A Joe Biden Nomination Would Be Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare

[ginchinchili]

Anyone knowledgeable about American politics and has been studying this presidential election cycle should be able to make what's becoming an increasingly obvious conclusion: if any of the 3 Democratic front runners win their Party's nomination, we will have at least 4 more years of a continuation of the current Bush policy.

Hillary can't win the presidency. Obama can't win the presidency. Edwards would have the best chance of the 3, but would most likely be defeated in a close election. Kucinich can't win. Richardson wouldn't win because his position on immigration is too liberal and the Republicans would beat him with it until he was nothing but political pulp. Dodd is not well known enough, though he'd probably make a good president. With all things being weighed, Joe Biden is easily the Democrats best chance of ending the Bush/Republican legacy of failure by beating any Republican who is nominated, most likely Giuliani.

This election, like the last presidential election, will be determined by the fear factor, which ordinarily would mean the Republicans would win, even if they're running a beer-brained dimwit. The difference is that the public has finally wised up to the Iraq failure and every one of the Republicans, save Ron Paul who isn't liked by his own party, have Iraq hanging around their vulture-crooked necks.

But in order for the Democrats to take advantage of this potential weakness--potential because any Democratic supporter who thinks the Iraq disaster guarantees a Democratic victory does not understand the current American political landscape--they have to run a candidate that can convince them that a Democrat will keep them safer than a Republican.

During the last presidential election just after Kerry won the nomination I knew the Dems were in trouble. I argued on the Kerry campaign weblog that for him to win the presidency from Bush, he would have to convince the American public of the same thing this year's Democratic nominee will have to do, that he will do better at keeping us safe than Bush. But in order for him to succeed at doing that he would have had to relentlessly, unmercifully, go after Bush on Iraq. Hell, Kerry wouldn't even condemn the invasion and, therefore, threw away any chance of winning the election. They eventually banned me from their blog.

Joe Biden is, without question, the best Democrat to take it to the Republicans on the question of national security and Iraq. No one else has a viable plan for dealing with Iraq. No one else has the expertise and credibility on Iraq, and national security in general. And he has a kind of gruff, down-to-earth way about him that will appeal to independents and moderate Republicans who are disillusioned with their party, voters who will not vote for Hillary or Obama. No other candidate has this combination.

So if you like the current direction our nation is headed, you have a choice of voting for a Republican or one of the leading Democrats. You'll get the same result either way. If you want someone to bring stability and sanity back to our government, you'd better get behind Sen. Biden before it's too late. Mark my word, what you read in this post will hold true throughout this election and the result will be at least 4 more years of sinking, unless we get smart for a change and support Joe Biden. Senator Joe Biden for President in 2008.

[rateyes]

1. This is going to get interesting....

:popcorn:

[calteacherguy]

116. I think Rove's 2nd worst nightmare began today with Clark's endorsement of Clinton.

I think he's waking up in cold sweats with visions of Clark going around the country as her VP saying what a great Commander and Chief she would be for the U.S. armed forces and America.

His worst nightmare would have been Clark finding some way to run and winning the nomination.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. Your reasons why not are correct, as is the urgency for change...

We have until 4:00 pm 9/5/08 for Al to shock the monkey.

[ginchinchili]

4. Al Gore says he's no longer interested in participating in politics

And I take him at his word, nor do I blame him. He would have a lot of ground to make up and money to raise. True, he could surprise us, but he sounds adamant when he says he's not running.

[PatSeg]

40. I don't blame him either

Who would want to relive that hell and he admits that he is not a good politician. In the meantime he is doing what he loves and is able to do it openly and honestly.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. I Have No Problems With A Biden Candidacy But You Are "Misunderestimating" Hillary....

Her flaws, real or perceived are out there already...Any attacks on her by the GOPU will be dismissed as "old news"... She is the most adroit and disciplined candidate in the race...She also is the toughest, by far... They called Margaret Thatcher "The Iron Lady"... When it comes to being tough Hillary Clinton makes Margaret Thatcher look like a piker...

She is also pounding her Republican rivals in head to head polls...

As of now, I think she's a winner...

[ginchinchili]

11. Too many independents/moderate conservatives can't stand her

And because of that, her nomination would mean the death knell for the Democrats' aspirations for the White House. I personally know many people who are politically moderate who haven't made up their minds, but insist they will not vote for Hillary Clinton. Most of it's unfair, but as you point out, the public has its mind made up on Hillary Clinton. She runs very strong with Democrats, but sinks dramatically with independents, moderate Republicans (the 2 constituencies that are key to winning this election), and, of course, Rightwing ideologues. It's the reason why Karl Rove has brought her up time and time again. It's the reason Giuliani is currently running an ad attacking her. It's because they want her to win the Democratic primary. They know they can beat Hillary. Joe Biden would prove to be a devastating curve ball that would throw them off their game. It would be great to watch. But they're confident right now that their plan of a Hillary nomination will carry through because they know the Democrats.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. She's Beating Her Republican Rivals In The Polls...

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm

All she needs to do is get 95% of the Democratic vote and 50% of the Indy vote and she beats her Republican opponent 54% to 46%... I envision an electorate in 08 that is approximately 40% Democratic, 28% Independent, and 32% Republican...

In fact if you look at recent surveys the Dems enjoy their highest party identification advantage in a generation....

[sampsonblk]

145. Yep! And that's what some keep forgetting

We are not in any desperate situation. Quite the opposite. There are more of us than there are of them, and those in the middle are siding with us also. The GOP, on the other hand, is in awful shape.

Unfortunately for our side, a lot of people are stuck back in 2002 and can't get past the fact that the numbers have changed drastically in our favor.

[ginchinchili]

153. Don't kid yourself, though Karl Rove would certainly endorse that view

To think that the country has suddenly "changed drastically in our favor" is simply not realistic, only in the sense that a majority now feel that the war was a mistake and that we need to get out of there. That doesn't mean all of those Bush loving conservatives are going to start singing the praises of Hillary Clinton.

I do think the Democrats have a slight advantage in this upcoming election due to the war, but by no means is it a slam dunk. Roughly half of the country tends to vote Republican and roughly half vote Democrat. The Republicans are looking for anything to excite them. It is why Thompson has stepped into the arena at the top of their polls, even though there's no substantial reason for it. Make Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee and they will finally have something to get excited about, and it wouldn't be too difficult for them to carry the Independents along with them. Yes, Sen. Clinton is popular enough to win the Democratic primary, but her chances of winning the general election are nil. You think the attacks against Kerry were bad, nominate the good Sen. from New York and you'll see hell unleashed. There are simply way too many people who are considering voting Democrat this time who normally don't, but if the Democratic nominee is Hillary Clinton, we will lose them, and with them the election. It's just the reality we have to deal with.

[demommom]

54. I was a Bill Clinton fan however;

I still believe that he could have accomplished more, had there not been so much bickering and sniping and outright hatred from the other side. Even if Hillary can be elected in the general election, I believe that we would be in for the same kind of thing for 8 more years. I personally don't believe she will be elected, because she will mobilize folks who maybe would not otherwise vote,only they will be voting against her; therefore electing a republican. I know that I am probably in a minority here, but we can not afford at this time in our history to take that chance. We cannot afford to elect her president,because we think we will get more of him.

[PatSeg]

55. Well said

though I'm sure you'll get heavily criticized for it. It is important that we think in terms of "eight years". We can't take a chance that a candidate may not last more than one term. I'm not saying that Hillary wouldn't last, but it is a gamble.

[saltpoint]

67. Interesting point. There were other Democrats vying for our nomination

in those days. Mario Cuomo was heavily rumored to be interested in the job. Jerry Brown gave it a run. Paul Tsongas. Tom Harkin. Etc.

It was a lively field and it emerged with Bill Clinton holding the eagle feather.

The Republicans hated his guts, of course. He'd whipped an incumbent and interrupted the Reagan aura they'd come to love so much.

It's possible that HClinton will be a more talented president in controlling her detractors. But I haven't seen that so far from the media, from the Pukes, from FOX Newes especially, and so forth.

[jillan]

120. Hillary is my second choice as of this moment.

Edwards is right up there too.

Hillary is running an excellent campaign, and this is coming from
someone who months ago joined a group called "anti-Hillary Dems".
Not anymore.

[saltpoint]

5. Our field whips theirs in several aspects, including electability.

Leaving the general election aside for just a moment, I'm honestly not seeing how any of the current pack of Pukes even wins their party's nomination, nevermind the general election.

I do see convincing rationales and apparatus demonstrably in place for most of our Democratic field to win nomination and the general.

I don't think this is likely to be a huge banner year for the Republican Party. If we can raise some bucks and assemble the most vigorous grassroots org ever, we will win the White House handily but just as importantly, many other ballot-wide offices for state and county and municipal posts. I like Howard Dean's concentration on the whole landscape and not just the top slot. All offices, all states.

On Biden specifically, I think he comes around the far turn and heads toward the finish line very, very strongly. Bush's escapade in Baghdad is now toxic propaganda and has driven several Republicans out of contention. Imagine a private conversation with John Warner, ranking Republican on Armed Services. He's been pro-military, and a man of some honor, for some time. Dubya and Rummy and Condi roll in and immediately undertake a war of discretion and then lie about both its necessity and its sustainability. That had to physically sicken John Warner.

Sickened him. Even as it destroyed Iraqi and Coalition lives and destroyed one of the oldest civilizations on earth.

Throw in the rest of the Bush administration's myriad calamities and you have a legacy running as low as it goes on the charts of American public figures.

As public (and even some Congressional) support for Bush and Bush's war whittles to near nothing, Biden's foreign affairs expertise rises and is resonate in the ears of people weary of being lied to. Biden is an adept. He has his detractors on DU. I dismiss those objections and insist on an evaluation of the entire man, the entire length of his public life.

I like what I see and respect an adept in a time when corrupt fools have stolen the reigns of government.

Voters are in a strangle-the-Bush-agenda frame of mind, and with requisite funding and grassroots hustle, we win a pile of races ballot-wide in 2008.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. I Like Joe Biden But He Has To Win The Nomination To Challenge The Republican And He Is Not Doing

Well At All...

[saltpoint]

9. We're in the second inning of a 9-inning game. Biden's in no

commanding lead in the polls like HClinton, but has generated heightened interest and support in Iowa this summer.

I'm calling him to pace ahead of Senator Clinton in the Iowa caucus and in the top three also in New Hampshire, possibly first or second in both contests.

Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats get first crack at the vote as usual. My state isn't until a bit later, so my support for John Edwards is connected to Iowa and New Hampshire Democrats' support for John Edwards, but I will take what comes down the pike.

I think Biden is a very strong contender for nomination.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. I'll Use A Football Analogy ...

We are at the end of the first quarter and Ms. Clinton is beating her opponents 14-0... She is doing nothing extraordinary; just steady campaigning, or running the ball down their throats... If her opponents don't make necessary adjustments they are going to get owned...

Barring a major gaff, a scandal, or a change in the dynamic I don't see her losing this race...

Nothing in my analysis is meant to disparage the rest of the pack who all seem like fine and earnest men...

[saltpoint]

19. The oddsmakers agree with your analysis. Her lead is formidable.

She's beating my guy, among others.

Two touchdowns isn't going to be enough to win this game, and it might even go into overtime.

I'm calling Edwards and Biden as first and second in Iowa. I run about 50-50 on political predictions. Scored with Gary Hart's win over Mondale in New Hampshire but fell out of the plane with Gore's win over Bradley, also in New Hampshire.

We'll see how it plays out.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. Too Early To Call Individual States...

Gary Hart whipped Mondale in NH because of the bump he got in IA for exceeding expectations...But even then he couldn't overcome the machine that Mondale had built...

Back to the present...If HRC finishes third in IA and NH her campaign is in real trouble but I don't see that happening...

[saltpoint]

32. Could be right. Or events could shift without warning as they often do

and we'd find ourselves in what Elvis might call an all-shook-up scenario.

Say Al Gore wins the Nobel Prize in October. Say he announces for president after a week of publicity and speculation at the foot of Mt. Rushmore.

Say it drives several people out of the race, who, despite being quite worthy of our votes and consideration and respect, are unable to compete with the groundswell for Gore.

Say that county committee people currently aligned with Clinton stampede to the Gore candidacy.

Say that big money flows Gore's way and he is in a commanding position for a first-ballot nomination by mid-December.

Absolutely none of that may take place. Or, all of it could.

[robinlynne]

109. or we could ban electronic voting. That would guarantee any Dem nominee....

[waiting for hope]

132. Hiya OC!

Take a look at this:

Gore Endorsement -- Potent but Not Foolproof
By Chris Cillizza And Shailagh Murray
Sunday, September 9, 2007; Page A02

Former vice president Al Gore's pronouncement that he is likely to endorse one of the Democratic candidates for president before the primary season is over has set off a slew of speculation about who his choice might be.

Truth is, the courting of the "Goreacle" began many months ago. Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Gore huddled in Nashville in December, and Gore has also met with former senator John Edwards (N.C.). Gore and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (Conn.) conferred as recently as last week.

Not surprisingly, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) has not met with Gore. Neither has Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) nor New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson.

The falling out between Gore and the Clintons has become the stuff of political legend. Then-Vice President Gore's decision to distance himself from Bill Clinton in the 2000 presidential campaign did not sit well with the Clintons, who resented that Gore was willing to accept credit for the administration's achievements while at the same time criticizing the president's personal conduct.

It seems safe to predict that Gore will not be endorsing the bid of the senator from New York. A more open question might be whether he would throw his support to Obama -- the only candidate in the top-tier who, like Gore, opposed the war in Iraq from the start -- or another surging contender at a critical moment to try to derail Hillary Clinton's quest for the nomination.

~Snip~

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090801458.html?hpid=sec-politics

I found it to be an interesting read.. :)

[saltpoint]

133. Hiya, Waiting for Hope. Happy Sunday. It is an interesting read, no doubt

about it.

Edwards, Obama, and Dodd. That's a provocative trio in and of itself. I'm going to need some time to process this and see what happens.

I wonder if those meetings took place at the request of Edwards, Obama, and Dodd, or at the request of Gore.

I'm really curious but have no idea of the context of the gatherings, or even who initiated them, or what was discussed.

It sure would be fun to have overheards a couple of those meetings!

[waiting for hope]

134. Happy Sunday right back at ya!

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall? I mean seriously, to really hear what they are saying when the cameras and taping is off? Sometimes I feel it would really scare the pants off us if we really knew. But then again, maybe we should know.

[saltpoint]

136. Yes. 'Would love to hear some hot insider gossip.

But will settle for whatever happens.

If you do get some of that inside gossip, though, please pass it along! I WILL stop what I'm doing to listen!

[Ian David]

21. Thank god. President Joe Biden would be a bloody nightmare. n/t

[napi21]

130. Why? n/t

[ginchinchili]

18. Over-confidence will doom this election for the Democrats

Posted by Old Crusoe:
....I'm honestly not seeing how any of the current pack of Pukes even wins their party's nomination, nevermind the general election.... If we can raise some bucks and assemble the most vigorous grassroots org ever, we will win the White House handily.....


Where as I certainly appreciate your optimism, we cannot go into this election thinking, how could anyone vote anything but Democrat. It will be an extremely tough election that could very well see Rudy Giuliani convincing Republicans and independents that the country's security is vulnerable, there are enemies out there trying to acquire nuclear weapons for the sole purpose of attacking the US, and that he can do the best job of keeping us safe, especially if his opponent is Hillary Clinton.

[saltpoint]

23. No one's called for complacency. And as for Rudy, I repeat my claim that

he may not even be nominatable, let alone win the general.

You mention HClinton, so I'll respond to her chances. She whips Rudy's pathetic hindend in New York, his home state, and she whips him in all the Kerry/Edwards states. She keeps New Hampshire at the top of that ballot with Shaheen drawing still more Democrats in her Senate race against Sununu.

She wins back New Mexico on trendlines alone, and by greater %s if Richardson becomes her running mate.

She wins back Iowa if Vilsack is tapped and also on general trends.

She wins Ohio, with Rudy thrashing around Cincinnati John Birch fundraisers and the rest of the state ready to strangle any Republican. We own Ohio.

With Bredeson on her ticket she could compete in Tennessee. Maybe not win there, especially if Fred Thompson is the Pukes' nom, but she could force the GOP to spend money to save their turf.

She competes formidably and perhaps successfully in North Carlina and Florida and Arkansas.

Rudy can flog 911 all he wants. She'd whip him like a rented mule.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

27. I Don't Think The "Rudy Is The Daddy Who Can Protect You" Argumnent Can Be Sustained For An Entire

Campaign...

It barely worked for Bush in 04* who is physically a much more credible "daddy" and he was running in a better political environment for his party...

[saltpoint]

68. Agree. I think Rudy's already played that tune. It was a rousing overture while

it lasted but the audience is ready for the main program.

He's a one-note Johnny trying to be "America's hero president."

[ginchinchili]

28. I repeat, over-confidence will lead to Republican victory

Your scenario sounds great, but you don't explain how that's to come about. Your post smacks of the dangerous "over-confidence."

[saltpoint]

29. Well, ginchinchili, you've entered the overconfident zone.

Proceed accordingly.

[PatSeg]

96. I think we can use a little of both

Confidence accompanied with informed skepticism. I was overconfident in 2004 and the aftermath was devastating.

[saltpoint]

107. I'll sign on to that, definitely. Hell, I was hopeful for George McGovern.

That was a tough one, let me tell ya.

Nixon!?!

Yuck!

[PatSeg]

138. Oh, you bring back some really sad memories

McGovern was and still is an amazing man.

[saltpoint]

139. Agree. That wasn't my first involvement in an election as a volunteer, but

it was the first one where I began to realize that this Nixon character was far worse than even I had believed he was.

I never liked him in the first place, but now he seemed much more virulent.

And for him to beat a man like George mcGovern... man, that was a real tough night.

[PatSeg]

140. I just watched Alan Greenspace on 60 minutes

and he said Nixon was the most profane he'd ever met and that he would make the Sopranos blush. He said there was really something wrong with him and that he was pretty anti EVERYONE.

[saltpoint]

142. I missed the program, but that description by Greenspan of Nixon is

devastating ("..he would make the Sopranos blush').

I've heard a few of the tapes from Nixon's Oval Office sessions with Haldeman. I bet Greenspan is exactly right.

[PatSeg]

143. Greenspan worked with six presidents

and he rated them. He was actually appalled and shocked by the man. A life long republican, he said that Clinton was the most intelligent and effect. He spent far more time with Clinton than the others. Ford was the most "normal" and basically decent man. He did not get along with Bush I at ALL.

It was very interesting and candid.

Oops, edited because for some strange reason I wrote Greenspace!

[PatSeg]

144. Geez, I made the same mistake twice

I need to go to bed!

[ginchinchili]

71. Read my post, "Don't Underestimate the Republicans."

In it I explain the arguments that Giuliani will make. It's sounds very reasonable, especially to a frightened public. In a nutshell, he'll say that arguing whether or not we should have gone in is beside the point. The point is that we're there and to pull out will make us less safe, but he will advocate pulling out a significant number and changing the roles of our military. Biden is arguing that we have to pull out, but do so in a responsible way. The American public wants out, but at the same time they're uncomfortable with just yanking all our troops out. Biden's plan is the most rational, a plan that the American people can accept. My point is, we simply cannot allow ourselves to believe that this election is going to be some kind of cakewalk. It's not. It will be close, either way. We just have to make sure it goes our way. I'm convinced Joe Biden can do that.

[PatSeg]

6. This thought has come to me recently

The republicans DON'T want Joe Biden for the Democratic nominee, which is why they attacked him when he referred to the Bush administration as "phonies". I expect that every time Biden shows up in the spotlight, it will be countered with another political attack.

[Debi]

10. That's occurring here on DU (like you didn't know that already)

I just mentioned on another thread that I thought it odd that a guy who is polling well below 'undecided' is receiving so much vitriol on this board. Kucinich/Dodd/Richardson don't get attacked (by Obama/Clinton/Edwards supporters) why Biden?

The meme here in Iowa is that people really like his FP experience, but he can't win. I haven't heard anyone attack him like I see on DU. What are others hearing in their states? If I ask about Obama or Edwards or Clinton I'll either get a "You bet" or a "No way" but with Biden - here in Iowa - I get a :shrug:. Why the hatred here on DU?

[saltpoint]

17. Hi, Debi. I'd like to see John Edwards win nomination. If he doesn't, I could

live with Joe Biden, no problem.

Pretty enthusiastically, in fact.

Biden can frame public debate better than most. He reaches high but he's anchored solid below, and the result when he speaks is this persuasive and reasonable voice.

When have governments not needed that perspective, and especially ours now after 6-8 years of Bush's tomfoolery.

[Debi]

22. At this point in the race I'm not with any of the candidates - nor am I agaisnt any of them

I just find it strange that a candidate with so little support (Pollwise) receives so much hate-filled attacks (and not from people in his home state - but from all over the US). Just doesn't make sense.

[saltpoint]

33. The mainstream media, IMO, has to shoulder a great deal of blame in

the matter of public perception of our candidates.

The mainstream media is pro-Bush, pro-Republican, etc. They aren't going to play fair.

I think we need to support our candidates at all levels of the ballot and start tuning out the droids on FOX and ABC and so forth.

I think it's healthy to phone the local paper and tell them to cancel the newspaper subscription owing to the editorial board's rightwing propaganda and that from this point forward we'll seek independent news sources instead.

We have Bill Moyers. We have Frank Rich. Christiane Amanpour's mighty good. We have THE NATION. And key writers in Harper's and The Atlantic and so on.

[PatSeg]

34. Old perceptions die hard

or don't die at all. Images painted by the media, even when successfully refuted, tend to live on.

[saltpoint]

35. Agree. To choose one example, I thought the media's treatment of Howard Dean

in 2004 was absolutely disgraceful.

And sad to say, that's only one example.

[PatSeg]

36. And later they admitted it

Chris Matthews even apologized, but people don't remember the apology, they remember the scream.

[saltpoint]

38. Yes. Not always a fan of Matthews, he did right by us on that one.

[PatSeg]

39. He has his moments

but unfortunately they are few and far between. I think he gets too wrapped up in the frenzy of politics and puts his brain on hold.

[saltpoint]

42. Good observation. He's got the brains, no question. I think he has too

public a role to play with the cameras running. It's as if he's outgrown that role but hasn't left the studio.

If CNN's head honchos phone me up on Monday, I'd urge them to give Jack Cafferty more air time.

[PatSeg]

47. Me too!

I wish MSNBC would steal Cafferty away from CNN. They aren't taking full advantage of his talents. Now Jack is a straight talker and doesn't give anyone a pass.

[ellacott]

43. None of these attacks make sense

The attacks on Hillary, Obama or Edwards are senseless also. It appears like people don't know any other way to communicate but to spew hate filled posts at candidates they don't support. Sadly, this behavior has been exhibited from Biden's DU camp also.

It makes it a little more understandable how we lost power and know don't seem to know what to do with the little power we have.

Biden is really the most experienced candidate and I know the Republicans are afraid of him in a debate. He would make their candidates look like fools.

[saltpoint]

45. Speaking to Biden's debate skills: I wouldn't want the job of taking the man on.

He'd blow Rudy Giuliani off the damn stage.

[PatSeg]

49. As someone in another thread said

"I'd pay to see that debate." Maybe it was YOU!

[saltpoint]

69. Hell, it probably WAS me. And the offer's still good. I'd lay down a

real thick wad of bills to watch Biden dissemble Rudy Giuliani right before my eyes.

And it wouldn't take very long, either.

[PatSeg]

89. I think it was you

I don't think the republicans are going to agree to many debates in this race, pretty much like 2004, and what debates there are will be full of strict conditions and restrictions.

[ellacott]

50. Yes, it would be great to see n/t

[PatSeg]

53. Too many liberals have transferred their hatred

of republicans to the Democratic candidates. Constructive criticism and debate are healthy but some of venom I've seen is counter-productive.

[sendero]

58. Yeah...

.... how dare folks put country above party.

[demommom]

57. I'm sorry, I don't recall

very much hate coming from the Biden Du camp. Stating your opinion is not hate, I respect all of the Dem candidates but have my preferences and my reasons for being for my candidate and not so much for others.

[ellacott]

60. You're correct, it hasn't been much

I think someone was just feeling mischevious and wanted to play like a lot of others do.

I had hoped it was just an aberration and that does appear to be the case. It was still a little disappointing to see.

[PatSeg]

62. Likewise

I was never a very political person until the last few years and my support of a Democratic candidate reflects my desires for my country. Clearly any Democratic candidate would be better than a republican, but some would be better than others.

Being a Democrat in this race IS putting country first.

[saltpoint]

72. The Biden DU group strikes me as consistently respectful of other groups'

postings.

They're into conversation more than confrontation and they have attached themselves to an impressive adept in foreign policy.

Not a bad combo.

[PatSeg]

83. Thanks

I believe we have a great selection to choose from and I'm not opposed to comparing them, but I am not about to resort to some of the tactics I've seen. Not only have I seen people put down a candidate with short one-liners, but often they put down the candidate's supporters as well. That rarely leads to useful debate.

Meanwhile, those of us who have made a decision need to remember there are still many undecideds out there and negative behavior is a real turnoff. They are looking for information not biased bickering.

[PatSeg]

37. Biden will be on Chris Wallace's show tomorrow morning

If you see a right wing attack within the next 48 hours, you know he scored.

[monmouth]

14. I love Joe Biden, and whoever is nominated and wins, Joe will be

very high in the cabinet. His expertise in foreign relations is un-touchable...

[Ian David]

8. Joe Biden is evil. I would rather vote for Ron Paul than Biden. n/t

[Debi]

12. Wow, just made my post above relevant care to elucidate? n/t

[Ian David]

13. Don't feel like repeating myself. Use the DU search function to find my prior posts. n/t

[Debi]

24. Why waste my time if you won't defend your position?

I guess it's just more fun to post hate-speech and run than to explain it?

If you don't have a reason for your post that's your problem, I'll dismiss is as drivel.

:hi:

[PatSeg]

56. You damage your credibility

when you uses terms like "evil". It is hard to read past the word.

[hisownpetard]

65. Use the search function to read your other posts? You flatter yourself...

Why would I take the time and spend the energy, when you've just compromised
your integrity by saying something as ridiculous as "Biden is evil."

[saltpoint]

15. O hell, Ian. You don't mean that. Ron Paul is a clunk head. Pretty good on

the Iraq war, yes, but wow, after that, there's a real sharp drop-off.

Noting your Dennis Kucinich avatar, I think Kucinich not only rises way way way higher than someone like Ron Paul, I think Kucinich's public service career -- longer and more intense than most people's -- eclipses Paul's.

I mean, it takes it out. Kablooey.

Biden is not as liberal on the scale index as Kucinich, but women's issues have done pretty well by him, and education initiatives have done pretty well by him, and he has the dingers to beat the living crap out of John Bolton even as his fellow SFRC member Dick Lugar snoozed through those hearings, almost literally.

Not saying you have to vote for the man. But he's given us decades of left votes on crucial issues.

[Ian David]

20. And then let us down on Bush's nominations, among other things.

Biden talks a good game, but abdicates his responsibility when it counts.

When it comes to presidential appointments, Biden is practically in the Unitary Executive camp.

Fuck Biden.

I'll vote for ANY Democrat BUT Biden.

[saltpoint]

25. Wow. I have to disagree with you on this one. I'm with you a hell of a lot

of the time on a hell of a lot of things, but this time we part paths.

[Totally Committed]

48. With Biden's "plagarism" problem some years back, Rove would chew him up and spit him out...

I think Biden would be disastrous as HRC will be for that very reason.

TC

[Debi]

64. Please provide us with the Democratic candidate that has no baggage

or record that the GOP won't attempt to exaggerate.

There is no perfect candidate.

[jillan]

76. That is hysterical -

If that is all they have to go after him, then he definitely has the least baggage of all of the candidates.

Think about it.
Kucinich
Edwards
Obama - he is #2 behind Hillary for being easy to attack.

Dodd might be another tough one for them.

The truth is, it doesn't matter.
The used John Kerry's military record against him, for chrissakes. All while their candidate was a draft dodger.

[PatSeg]

86. Rove's strategy is to focus on an opponent's strengths

and turn them into weaknesses. McCain's years as a POW? Makes him mentally unfit to be president. Kerry's war service? Find people to discredit it and the medals he received.

Look at your candidates now and prepare for the outrageous things they will do and say about him/her.

In 1988, Joe Biden was a serious contender for president and he was brought down by a political strategist from his own party, using Rove-like tricks. Even though it was later explained and those involved apologized, the initial tag stuck.

Rotten, nasty politics are not to my taste.

[ginchinchili]

78. If that the worst thing they can find to go after Biden, all the better

Rove is focusing his attention on Hillary because he wants Democratic voters to think she poses a real threat. This has become a standard Rove trick. He doesn't want to have to defeat a candidate by trying to explain their past positions or some questionable plagarism charge from years ago. Rove goes for the gut punches. He focuses on our emotions. Hillary and Obama will make that easy. It will be very difficult with Biden.

[ginchinchili]

31. Karl Rove thanks you

You're advocating Karl Rove's position. I'm sure he appreciates your support.

[kad7777]

104. Evil?

Where do you people come from?

[saltpoint]

110. kad7777, a welcome to you to these boards.

What a great city you live in.

Welcome.

[AtomicKitten]

41. there are numerous "GOP nightmare" candidates on deck

I suspect the GOP isn't sleeping well.

[PatSeg]

44. I don't think they expect to win this one

Newt give the Dems odds of 80-20, BUT they are planning for later and would love to have a divisive Dem in the White House, while they regroup and plan their next assault in four years.

[ginchinchili]

79. Make no mistake; the Repubs have every intention of winning this election

Newt gives the Dems 80-20 odds because he wants Dems to think like your post is suggesting. He wants Democrats to be overconfident. That's how the smart republicans play it. Newt. Rove. They look to mine the psychological/emotional advantages. Please don't be fooled.

[PatSeg]

90. Well they won't catch me sleeping

There is no limit to the tricks they'll pull of their hat. You know they are digging up crap on every candidate right now and devising individual strategies for each and everyone. Then of course, they'll cheat every chance they get.

[Vickers]

46. Well put.

:thumbsup:

They are skeered of every candidate and *potential* candidate so far, and that makes me feel good.

[PatSeg]

51. Pretty much ALL of them are nightmares

They're coming across as desperate and shallow. Their only unified message is Iraq and terrorism and that just isn't selling anymore.

[Pithy Cherub]

52. Funny Post! Biden can be president in his bathroom mirror

every morning. Biden and his outrageous gaffes, IWR vote, bankruptcy abomination, Anita Hill smearing, Clarence Thomas supporting, debacle of Alito hearings with his dumb hat, support of Iraq until he decided on a vanity run for president, does not ever need to worry about being the Commander in Chief. Thank Goodness!

[demommom]

59. I loved that Hat!!

I guess it is all a matter of perspective!!

[PatSeg]

61. It was priceless

and made a very clear statement.

[jillan]

75. This one?

Biden made his point about Alito's prejudices very well I thought :)

[PatSeg]

80. Can never see that one too many times!!!

[demommom]

105. That's the one!! And handsome and rugged he looks in it too!!

[karynnj]

63. Kerry was saying STRONGER things about the invasion in 2004, than Biden is now

How did you miss - "he misled the country into war, without letting the inspectors finish their job, without exhausting diplomacy, without adequate equipment for the troops, without planning for the peace.

He said it was not a war of last resort. I think most Catholics had heard the phrase "last resort" before. This was Kerry saying of a war that half the country was STILL behind that it was not a just war - that it was immoral.

Kerry also said, "wrong war, wrong time, wrong place". He spoke of having diverted attention from Afghanistan, which was the real center of Al Qaeda.

Even among the people who thought we should not have gone to war, a significant percentage of them felt the more important question was what should be done now. They were going to vote for the person they thought could best deal with where we were. This is why Kerry's proposals were more important - and why the Republicans tried to co-op them as - that is what Bush is already doing. The media repeated the RNC position with NO push back at all or a demand that Bush say what he planned to do. These were the people Kerry needed to win - in addition to some who thought the war was the right thing to do, but could be convinced that Kerry could resolve it better than Bush did.

Kerry got the purely anti-war vote. The millions more voters suggests they didn't stay home and there was little third party voting. How would criticizing the war more have helped? Had he gotten only the people who were 100% anti-war, he would have lost badly.

By the way, Biden was far less outspoken on the war in 2004 as a surrogate than Kerry was as the candidate. (I can see why if you kept saying that Kerry never said things - that others likely assured you he had, that they threw you off. It seems that you were not willing to accept that he had.) I say this though I do think Biden could be one of the stronger general election candidates in 2008.

[ginchinchili]

66. Kerry's argument was that the war was mishandled

He refused to condemn the invasion until just a few weeks before the election. By then the Swiftboat ads were poisoning the political waters and his shifting position on Iraq only made him look weaker. I followed this point very carefully. It was driving me crazy because I knew Kerry had to use Iraq to beat Bush. I was banned from his website because I was trying to get his supporters to insist he condemn Iraq and use it against Bush. Nothing else would do it. He went lite on Iraq and lost the election.

There's simply too much hate toward Hillary Clinton for her to become POTUS. It's sad, but that's the reality and we'd better recognize it.

[karynnj]

70. That was not true

You are buying the way the WP and the NYT covered it. Kerry was always speaking of what to do. His lines on Bush misleading us to war were in all his speeches - starting very early. Also, as I said HE HAD THE ANTI-WAR voters. He needed to win people far less anti-war and maybe even in favor of the war to win.

This is like Michael Moore implying Kerry needed to speak like he did.

[ginchinchili]

81. It's very much true & a big reason he lost the election

I followed this obsessively. I was against him in the primaries primarily because of his weak stand on Iraq. Don't you remember his statement, "I was against the war before I was for it"? John Kerry did not condemn the war until weeks before the election. It was not my imagination that I repeatedly pleaded on his weblog for him to start condemning the war until they finally got tired of me and banned me. His argument was that Bush mishandled the war. Then, weeks before the election, he finally took off the gloves, but by then the argument had lost its punch. It is the truth.

[karynnj]

91. He never said he was for the war before he was against it

The comment you are likely referencing was the one explaining that his vote against the $87 billion supplemental. He had just given a detailed answer that dealt with having voted for the Democratic version which paid for it by rolling back some tax cuts. If that is indicative of how accurate you were, it is no wonder that they stopped letting you post. I read the Kerry blog often enough to know that people there did a very good job leaving a post like that and responding to it. If you kept saying that - after they told you it wasn't true - then it is no surprise they told you not to post.

Kerry did argue that Bush was mismanaging the war and making things worse. We were fighting a war and a huge percent of people were not going to shift to Kerry unless they were convinced that he would be able to fight the war substantially better. Kerry was really gaining ground in the last 2 weeks, not by suddenly condemning the war, but because he really was able to translate the unguarded ammo dumps into terms that struck at the heart of the matter - when he spoke of how the ammo that was in these KNOWN ammo dumps that were left unguarded for months was used to make ieds that were killing and maiming "our kids". That was of saying Bush mishandled the war. That was shifting Kerry's numbers upwards.

I realize that that may be your opinion - but you are absolutely wrong on your quote and wrong on what happened at the end of the campaign.

PS: In 10 seconds, using google, I found this quoted in a January 26, 2004 International Tribune story:

"He said that while he had voted with a congressional majority last fall to authorize Bush to "build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort," Bush then "broke every single one of those promises." In the administration's arguments for the Iraq war, he added, "There's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception."

This shows that Kerry before the first primary already had the same statement I paraphrased in his stump speech. Don't you think it is significant that he said it was not a war of last resort. He said it constantly. To most Catholics (and likely many Christians) this is saying it was not a just war.

Any anti-war person hearing that and hearing Bush should have had no trouble choosing - unless they were making their decision on other grounds.

[ginchinchili]

94. Thanks, but I know where that quote is from, and he did say it.

Yes, in typical Republican fashion, they twisted his words. But it only proves my point, as does your quote from the Inter. Tribune story. He just couldn't bring himself to clearly condemn the invasion of Iraq. He said all sorts of things, but he just wouldn't condemn the war. Thank you for supplying this example. He beat all around the bush--pardon the pun--when what he needed to do was flat say that the United States should never have invaded Iraq, then proceed to build the case for why that has made us less safe. Believe all you want, but I'm sticking with the facts: Kerry didn't emphatically condemn the invasion of Iraq and and use it to make the case that the invasion has threatened our national security until. Case closed.

[Inuca]

101. I do not get it

"wrong war, wrong time, wrong place" does not mean condemning the war???

[karynnj]

108. It does to me.

It is clear to me. I challenge him to condemn the war in clearer terms than that. It also led into how it took resourses from Afghanisan.

[ginchinchili]

113. You're right, you don't get it

No, wrong war, wrong time, wrong place is a slogan that is meant to appease anti-war Democrats without actually saying that he made a mistake in voting in favor of giving Bush the authority and that our invasion and occupation of Iraq was a foreign policy blunder on the scale of the Vietnam war. That, Inuca, would be condemning this war. Kerry was afraid of the attacks being leveled at Democrats who condemned the war. Perhaps you don't remember that either. I clearly remember being appalled at the Republican for such a dirty low-ball tactic. It was one of the ways of forcing the Democrats to be compliant in their support for the war. It worked for quite a while. It was some time before the Party as a whole came out against the war. They were being labeled as unpatriotic and unAmerican.

I remember when Kerry came out with that slogan. He was inching his way toward denouncing the war. It was like he was testing the waters. He eventually got there, but it was too late. It's that sort of attitude that made Sen. Kerry a weak candidate. He came across as indecisive. This was much discussed during the campaign, that the anti-war Democrats chose a candidate who wouldn't denounce the war. But it's beside the point now. You're free to believe Kerry was against the war from the start if you choose to.

[karynnj]

106. what words did you want him to say?

It was clear to me that he was against the war. He did say they should not have gone to war. He called effectively called it an unjust war. Kerry was condemning going to war in that litany - and saying why. That was emphatic to me. Who said more?

The facts are;
the main issue was what to do
Kerry was clearly the anti-war choice

had he ranted enough to please you, he could not have won any of the additional people he needed to win.

case closed, you are wrong. (ps I never thought I would say it, but you did. You can't even accept the meaning of words. Saying war shold only be a last resort means something. )

[ginchinchili]

119. That was said Sept 6, 2004, 4 weeks before the election

Which is exactly what I said in my original statement. He didn't condemn the war until a few weeks before the election. By then it was too late to make the case that by invading Iraq George Bush's foreign policy made us less safe along with a reason why he would do a better job of keeping us safe. Part of that reason would necessarily include getting out of Iraq. I invite you to find a quote by Kerry before the election of 2004 where he states that we need to leave Iraq. Don't waste your time because there is none. What was his campaign's position on Iraq anyway? What was his game plan? I don't recall him having one. But this is about the 2008 election, which is where my focus will be from this point on.

[karynnj]

123. Sept 6 is NOT 4 weeks before the election

I think you left out October. It is closer to 9 weeks. (which says something of your accuracy)

It was also NOT the first time. He spoke of the Iraq war diverting attention from the real war in the PRIMARIES as well as in his acceptance speech.

His NYU speech was the most detailed plan he gave. It called for no permanent bases, an intensive diplomatic summit that even now the ISG is still calling for, intensive traing - some by other countries, giving Iraqis a stake in making their country work.

For someone giving (unsoliticited) advise to the campaign on what he should be saying - I would have thought you would have at least read what he labed his major policy speech on Iraq. (If it were too detailed he condensed it on the David Letterman show that evening.)

He spoke of some troops being likely to come home in 2005. He did not call for immediate withdrawal. (Nor did Dean or Clark) He did not think that the best idea then - nor did more than 20% of the country (if that).

[PatSeg]

87. I followed that race closely and it broke my heart

when Kerry wouldn't admit that it was wrong. I still supported him and believe he would have been an excellent president, but he got some really lame political advise.

I do believe Hillary is a formidable candidate and that she could win, but it won't be an easy victory.

[karynnj]

93. Then you surely heard him condemn the invasion

Do you remember that when Bush invaded Kerry called for regime change at home. He had spoken against invading on January 23, 2003 before the war. He said through the primaries until the general election, that it was not a war of last resort. Here's a January 2004 comment:

"He said that while he had voted with a congressional majority last fall to authorize Bush to "build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort," Bush then "broke every single one of those promises." In the administration's arguments for the Iraq war, he added, "There's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception."

Kerry did get lame political advise - in August 2004 to concentrate on Democratic issues and not speak of Iraq or the war on terror as much because those were Bush's issues - that advise came from Clinton - and Begala and Carville whined when Kerry moved in early September to concentrating on the foreign policy issues and giving speeches on Iraq and terrorism. That shift was pushed by Teresa, his brother, and his best friend David Thorne. It actually took some guts to follow them and his own instincts rather than the team that won for Clinton and Shrum, who was Kennedy's guy.

[ginchinchili]

97. If you want to make a case for rewriting history, use better examples

Again, Kerry beat around the bush, but refused to come out and condemn the invasion of Iraq. At the time the Republicans were calling anyone who condemned the war unAmerican and unpatriotic, and even supporting the enemy. This had a chilling effect on all Democrats. It worked. That, in part, is why Kerry wouldn't emphatically denounce the invasion, which is why he didn't effectively make the case that he could keep America safer than Bush. He was afraid that he couldn't be elected president if he condemned the war, bottom line. Most Democrats were afraid. He finally did clearly say the invasion was a gross mistake, but it was to late and he was unconvincing.

[karynnj]

102. Wrong war, wrong time, wrong, wrong , place

I would not have gone to war.
It was not a war of last resort
America does not go to war because it wants to but because it has to. This was a war of choice.

[ginchinchili]

114. This should settle the "wrong war" question

As I said from the start, Kerry was hesitant about coming out strongly against the Iraq war until a few weeks before the election, but by then it was too late. Feel free to check my earlier posts on this thread. I just googled this quote. Please note the date:

On September 6, 2004, at a Racine, West Virginia rally, Kerry said,

I would not have done just one thing differently than the president on Iraq, I would have done everything differently than the president on Iraq…. You've about 500 troops here, 500 troops there and it's American troops that are 90 percent of the combat casualties and it's American taxpayers that are paying 90 percent of the cost of the war. It's the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time.


Enough. There are more important things to discuss.

[karynnj]

118. Because you are losing , maybe?

You say look at the date - It is September 6, 2004. This was NOT a few weeks before the election - it was TWO MONTHS before the election. Note also the ... that means your quote has left out parts of Kerry's statements.

It's also not the first time he said things like that. He called for regime change at home - and that was soon after the war started - long before all but a few Democrats spoke out. Kerry was labelled in early 2003 as "anti-war".

Kerry was concerned enough that he spoke out against the war on January 23, 2003 - a period where most people in his situation would have only been dealing with their own needs - he was diagnosed with cancer in Dec 2002 and operated on in mid February 2003. But he still spoke out while most of DC was quiet.

Think this through -
1) Who got the anti-war, out now vote?
2) Who got the anti-war, but we need to stabalize things before we get out?
3) Who got the this was a necessary war, but it is a complete disater vote - as run?
4) Who got the this was a necessary war, and though Bush has made mistakes, anyone would have a learning curve and make mistakes
5) the war was right, Bush was chosen by God.

The sum of 1 and 2 were less than 50% of the population in 2004. He needed to get 1 and almost all of 2 and at least some of 3 to win. In the last weeks, that was happenning was more people moved from 4 to 3 and the ammo dump stuff was winning them. The OBL tape changed the story by driving it off the tv.

Only group 1 would have been more motivated by the type of attack on the invasion that you want (and I wonder what more he could say than what he did.) That group voted for Kerry - though thye might have been disappointed in him when they did. But their choice was Bush and Kerry, with his history of 1971 and reading anti-war poetry (beautifuly - he has a great voice) into the Senate record before the Gulf war.

It was groups 2 and 3 he needed to reach by saying he could fix the mess in Iraq,

[PatSeg]

124. Yeah, we are in 2007 now

We need to focus on this election, not argue about 2004. There are enough emotions hovering in the air over that awful time.

[karynnj]

127. Of course the focus should be 2008 - but distorting 2004 hurts, not helps

Looking at 2004 dispassionately -which neither he, you or me did - would help to see what the road blocks were could help. The fact is that if you look at the footage on CSPAN, read Kerry's 2004 policy statements and speeches, you get a very different view of what he did and said than he has. Those are real - and in earlier years, the nominee's speeches and positions would have been far closer to what you saw in the press. For instance, Kerry's major speech on Iraq was given at NYU. The text of that speech exists, as do the AP article and others. The media ignored the content and gave prominence to RNC claims that Kerry said nothing different from what Bush was doing.

Although there is an historical need to accurately portray what Kerry, that is neither pressing or urgent. Kerry will likely be seen in a better light than Bush and most other people in government today. The important thing is what it tells us about the media. It may be that the forces that be that didn't want a Kerry, are ok with a Clinton. It may also be that there is a long term trend where the media - print following broadcast, is becoming increasingly hostile to Democrats. It may be easier for people to say that the fault was Al Gore and John Kerry, but it might be really sticking their heads in the sand.

[PatSeg]

98. It was that damn question that got him

"If knowing what you know now, would you still have voted for the IWR?" I sat waiting with baited breath, trying to will him to say what he really believed. I knew he said what he thought he had to say and I realize that 2004 was a different political climate. I still backed in 100%, but wanted to slap his advisers silly.

[Mass]

112. `You must have been sleeping during the 04 campaign then...

And if you think that Biden thought the war was bad then, you must have been taking sleeping pills. (or watching FOX News and CNN).
I remember throughout 03 and 04 Biden and Hagel on TV shows and Hagel being a lot more virulent against Bush than Biden was.

So, please, do not rewrite history. Actually, Kerry condemned the invasion from the day Bush invaded.

Biden would make a very credible presidential nominee, but you do not need to bash Kerry to establish that, particularly when the bashing is not even based on facts.

[ginchinchili]

122. I'm not bashing Kerry. It's the truth.

Please show me where I said Biden was against the war back then. Cut and paste my post. Or could it be another example of your penchant for rewriting history in whichever way works for you at the moment.

It's distractions like these that make Republicans happy and confident. You have a convenient memory. Kerry pulled his punches on Iraq until it was too late. Clark did not mince words on Iraq throughout his campaign, nor did Howard Dean. But if it makes you feel better that just say all the Democrats were adamantly against it from the start, then so be it. If you want to believe that no Democrat wavered what the Republicans accused them of giving comfort to the enemy and of being unpatriotic, than believe it. I'm a realist. I believe Democrats do better when they deal with reality as opposed to how we'd like things to be. Reality works better for me and I think it works better for the Party. This digression works better for the Republicans. Good work.

[karynnj]

128. It's your own seperate truth

It also may be style as opposed to substance. Kerry saying it was not a war of last resort gets to the heart of the war's morality and possibily, it's international legality. Incidently, in fall of 2002 and in the lead up to the war, Kerry was not the only one speaking of the importance of war being a last resort - which is the strongest counter to Bush's pre-emptive war.

Pope John Paul II used the same word.

"In January, 2003, Pope John Paul told his Diplomatic Corps:

“War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity... War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations… War cannot be decided upon…except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions, without ignoring the consequences for the civilian population both during and after the military operations.”

John Paul was not a pacifist — he describes war as a “last resort,” not as an impossible resort. At the same time, though, he never thought that the invasion of Iraq had reached the “last resort” stage. Catholic Bishops in the United States and Great Britain were unanimous in their support for his message of peace.

According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the invasion of Iraq did not “meet the strict conditions of Catholic teaching for the use of military force.” Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton, Ohio, even went so far as to declare that fighting against Iraqis was a mortal sin. Papal representatives met with President George Bush to try to change his mind. "

http://atheism.about.com/od/popejohnpaulii/a/iraqwar.htm

On a Daily Show appearance - I think in September or October 2004, Kerry spoke of the invasion - ending by saying that "last resort should mean something." I doubt any fair, informed person really had no idea that Kerry would not have gone to war.

[benEzra]

73. Biden's stance on the gun issue would make him Karl Rove's dream candidate.

"The Dems'll take yer guns!!!"

Biden has pretty much promised to ban the most popular civilian target rifles in America, and has fought to do so for something like fifteen years. He's not the only candidate wearing that albatross, but he is arguably the most vocal about it. Richardson's stance on immigration would be a lot less volatile than that (and a lot fewer people across the political spectrum care about harsh immigration policies).


---------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

Alienated Rural Democrat (2004)

[jillan]

74. Biden is not anti-guns...he is anti-assault weapons. nt

[benEzra]

82. Do you know what the "assault weapon" buzzword covers?

Biden is not anti-guns...he is anti-assault weapons.

Do you know what the "assault weapon" buzzword covers?

The most popular civilian target rifles in America. All shotguns holding over 5 shells. All autoloading shotguns with detachable magazines, regardless of capacity. Rifles and pistols holding more than 10 rounds. All autoloading rifles and shotguns with handgrips that stick out. All autoloading rifles and shotguns with thumbhole target stocks or stocks that adjust for length. Etc. etc. etc.

That is what created the "Dems'll-take-yer-guns" meme in the first place, because around twice as many Americans own "assault weapons" (taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition) as hunt. Think about outlawing hunting, multiply the political backlash by two, and that's the windfall Biden would hand the repubs.

All of the following would be banned as "assault weapons" under H.R.1022:


Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, all-purpose farm/utility rifle


Benelli turkey hunting shotgun, 12-gauge


Hammerli elite target competition pistol, .22 caliber


Springfield Armory M1A National Match, high-end target rifle, caliber .308 Winchester


M1 Garand, .30-06


M1 carbine


SKS (the most popular civilian rifle in America, AFAIK)


AR-15, the most popular centerfire target rifle in America, caliber .223 Remington

Plus hundreds of other popular makes and models.

BTW, all rifles combined account for only 2.97% of murders in 2005, per the FBI. Rifles are not a crime problem in the U.S. and never have been.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html


-----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMHO)

[derby378]

157. If you're "anti-assault weapons," you're anti-gun

Semi-automatic firearms have legally been in the hands of American civilians for over a hundred years, and it's far too late to start bitching about it now.

[ginchinchili]

84. Wrong. Biden argument regarding guns are mainstream.

Richardson's position on immigration is far from it. And furthermore, gun control has not even been mentioned in this campaign. Immigration is arguably going to be the 2nd or 3rd biggest issue. You can't just throw anything out there and claim Biden is Rove's dream candidate. For one thing, it ignores all the other candidates and the major issues of this campaign.

[derby378]

126. I refuse to concede that Biden's anti-gun position is "mainstream"

Take a good look at the Senate. We have eight Democrats in the Senate - Feingold, Baucus, Tester, Landrieu, Webb, Casey, Nelson (NE), and Reid - who will act to stop another ban on "assault weapons," whatever they are, from ever seeing the light of day. Our only hope for keeping Congress Democratic in 2008 is realizing that our Second Amendment rights are non-negotiable.

You want to ban semi-automatics? Go ahead and try to repeal the Second Amendment. I dare you.

[ginchinchili]

135. A majority of Americans support a ban on assault rifles

I'd say that qualifies as mainstream.

[derby378]

137. You know that an "assault rifle" is actually full-auto, correct?

"Assault weapons," on the other hand, have no unifying characteristic except that they are all semi-automatic. And that technology has legally been in Americans' hands for over a hundred years. It's only recently that people like the Brady Campaign have been bitching about it.

I would have every man write what he knows and no more. - Michel de Montaigne

[benEzra]

146. Mainstream according to whom?

Wrong. Biden argument regarding guns are mainstream.

Mainstream according to whom?

The MSM?

Urban non-gun-owners?

Respondents to push polls that don't specify precisely what is being banned?

People who think "assault weapons" are military guns, rather than ordinary civilian target, hunting, and defense guns?

It's certainly not mainstream among gun owners themselves, considering that the guns that would be affected are the most popular target and defensive rifles, shotguns, and handguns on the market, and owners of such guns outnumber hunters by at least 2 to 1.

I am not convinced that you realize the scope of what H.R.1022 actually covers.

[Colobo]

77. Obama is Rove's worst nightmare. He unites and inspires, something Republicans can't do.

[ginchinchili]

85. Rove will gladly take either a Clinton or a Obama candidacy

Do you really think Rove would have qualms going after an inexperienced black man running for president? Please. We're talking about Republicans and, I'm sorry to say, Middle America. I think Sen. Obama will stand a much better chance 4 or 8 years from now when he has more experience.

[jillan]

99. I'm afraid you are right.

Obama is going to be eaten alive by them.

But then again, Michelle would have no problem taking them on:)

[PatSeg]

88. Republicans use fear and hate

to promote their candidates. They have no use for unity and inspiration.

[ginchinchili]

92. Exactly. Bankrupt of Ideas. Full of Dirty Tricks

You're absolutely right. The Republicans can't win on ideas so they barely try. Right now, thanks to 9/11, their #1 weapon is fear. There was a study done just before the last election that showed that a majority of voters will side with the Republicans when they are made to fear for their personal safety. All Republicans, w/Rove at the top of the list, are fully aware of this study. It is why during the 2004 Republican Convention they had every speaker mention 9/11. I dare say it worked. They play us for fools.

With Joe Biden, we can counter their fear tactics by using aggression and Republicans' Achilles' heel, ideas. Biden is in a better position to do this than any other candidate. He's got the toughness, the personality, the experience, and the ideas. He is the man of the moment. I just pray that enough Democrats come to recognize that and back it with their votes. No, he's not a Hollywood darling. He's not a latte man. He's more like a smart general, like Wesley Clark, except with more gruffness. (Hated to see Clark endorse Clinton, but not too surprised. They're old friends.) He's not only in the best position to win this thing, but I genuinely believe that he'd make a damn good president. When I consider my "fear factor" concerns, I would feel confident with him as my president.

[PatSeg]

95. They are all PR and no substance

Their policies are meaningless slogans and when a slogan wears thin, they just replace it with yet another meaningless slogan. I've caught myself yelling out loud to the TV, "What the hell does THAT mean?" Unfortunately there are apathetic, consumer types who just think, "Well, that sounds good." Too many people have been conditioned by American slogan-thought. It sells toothpaste and cars. Why not sell a president that way as well? Why tell them the truth, tell them what they want to hear in 25 words or less. They have short memories anyway.

My "fear factors" are loss of civil liberties and a financially bankrupt country. Joe Biden definitely would be an exceptional president.

[jillan]

100. Fear and 9/11 won't work with Biden

He has done more to improve things than they have.

I love it when he says that he can't wait to debate Guiliani - lol.

[kad7777]

103. Rove's Worst Nightmare

Indeed, Senator Biden would, I believe, mop the floor with any Republican candidate.
The main reason why Karl Rove and the republican masses would be worried with a Joe Biden candidate, is because they know Joe would pull in Republican votes. There are many on the other side of the aisle that know and respect him.

[Inuca]

111. True

on both counts.

[ginchinchili]

115. An important point. Biden would peel away Republican votes

I heard a woman on C-Span yesterday who was the wife of a soldier stationed in Iraq. She said she's voted Republican all of her life, but that she'll vote Democrat just to get her husband home. Now if Hillary gets the nomination, it's likely that this lifelong Republican will either stick with the Republican candidate or not vote at all. That's how much Republicans hate Hillary. Of course, I can't say how this woman will vote, but I can say that she will be much more likely to carry through on her "threat" if Biden was the Democratic nominee than if it is Sen. Clinton. There are a lot of moderate Republicans who are looking to see if the Democrats will run someone they can vote for. The longer Hillary remains the front runner for the Dems, the more those moderate Republican and Independents will start conditioning their minds to forget about the Democrats and try to find something positive in the Republicans again.

[jillan]

117. kad - I am so glad to see you here!

Welcome, Welcome, Welcome to DU!

I have been waiting for the right time to post your famous video....it's getting close to that time, and no
one better than you to do it!

(jillian from the blog)

[kad7777]

131. Hi Pirhana

I'm just waiting to get enough posts so I can post my own. As soon as that happens, you'll see the link. It may have been posted already, but I'll give it my own stamp.
Best,
JDS

[Jim Sagle]

121. Yeah, right.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Debi]

125. Well, that was a positive and insightful addition to the debate

:eyes:

[Forkboy]

129. And that's just like it is.

[wordswinker]

141. Your assumptions are flawed

First off, assuming the top three would fail to be elected against any of the Republicans makes no sense whatsoever. Where does this assumption come from? I'm a student of presidential politics, an involved political wonk, in fact. Hillary is gaining ground, Obama is beloved, and Edwards could very well pull a Kerry-like rabbit out of his hat in Iowa. Any of these potential candidates could be beaten by the likes of Romney or Giuliani? Rubbish.

Secondly, the issue of national security is no longer top of mind for most voters according to several polls. If Bush has proven anything, it's that spending every bit of energy we have creating a massive new generation of terrorists has, incredibly, not led to other attacks. He has done virtually nothing of any realistic value to make us safer, yet we haven't had another 9/11 or anything close to it.

Plus, even if national security is a major thought for voters, while the meme of Democrats being soft on national security was bought early on by many, it's been put on the curb on trash day as had so much idea trash from the right wing. If anything, the assault on civil liberties has begun to be seen for what it is, and the Republicans have been carrying that water quite visibly from the get-go.

Third, Biden, as wonderful as he may be, hasn't caught the nation's imagination. His chances for the nomination are remote at best. We have an extraordinary crop of Dems and a weak crop of Republicans. Unless hell freezes over and we have Ron Paul versus Mike Gravel, I don't see your prediction of "Biden or else the repugs win" as nothing but a weak excuse for us to focus on Biden. Surely he's got stronger arguments than this.

[ginchinchili]

154. You're getting Democrats and the entire electorate confused

Don't for a minute believe that the country has suddenly moved to the left. If too many Democrats believe what you're suggesting, then we'll be in big trouble come election day. If you don't think that a Republican can get elected in 2008 then you need to work on honing your "student of presidential politics" skills. In order for the Democrats to win this election, their strategists have to be able to think like Republicans. That's how you beat them. That's what makes Karl Rove so successful. He understands how Democrats think and he uses that against them. That's why he (and now Giuliani has taken up the same tactic) is always going after Hillary. He knows it makes Democrats consider her to be the Republicans' biggest threat, and he knows it's Democrats inclination to get pissed off and want to defend her. It's because they're confident they can beat her. They know that they can run this election in a way that will make it very difficult for "traditional, middle America" to vote for her, and any candidate will have to have them, or at least a little more than half of them, on their side to win this thing.

I just don't believe in posting on these threads a bunch of feel good ideology-driven cheers. I want the Democrats to win. That's it. I know you do too, but I don't believe in taking anything for granted. I know how these Republicans think. I'm surrounded by them and have been most of my life. They will not play fair and if Hillary gets the nomination, their cheating will have a lot of people sympathetically looking the other way. If we get a Democrat in the White House, we can make some serious strides toward fixing the system, but we have to get there first, and we're up against very formidable adversaries. Please don't think otherwise.

[murbley40]

147. kick

:kick:

[Blue_In_AK]

148. I never thought I'd be saying this...

...but I think (as of this moment) I actually prefer Biden to the other nominees. As of this moment, Biden and Dodd are impressing me most.

[kad7777]

150. I never thought I'd be saying this...

Blue_In_AK,
I think you've reached this wonderful Epiphany because when people REALLY stop and think about how these candidates stand on the issues, and what ideas they have to face them, along with weighing in their experience, you find the candidates that are really qualified to be President are Biden and Dodd.
Best,
JDS

[PatSeg]

152. Someone on another thread said

almost the exact same thing.

Biden and Dodd are both very solid and experienced candidates. In spite of all their qualifications, they tend to get ignored. Not enough money and media recognition I guess. Iowa tend to be a great leveling field though and I think people will start to warm up to both of them.

[ginchinchili]

155. I think your intuition is correct

Biden's simply the most qualified and will most likely appeal to Independents and moderate Republicans disillusioned with the war and their Party. That will not hold true for just any Democratic candidate.

[saltpoint]

159. Blue_In-AK, some of the people in this thread may know you on DU better

than I do, but in the chance that some do not, I would introduce you to them as one of the best-informed and clear-headed souls on these boards.

Don't blush -- it's true.

Plus you are an ardent detractor of Don Young (R-AK), so you've long ago established your credentials as a savvy soul.

Appreciate your comments in this thread also.

And as always, very good to bump into you on DU.

[TexasBushwhacker]

149. Joe Trippi said the same thing about Edwards

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/23/is-john-edwards-karl-roves-worst-nightmare/

[Debi]

151. No offense to John Edwards, but as a Dean supporter

I trust Joe Trippi about as far as I can throw him. Wonder how much he's bilking the JE campaign for?! Edwards can do much better than that money/fame hungry selfish jerk x(

[calteacherguy]

156. Your first sentence is so absurb there is no point in reading the rest. nt

[mrigirl]

158. Awesome Post!!!!

This is how we Biden supporters feel exactly WILL HAPPEN if Biden doesn't get elected. Some of my fellow supporters have been saying for the past YEAR that this will happen. America needs to wake up!!!! And fast!! Biden is indeed the only man capable of defeating the Republican candidate in "08. Wake up you Democrats before it's too late!!!!!

[ginchinchili]

160. Maybe there's hope yet.

We've just got to keep getting the word out there.

[murbley40]

161. kick

[sampsonblk]

162. Rove's nightmare = getting arrested for his crimes

And Biden doesn't support that at all.

Next.