort with Mr. Biden’s emphasis on bipartisanship and his legacy of Washington deal-making, as he argued that the stakes of the coming presidential election should transcend partisan passions of the moment.”

Said Biden: “They say Democrats are so angry, the angrier a candidate can be, the better chance he or she has to win the Democratic nomination. Well I don’t believe it, I really don’t.”

He added: “If the American people want a president to add to our division, lead with a clenched fist, closed hand, a hard heart, to demonize the opponents and spew hatred — they don’t need me. They’ve got President Donald Trump. Folks, I am running to offer our country — Democrats, Republicans and independents — a different path. Not back to a path that never was, but to a future that fulfills our true potential as a country.”

.....SNIP"

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. If Biden can find unity with Republicans - it won't be because THEY budged an inch on ANYTHING.

[John Fante]

2. That message isn't for the Pukes or the MAGAt deplorables.

Last edited Sat May 18, 2019, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

It's for the 10% of Republican voters that don't approve of the job Trump is doing. They're in every poll and if Biden can get even half of them to vote Democrat and/or stay home, he waltzes into the WH in 2020.

Remember: Trump got a lower percentage of the vote than Romney. He isn't the universally beloved conservative figure we make him out to be.

[BannonsLiver]

4. You get it

Thanks for digging beyond temper tantrums to outline the strategy. It may not “feel good” but it just might work. We shall see.

[TwilightZone]

7. Agreed.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

8. Just because they don't approve of *Trump* doesn't mean they aren't still REPUBLICANS.

So you tell me - if Biden gets elected - how is he going to show unity with Republicans? What are you willing to sacrifice to Biden can keep his campaign promises? Because Republicans, no matter how they feel about Trump, are anti-choice, pro-polluter, head in the sand about global warming, etc., etc.

How is Biden planning to accommodate those Republicans in congress for the sake of unity with them? Because no Republican in congress will give an inch on any of those things. Dems may keep the House, but is he going to expect them to accommodate Republicans for the sake of "unity"? Regaining the Senate is a long shot anyway.

Biden can't please everyone .If he makes a point of trying to please Republicans, what incentive do voters of his own party have to vote for him?

[Politicub]

26. Biden's strategy is to elect democrats up and down the ballot

To do that, he must peel away a portion of republicans and persuade them to vote democratic or to not vote at all.

I don't see this as "trying to please Republicans," as you put it. I see it as a strategic move that will help candidates in more conservative districts who have the potential to vote dem.

Remember -- whoever wins the statehouses in 2020 will get to redraw congressional districts. This is why down-ballot is so important. Every poll we've seen indicates that the electorate wants someone in office who is more moderate. You don't win votes by making a voter feel that they are outside of the club.

Another way of thinking about it is this: In a past life my job was communications around behavior change to improve healthcare outcomes. One of the fundamental concepts of behavior change is to not make your target audience feel bad or worse about themselves. This is a losing strategy in improving health outcomes, and findings from studies have been extrapolated and put to use for adoption of a new technology, for instance. There's a rich body of scholarship around this topic.

So to bring this back around, running as a liberal firebrand will not expand the coalition. Obama knew this and his strategy worked. And look at the things accomplished while he was in office in the face of non-stop obstruction -- the ending of DADT, enacting regulations and polities that promoted equality in government hiring and contracting, and more.

However, running as a liberal firebrand in some districts is indeed a winning strategy. But this is the exception, based on what we are seeing through polling, rather than the rule. There are more conservative districts than liberal ones.

I get it. I want to see someone wiping the floor with Trump and to shut out republicans at every opportunity. But I also know that won't win us a lot of votes.

Do you remember the Trump supporter who was quoted as saying something like, "why isn't he [Trump] doing more to hurt people not like him?" I keep this in mind because I do not want to become this person. It runs counter to my values. I want to see a country that works for all Americans while ensuring fairness.

Theodore Roosevelt, who had a larger-than-life personality, said, "speak softly and carry a big stick." This how I think of Biden operates.

In other words, an adept politician can create a sense of appeasement while still furthering progressive priorities. This is the needle that has to be threaded to expand the democratic presence across all of government. This will take several election cycles. Maybe decades. We will make great gains in 2020 no matter who our nominee is. That is which I am certain. But these gains are only a start. We need to grasp political power, hold onto it, and expand the number of progressives locally, at the state level and nationally.

You may disagree. That's okay. The democratic coalition has room for all of us.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

28. i think the Blue Wave proved that Democrats don't need Republicans when THEY are motivated to vote.

Trying to appeal to Republicans is the same thing that Obama did after he got elected in 2008. And what happened in the mid-terms? Dems lost the House.

[shanny]

29. this, exactly.

[Politicub]

31. You proved my points. Waves need to be followed by sustained activity.

Biden is motivating people. The polls bear this out. Do you not accept that? He may not motivate you personally, however you define motivation, but he is a motivational force for millions. I am motivated by the prospect of stopping Trumpism by the effective communication of progressive ideas. And bigger ideas, like getting people to feel, again, like the American dream is within their grasp. This is how we will expand access to healthcare in this country. This is how we will make college more attainable for more people. This is how we will get younger people invested in public service.

You have to plan in advance to keep power once you seize it. This should have been the lesson of 2010, but it got lost. In Obama's words, dems experienced a shellacking. We fell asleep because we didn't listen to our transformative president -- and, boy, was Obama transformative.

President Obama said, "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."

That was years ago and it's still true. Let's think about now. In 2018, Dems made gains because they focused on local issues. People like Danica Roem, the first transgender person elected to the Virginia legislature, credits her success to focusing on day-to-day issues like relieving traffic congestion. She beat out a republican that held the district for 25 years.

Local politics was something that was ignored in 2010 because, if memory serves, the election became a referendum on the ACA.

If stopping or slowing down republican gains made over the past ten years does not excite you, no matter who the dem candidate is, then there is nothing I can say or do to help you. Peace to you.

[Cha]

9. Thank You for explaining that so

well, JF!

[50 Shades Of Blue]

12. I still want to know how Biden plans to keep his promise to seek unity with Republicans.

If he gets elected, what Democratic policy position(s) will he sacrifice for the sake of unity with Republicans who oppose them all so that he can keep his campaign promises?

[DallasNE]

3. I Hear What He Is Saying

But I am not impressed. It may have worked in 1992 - before Citizens United - as dark money has changed everything. Washington has changed. Liz Warren has put out a number of proposals. To me that is the route to go. Put out your plan and run on that. I am kind of waiting for others to follow her example then I will study the differences and make up my mind. But that is probably months away. What I do know is that whoever wins the nomination, I will fully support them in the general election - just as happened in 2016.

[ucrdem]

6. That didn't work out in 2016.

Hillary had great plans. They were a lot like Bill's, minus the punitive red meat. I hears both Hill and Bill describe her platform. It was awesome. But apart from whistle stops and debates the focus was always on emails or Benhazi.

[loyalsister]

11. The shining bipartisan moments of the 90s

brought us the crime bill and welfare reform. On their own they would have been bad enough. But cutting off the safety net after removing economic providers from families was a travesty. The road to common ground has had damaging consequences.
I have a difficult time believing it would be different this time when the capitulation of the past is being held up as a normal paragon of progress despite evidence and lived experiences.

[ucrdem]

14. Bill was governor of Arkansas running against Ronnie's veep.

Biden was Barack Obama's second-in-command for 8 years. I don't think you have to worry about a 90s do-over.

[loyalsister]

18. If yesterday's speech is any indication

the sentiment that drove that step towards Reagan is alive and well. A libertarian capitalist mindset that has suppressed wages and left people out of economic gains while failing to provide a safety net has defined the stated goals and dishonest portrayal of opportunity in the US.

There seems to be no recognition of the fact that policies from the nineties have failed people and locked them into limited job markets. Last week the most significant bans on abortion were passed and we can thank safe legal rare and getting on board the prolife agenda when they were selling false horror stories during the 90s and 2000s.

It's going to take a lot of work to repair the damage if that is even possible. And there is nothing to suggest remorse or regret for the damage that was inflicted. Only looking past consequences to a construction of normal that was not as great as it seemed except in contrast to what we have now.

[DallasNE]

19. Yeah, It Didn't Work For Crap Back Then Either

I didn't think things all of the way through. I picked 1992 because that was before Newt and a government shutdown. But even before that there was the Clinton tax bill that turned out to be the best piece of legislation of the 1990's (along with the Brady bill) and not one single Republican voted for it. Indeed, Warren Buffett advised Bob Kerrey to hold his nose and vote for it - it took Kerrey's vote to even pass as a couple of Democrats voted no. Indeed, you may have to go back to the mid 1960's to find a period when bipartisanship actually worked and that was only because of the trade-off between New England Republicans offsetting the defections of southern democrats to get progressive legislation. The Conservative wing has always been a major obstacle to progress as I recall Sen. Bob Taft constantly standing in the way of progressive legislation. What worked back then was "give them hell Harry".

[ucrdem]

5. I think Joe has found his lane.

[Cha]

10. Joe Biden is Back!

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

ucr

[ucrdem]

13. Love his cut-the-bullshit strategy.

Didn't know he had it in him frankly but he figured out how to get right down to business.

Love that "I'm with President @BarackObama's VP" hashtag!

[Cha]

15. I'm with President @BarackObama's VP. #BFD #Biden2020

Yeah, she's strong Obama supporter.. I found this on The Obama Diary.. so glad to see her support for Biden!

[ucrdem]

16. It's great seeing Barack back in the news now and then.

He would never endorse before the primaries are over but I think I know who he's backing.

[Cha]

17. Did you know.. ?

Link to tweet

[ucrdem]

21. Yes a stretch of Rodeo Boulevard no less

Not the fancy one in BH but still. Several miles of it too I heard. I expect Paris to be next -- they still give out "Avenue Président Kennedy" proudly on radio France or at least they did until a few years ago. . . haven't heard it lately but I used to all the time





p.s. this one will be harder to steal:

[Cha]

34. Love It!

Mahalo for the pic, ucr!

[Politicub]

27. This makes me so happy!!!

Obama Boulevard.

[Cha]

35. Me too! Obama Boulevard!

[shanny]

30. Hmmm--I hope not.

What is it they say about the only things found in the middle of the road?

[Politicub]

32. I'm not sure. Perhaps you should tell us.

[shanny]

33. Perhaps you should use the google.

I doubt if it would be hard to find.

[Gothmog]

20. Joe Biden is the most electable candidate that the Democratic Party has available

[RandiFan1290]

22. They called the Iraq invasion authorization a 'Unity Vote'

Screw that garbage, I am voting FOR Bernie!

[ehrnst]

23. There was no "invasion authorization." You are likely referring to the

resolution that stated that invasion was only to be used in the event that the UN would not intervene, and then the possiblity of invasion was to be used as leverage to get them to intervene.

Bush didn't honor the resolution, and instead went directly to invasion.

I hope that clarifies things for you.



However, in 1998, there was a resolution to actually remove Saddam Hussein from power using military force. You might be suprised at who voted yes on - twice. While at least one legislator defending his vote said it was "nearly unanimous" - in other words, a unity vote - 30 actually voted against it.

In 1998 Sanders voted in favor of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which said: “It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Later that same year, Sanders also backed a resolution that stated: “Congress reaffirms that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”

Sanders also voted for the 2001 Authorization Unilateral Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which pretty much allowed Bush to wage war wherever he wanted.

Authorization for Use of Military Force - Authorizes the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.
States that this Act is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

[RandiFan1290]

24. Anyone that trusted w and the republicons

Showed horrible judgement

Hope that clarifies things for you

[ehrnst]

25. And the TWO 1998 military action approval votes?

What kind of 'judgement' did that show? Missed your reply on that. Some people can express regret over their votes, and learn from their mistakes. Others who never, ever admit to a mistaken vote have no capacity to learn from them, yes?

Keyboard quarterbacking 15+ years later is always spot on, isn't it? Especially when you didn't really understand exactly what was and was not actually voted on...