ChrisWeigant.com

Biden's Bad Week

[ Posted Thursday, June 20th, 2019 – 17:19 UTC ]

Joe Biden is having a bad week, at the precise time when all the other Democrats running for president really needed him to stumble. With the first debates now less than a week away, Biden has handed his opponents a number of openings for them to directly attack him -- which, no doubt, some of them will exploit on stage next week. And Biden has no one to blame for this state of affairs but himself.

Biden's first gaffe was quickly eclipsed by his second this week, but it will probably be remembered and brought up by the progressive candidates during the debates. After attending a forum for poor people's concerns, Biden sped off to a fundraiser attended by big Wall Street donors. The optics of this were pretty bad, but Biden made things even worse by what he told them. He'd be a bosom buddy to the millionaires and billionaires, he assured them, and he'd even defend their patriotism when other Democrats attacked them. He swore that nothing would change much for their circumstances under a Biden presidency, drawing a clear comparison to candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (to name just two) who would levy new taxes upon the ultrawealthy. This was all pretty tone-deaf of Biden, considering where the energy is in Democratic politics these days, but the whole thing was quickly forgotten (by the media) when Biden dropped an even bigger gaffe at a different fundraiser.

Joe Biden wants things in Washington to return to a more civil era. That's fine and good, but the way he talked about it was definitely not. He bemoaned the current era where politicians are seen not just as the opposition but "the enemy," and reminisced about how he used to be able to "get things done" even with politicians who held racist views. He even warmly spoke of one of them, stating that "he never called me 'boy,' he called me 'son.'"

When challenged by black Democratic candidates (Cory Booker and Kamala Harris) and a candidate married to an African-American (Bill de Blasio), Biden doubled down and expressed his surprise that they were calling on him to apologize. Instead, Biden said, "Cory should apologize to me" because he didn't "have a racist bone in my body, period."

You can bet all this will come up during the debates next week, although the one candidate Biden directly named is one who will not be on stage with him (Booker drew the first night, while Biden and Harris drew the second night). This leaves Booker a clear field to attack Biden's comments without the danger of Biden being able to immediately respond, while it gives Harris the chance to challenge him face to face.

This is all a prime example of "Biden being Biden." Joe Biden, although he'd probably deny it, shares one character trait with Donald Trump -- he hates apologizing, for any reason. He didn't really apologize to Anita Hill, he fudged his words on his "handsy" approach to meeting women (of all ages), and he's not backing down now. This could be problematic if he becomes the nominee and drops an even bigger gaffe at some point, but at the same time it could also help him out since Trump is certainly never going to apologize for anything. You could make a "fight fire with fire" argument for why Biden would be a good foil to Trump in this regard, in other words.

Biden is like Trump in another way, reportedly: he's an old man who is set in his ways, and he mostly refuses to listen to political operatives who try to rein him in. The story he told, about how he was able to work with stone-cold racist senators when he first came to Washington (back in the 1970s), is one that he's used before. Campaign strategists apparently tried to get Biden to make the exact same point (that civility in Washington is a good thing, even if you don't agree with those with whom you have to occasionally work) using some more modern -- and much more politically acceptable -- examples, such as Bob Dole or John McCain. Biden refused, because he's always told the story using the same examples, so why should he change now?

Biden's example is problematic on many levels, and has totally eclipsed the point he was trying to make. The whole thing shows his age in the worst way possible, since the example is not only already incredibly out of date (only people who are as old as Biden even recognized the two names he dropped), but it actually multiplies the problem, since these two were old men when Biden came to Washington as a young man. One of them was first elected during World War II. So Biden is not only showing how old his own generation is, he's tying it to the generation which preceded his. Using John McCain as an example of being able to work with (and be civil to) your political opponents would have avoided this problem altogether.

Problem number two with Biden's example is that both of the men Biden named were actually Democrats (or "Dixiecrats," more accurately). Before the widespread realignment of the South during Ronald Reagan's day -- when Democratic politicians and voters across the South changed their party affiliation en masse to Republican -- the Democratic Party was the real home of the unreconstructed racists. So Biden's example wasn't even one of "reaching across the aisle," but rather one which pointed out that racists used to be part of his own party. And "racists" is not any sort of exaggeration or hyperbole, as those who are currently busy digging up choice quotes from the two men have already proven. These were anti-segregationist, white-supremacist, dyed-in-the-wool, stone-cold old-school racists.

Problem number three for Biden's gaffe is that his dominance in the polls is currently a direct result of African-American voters' support. Blacks remember Biden fondly as the white man who was Barack Obama's second-in-command -- a very powerful image for them. So far, they've largely brushed off the criticisms of Biden over his 1990s anti-crime bill, which sent untold thousands of black men off to prison. They've given him a pass on the Anita Hill hearings as well. But if Biden keeps inserting himself into racially-charged subjects like he just did, one has to wonder whether there will be a breaking point, especially among younger African-American voters. Again, if Biden had used Bob Dole or John McCain as examples, this problem simply would not exist.

Problem number four for Biden is that the entire episode cuts directly into one of his own core reasons for running. In his announcement video, Biden took Trump to task for his comments after the riots in Charlottesville, denouncing Trump's view that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the protests. Biden's point was that Trump's position was unacceptable -- that racists and white supremacists are not and can never be "very fine people," and that Trump saying so was downright dangerous. So why on Earth would Biden choose to make any sort of political point using racist senators as his own examples of how he can work with anybody to "get things done"? He didn't go so far as to call them "very fine people," but it still dilutes his own principled attack on Trump, obviously.

The last problem for Biden is that he risks broadcasting the message that he is incredibly out of touch with where the Democratic Party is now. Biden is consciously trying to debunk the idea that the party has moved so far left that centrists are unwelcome -- in his mind, this is an overinterpretation of the loudest voices within the party which ignores the fact that most Democratic voters are a lot more moderate in nature. Polls back him up on this, to a certain degree (a majority of Democrats still want to see their elected politicians "work with the other side" rather than fight them all the time, for instance). But he could certainly make this point in other ways that are a lot less toxic with the progressive faction of the Democratic Party. Again, I expect his earlier warm words to the Wall Street fatcats will be raised in next week's debates, even though the media didn't make as big a deal of them than his more-recent comments about civility.

Biden's main thesis on civility is pretty shaky, even if you get beyond how he said it and focus on what he was trying to say. Biden thinks it is smart politics, but if he truly believes what he is saying he could find out he's wildly mistaken later on. According to Biden (and he's said this many ways in many places already), Donald Trump is the whole problem, and once we get rid of him everything in Washington will hit a reset button and go back to "normal."

There was another Democrat who believed this, although he used a different phrase. Barack Obama spoke of the "fever" among Republicans eventually "breaking" after his re-election. This didn't happen, obviously. From his first day in office all the way up until his last, Republicans swore they wouldn't work with Obama on anything. Obama bent over backwards reaching out to them, time after time after time, all to no avail. The final nail in the coffin of civility (or "the fever breaking") was when Mitch McConnell just refused to even consider his nominee to the Supreme Court during his final year in office.

This, it should be pointed out, is the "normal" that Biden seems to long to return to. It was not normal then, or perhaps it was "the new normal" -- one that had nothing to do with those gauzy memories of "civility in Washington." Trump is not the cause, he is merely the biggest symptom, in other words. When Trump leaves, Mitch McConnell will still be around to deal with, in other words. Washington after Trump exits is not going to become a place of harmonizing "Kumbaya," it is going to be just as tribal and nasty as ever. Biden either flat-out does not believe this (which is worrisome) or he is just using the entire thing as a political dodge in an effort to get the "we want civility back in our politics" vote behind him (which is pretty cynical and worrisome for a different reason).

But perhaps the worst aspect of Biden's recent gaffes is the timing. Just when all the other candidates were wondering exactly how they should go about trying to put a major dent in Biden's support, he hands them two golden opportunities to do so on a platter. Instead of going after Biden for what he was trying to say, the candidates are now free to attack him on the way he chose to say it. Biden will be left trying to defend two pretty indefensible Democratic senators, which completely derails the point he was trying to make. By choosing such odious examples, he opens the door to attacks that wouldn't have been possible otherwise. By defending against such attacks, he shows his age, he seems out of touch with the Democratic Party today, he risks offending his biggest base of support among Democratic voters, and he waters down one of his main reasons for wanting to challenge Trump. If Biden had taken his own advisors' advice, he would not be in this position now. If he had expressed warm feelings towards John McCain, people would now be praising his sentiments. Biden may be able to survive these gaffes (he's certainly survived worse), but the mere fact that he keeps making them might be enough to give a whole lot of voters second thoughts about him. Especially after the other candidates use his own words against him next week.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

139 Comments on “Biden's Bad Week”

  1. [1] 
    Paula wrote:

    This, it should be pointed out, is the "normal" that Biden seems to long to return to. It was not normal then, or perhaps it was "the new normal" -- one that had nothing to do with those gauzy memories of "civility in Washington." Trump is not the cause, he is merely the biggest symptom, in other words. When Trump leaves, Mitch McConnell will still be around to deal with, in other words. Washington after Trump exits is not going to become a place of harmonizing "Kumbaya," it is going to be just as tribal and nasty as ever. Biden either flat-out does not believe this (which is worrisome) or he is just using the entire thing as a political dodge in an effort to get the "we want civility back in our politics" vote behind him (which is pretty cynical and worrisome for a different reason).

    Yep.

    Listened to PodSaveAmerica today: Dan Pfeiffer co-hosts (he was a Senior Advisor to Obama) and he discussed these gaffes with sadness. He's very fond of JB personally and knows him to be a good man and very loyal, etc. But as CW was noting, these gaffes are exactly what people who like JB worried would happen.

    They emphasized his age; his desire to be a people-pleaser which means he always tries to "win the room" which means he tells different people different things which later bites him in the ass; his refusal to admit he's ever wrong; his refusal to listen to advisors.

    It's still very early and there's plenty of time for any/all candidates to stumble and Joe has. But right now it's JB's race to lose and he's flirting with exactly that. Time will tell if he learns and course-corrects, or doesn't.

  2. [2] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW.com is the first place I seen any mention of Problem 2....that the two racist Senators Biden worked with were fellow Democrats. I would add they were senior senators with considerable power....in an era when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress. So, if these racists collaborated with Biden and others to pass good legislation, that did not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, creed or sex, than this is in fact a solid success. Legislation doesn't have to solve every problem to be good legislation, or even great legislation. Progress and Justice tend to lurch, not glide, forward. Biden could have framed his argument that way...but he chose to be folksy about it and shot himself in the foot. His politcal senses on The Hill may be sound, but ihis PR skill...not so much. Let's see how good his fence mending skills are.

  3. [3] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    CW-
    Trump is the symptom not the cause?

    Hey, that's my line.

    Stig-
    "Legislation doesn't have to solve every problem to be good legislation, or even great legislation."

    Good point.

    CW-
    So let's treat the cause that infects both CMP's with One Demand.

    It doesn't have to solve every problem to be a good idea, or even a great one.

    Returning to any "normal" in which our political process is controlled by the big money interests would merely be maintaining the status quo.

    Let's make a new normal that we won't ever have to return to because we may like so much that we will make sure we keep it.

  4. [4] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Politico dares to ask the question: is Joe Biden Abe Simpson? I would argue no, Abe is a WW2 vet, probably born around the early to mid 1920s, Biden was born in 1942, aligning him closer to Homer J.

    I honestly think Biden is solid Presidential timber, but only if he doesn't spontaneouly combust when speaking in public. That said, Trump was ablaze when he went down the escalator, so maybe it does't matter any more.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    This column was hard to read, I have to admit.

    Not because I think Biden is a saint and does nothing wrong but rather because it's hard to analyze snippets of a speech, especially when we don't know what was said.

    Having said that, I think the pool reports are correct in the published Biden quotes.

    I'm going to respond to your column in parts.

    Biden has handed his opponents a number of openings for them to directly attack him

    That is only true if his opponents are opportunists purposefully feigning hurt in knee jerk reactions meant to get a leg up on the frontrunner. That is how I interpret Senator Booker's response.

    Biden wasn't joking about African Americans being called 'boy'; he was relating how the segregationist senator from the seventies didn't call him 'boy' (obviously, because Biden isn't black) but instead used a similarly disrespectful term, 'son', instead of Senator.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    After attending a forum for poor people's concerns, Biden sped off to a fundraiser attended by big Wall Street donors. The optics of this were pretty bad, but Biden made things even worse by what he told them. He'd be a bosom buddy to the millionaires and billionaires, he assured them, and he'd even defend their patriotism when other Democrats attacked them. He swore that nothing would change much for their circumstances under a Biden presidency, drawing a clear comparison to candidates like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders (to name just two) who would levy new taxes upon the ultrawealthy.

    Chris,

    Do you have a transcript for this speech?

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of "gaffes", Biden is one of a select few politicians who is the real deal - he says what he means and means what he says, and he is probably the most misconstrued pol on the planet, a lot of it decidedly purposefully.

    In other words, he is the proverbial authentic public servant who many Americans say they want in a politician right up until they don't.

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    He even warmly spoke of one of them, stating that "he never called me 'boy,' he called me 'son.'"

    I hope you see how wrongly you have interpreted that.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Again, if Biden had used Bob Dole or John McCain as examples, this problem simply would not exist.

    Again, if Biden was making the point that he could get things done with Republicans he likes, then yes, he should have used Dole and McCain.

    But, that wasn't his point, was it?

  10. [10] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Problem number four for Biden is that the entire episode cuts directly into one of his own core reasons for running.

    That's only true if Biden's words are wholly misinterpreted. Granted, that's easy to do without having heard the speech or seen the transcript and only have pool press reports to rely on.

    Why is it that you presume the word 'son' was used by Biden to relate how the segregationist senator used it as a term of endearment.

    Even if you read the pool reports of Biden's quotes, I don't understand how anyone could misinterpret and not see that Biden was equating insults - 'boy' for an African American man and 'son' for a young senator with little power.

    The only way I can understand how that misinterpretation happens is that it is coming from a place that always expects the worst of one of America's great public servants and statesmen.

  11. [11] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden's main thesis on civility is pretty shaky, even if you get beyond how he said it and focus on what he was trying to say. Biden thinks it is smart politics, but if he truly believes what he is saying he could find out he's wildly mistaken later on.

    Biden believes that if the new normal persists in Congress, then Americans had better get ready for a whole new country, Trump or no Trump. He has said this repeatedly in numerous places. I've heard him say it, literally.

    According to Biden (and he's said this many ways in many places already), Donald Trump is the whole problem, and once we get rid of him everything in Washington will hit a reset button and go back to "normal."

    Actually, what Biden said and meant is that four years of Trump is an aberration. Eight years of Trump will change the nation, fundamentally and say good-bye to the promise of America.

    In fact, Biden knows better than anyone, that the America that is left after four years of Trump will require a monumental effort - on the scale of the Augean Stables (in more ways than one, ahem) - to put the country on a better course, domestically and internationally.

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that's all … folks. :)

  13. [13] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Liz,

    Even if you read the pool reports of Biden's quotes, I don't understand how anyone could misinterpret and not see that Biden was equating insults - 'boy' for an African American man and 'son' for a young senator with little power.

    As you are not from the South, allow me to clarify that in “Southern-eaze” the term “son” is said with the same venom as “boy” would be in that situation. It is about belittling the person, dismissing their adulthood and letting them know that they are considered a “child” who has no opinion worth any value. It is used to humiliate.

    Also,

    Again, if Biden was making the point that he could get things done with Republicans he likes, then yes, he should have used Dole and McCain.

    I do not remember Biden stating that he disliked the Congressmen he told the story about; he didn’t like what they stood for, but there is no mention of how he felt about them, personally.

  14. [14] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Okay, so now you are misreading me!

    'boy' and 'son' are both offensive. I don't want to argue which one is worse. you agree, right?

    Biden didn't like what the segregationists in his own party or anywhere stood for and he wanted to beat them! That's what he said.

    Are you agreeing with me, essentially, or do I still have work to do, God forbid.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Biden said that even if you dislike someone, you should still be able to work with them on mutually beneficial work in Congress.

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    As you are not from the South, allow me to clarify that in “Southern-eaze” the term “son” is said with the same venom as “boy” would be in that situation. It is about belittling the person, dismissing their adulthood and letting them know that they are considered a “child” who has no opinion worth any value. It is used to humiliate.

    Absolutely, positively, unequivocally.

    I think that is precisely what Biden's critics on this don't understand.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You don't have to be from the South to know an insult when you hear it.

    Heh. I can just imagine the tone Eastland used when saying it, too. I mean, I've seen enough news footage of him from his time in the senate.

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Russ, please tell me that you think as I do that Senator Booker needs to rethink his line on this.

    I don't know for a fact but I would wager that Booker is not unlike most Americans who come from a place where Biden is barely respected.

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    When you think little of a person and believe he is out of touch with the Democratic party and the country, then it's very easy to hear what you want to hear from mere press pool excerpts of a speech.

    I hope Booker and Chris realize their mistake. But, I'm not looking for an apology, just a little understanding.

  20. [20] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-5

    Politicians are inherently opportunists. Booker believes he is representing a significant portion of his NJ constituancy. Biden reached out to Booker but it did not go well. It's not good for Biden, but Booker may be willining to reach accomodation later on when the field thins. Does Trump look better to Booker than Biden? I doubt it.

  21. [21] 
    TheStig wrote:

    EM-8

    Frankly I don't know how to interpret the boy:son remark. Biden was just riffing? It sounds awful. I an't imagine a context where it doesn't. Biden should go full penitent and take the lashing. It shows character.

  22. [22] 
    TheStig wrote:

    RE-21. Can't. As in I can't type on this tiny screen.

  23. [23] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz - Have courage. Biden has taken a hit, but he is not of the fight. Not yet. Better to blunder esrly rather than late.

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Frankly I don't know how to interpret the boy:son remark.

    Well, there are really only two ways of interpreting it, keeping in mind so much gets lost in the translation when we don't even have a transcript.

    First, Biden meant that Eastland wasn't that bad of a character because the segregationist senator didn't call him 'boy', he kindly referred to him as 'son'.

    Now that - Biden would have to apologize for being an idiot. Of course the segregationist senator wouldn't have called him a 'boy' - Biden's white for crying out loud!

    Second, Biden is talking about how he was able to work even with segregationist senators to get good things done; then he continued to explain how he was on the receiving end of insults and humiliation from one such senator who didn't call him 'boy' like the segregationist senator would call black men but instead used the term 'son' with a young senator who he felt he had power over. 'Son' wasn't a term of endearment but was meant to belittle, at best.

    Unless you believe Biden really is an idiot and so out of touch the reality of yesterday and today, then the second interpretation is the only option.

  25. [25] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Which points up something else …

    I think a lot of otherwise astute people who, over the years of being exposed to the asinine media storyline that is Biden's press coverage, have formed such an indelible opinion of Biden as a likeable old uncle joe who is prone to gaffes and other silly things and not at all a serious figure who is capable of winning this Dem nomination.

    I believe that it is from there that most of his critics' analyses emerge.

  26. [26] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS[23],

    I'm a long-suffering Biden supporter for whom 'courage' or hope, to be more precise, looms large only to fall with a thud.

    In other words, my hopes are far from high to be sure that I will survive another extra-imposed (is that a word?) downfall.

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    They emphasized his age; his desire to be a people-pleaser which means he always tries to "win the room" which means he tells different people different things which later bites him in the ass; his refusal to admit he's ever wrong; his refusal to listen to advisors.

    You are relying on faulty sources as that description is not who Joe Biden is. The people who said these things about him do not know one iota about him.

  28. [28] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, I have never in my life seen such ageism as I have on this one (non)issue.

    It's quite remarkable, in its own right.

  29. [29] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Liz,

    If Biden's gonna be the nominee, then he has to expect friendly fire to come from every side. He has to think on his feet, and fire back. That's part of the gauntlet ahead. He knows this, surely.

    It's his sad fate to be the first one among twenty, so the fire will come both early and hard.

    Republicans joke about the Democrats, but their nominees took it just as bad and worse the last time with Trump.

    Of course, the Dem nominee will have the pleasure of facing Trump after being beat up, so has that to look forward to.

    Isn't politics just grand?

  30. [30] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And I'll note that the candidates' pledge to be 'civil' to each other lasted about five minutes.

    *sigh*

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    the Democratic Party was the real home of the unreconstructed racists.

    Why, yes.. Yes it was..

    We have the Democrat Party to thank for the KKK and all of it.. If Jim Crow was an actual person, he would be a Democrat...

    Problem number four for Biden is that the entire episode cuts directly into one of his own core reasons for running. In his announcement video, Biden took Trump to task for his comments after the riots in Charlottesville, denouncing Trump's view that there were "very fine people on both sides" of the protests.

    And don't forget Biden's OWN claim that antifa terrorists were "courageous Americans"..

    From his first day in office all the way up until his last, Republicans swore they wouldn't work with Obama on anything.

    Change 'Republicans' to 'Democrats' and change 'Obama' to 'Trump' and your claim is still factually accurate..

    Why is it you had a problem with Republicans doing that then, but do not have a problem with Democrats doing that now??

    Hmmmmmmm???

    Instead of going after Biden for what he was trying to say, the candidates are now free to attack him on the way he chose to say it.

    Yunno.. I almost hate doing this because it's so damn easy....

    But... when in Rome

    We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults.
    -ListenWhatYouHear

    :D

    All in all, things are going EXACTLY as I predicted...

    Joe Biden, who is basically a good man, is getting torn apart by vengeful, hateful, hurtful, intolerant Democrats..

    EXACTLY as I predicted..

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz??

    You have DEFINITELY been hanging out with me too long.. :D

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    That is only true if his opponents are opportunists purposefully feigning hurt in knee jerk reactions meant to get a leg up on the frontrunner. That is how I interpret Senator Booker's response.

    You can interpret ALL of the Democrat candidates that way..

    Playing the victim is the Democrat Way...

    Look for Buttagig to get butt-hurt about some imagined gay slur down the road..

    Democrats are a victim looking for a transgression...

    Do you have a transcript for this speech?

    I'll dig around and see if I can find one for you Liz...

    Biden wasn't joking about African Americans being called 'boy'; he was relating how the segregationist senator from the seventies didn't call him 'boy' (obviously, because Biden isn't black) but instead used a similarly disrespectful term, 'son', instead of Senator.

    Oooooo good catch...

    You see, this is EXACTLY why I hate these faux-racist bullshit accusations..

    The people who scream "RACISM!!!" the loudest ALWAYS goes with the worst possible possibility, the possibility that furthers their hateful and intolerant agenda.. They don't stop to consider that OTHER possibilities are much more likely...

    Very good catch...

    Speaking of "gaffes", Biden is one of a select few politicians who is the real deal - he says what he means and means what he says, and he is probably the most misconstrued pol on the planet, a lot of it decidedly purposefully.

    Yep.. Another way to say what I just said..

    People choose the possibility that most fits their agenda... NOT the possibility that most fits the facts..

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Again, if Biden was making the point that he could get things done with Republicans he likes, then yes, he should have used Dole and McCain.

    But, that wasn't his point, was it?

    Again, yep...

    Everyone sees what they WANT to see.. Not what actually is..

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    Biden said that even if you dislike someone, you should still be able to work with them on mutually beneficial work in Congress.

    But that won't work in the era of President Trump...

    Democrats just HAVE to have their Boogeyman.. Just like Republicans had to have theirs in the form of Obama...

    What blows my mind is that Democrats today are acting 20x WORSE than Republicans acted towards Obama and the Democrats today don't even care!

    Mind boggling..

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig,

    Liz - Have courage. Biden has taken a hit, but he is not of the fight. Not yet. Better to blunder esrly rather than late.

    I understand you are trying to be kind to Liz and that is admirable..

    But if you truly believe that, I have some swampland down here in Florida I wanna sell you..

    Biden won't recover from this..

    His numbers, already going down (as I predicted) will plummet as Democrats, candidates and non-candidates alike, pile on...

    Sorry to be the bearer of bad news...

    But facts and reality.. That's me...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    By the way, I have never in my life seen such ageism as I have on this one (non)issue.

    It's quite remarkable, in its own right.

    Yep... Republicans do not have the market cornered on 'ism' bigotry...

    Not by a long shot..

    "Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was 'The Walrus'. I could be the walrus, but I'd still have to bum rides off of people."
    -Ferris Buehler

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's his sad fate to be the first one among twenty, so the fire will come both early and hard.

    Yep, Democrats muster the circular firing squad..

    Again, just as I predicted..

    And I'll note that the candidates' pledge to be 'civil' to each other lasted about five minutes.

    I simply don't see how that is possible..!!???

    We are able to have differing opinions on how we best solve problems without having to resort to name calling and insults.
    -ListenWhatYouHear

    {/sarcasm}

    As an aside to Russ.. I am not a sadist.. If you want to concede that you spewed that total bullshit in the heat of battle and you don't really believe it, I'll be happy to let you off the hook... :D

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The gloves come off in the Democratic primary
    This was the week that the battle for the nomination got real.

    The tenor of the Democratic presidential primary has verged on courteous from the start: To the extent that Democrats went after Joe Biden, it was usually not by name. And Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren kept their rivalry decidedly civil.

    This week, with the first debates of the election season days away, the gentility came to an end.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/20/2020-election-democratic-primary-1373202

    Yep.. It's clear that Democrats will be acting EXACTLY like Republicans are accused of acting..

    Glad I stocked up on popcorn... :D

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note..

    Joe Biden announces massive $20 million raised as first debate approaches

    Biden is giddy that he raised 20 million in his first month as an official candidate..

    President Trump raised more than that his first DAY as an official candidate.. :D

    Not wanting to kick Biden when he's down but this really should worry Democrats, NeverTrumpers and Trump/America haters...

    If one ignores the polls, which have been PROVEN beyond any doubt to be flawed, and look at the fundraising??

    A more accurate picture can be made..

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    In other news...

    Trump Approves Strikes on Iran, but Then Abruptly Pulls Back
    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/trump-approves-strikes-on-iran-but-then-abruptly-pulls-back/ar-AADaA3K?li=BBnb7Kz

    The report comes from MSN so everything should be taken with a huge grain of salt...

    It's funny how MSN incessantly makes it clear that it's such a huge mystery why President Trump pulled back...

    It's perfectly clear why President Trump pulled back..

    The President wanted Biden and the Democrat Civil War to have the front page and the headlines all to themselves..

    While I am not thrilled at politics dictating military matters (although, when one looks at it logically and rationally, it IS the nature of the beast) I can see the logic in the President Trump's move...

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Reading more reports on the Biden issue..

    I see more and more that Biden is getting frustrated by all the bullshit and petty attacks from his OWN Party...

    I am going to make a bold prediction here..

    If Biden doesn't knock his debate out of the park, look for him to drop out of the race on or near the 4th of July...

    You heard it here first..

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can go on and on about how the Republican Party is doomed...

    The Democratic Civil War Is Here

    If one of these two quarrels is going to metastasize into something ugly, it’ll be Sanders, who remains apart from the party whose nomination he’s running for.

    Donald Trump told his rapt audience in Orlando Tuesday night that the Democrats “want to destroy you.”

    The next day, the Democrats started doing some destroying, all right. But of each other.
    https://www.thedailybeast.com/bernie-sanders-vs-elizabeth-warren-cory-booker-vs-joe-biden-the-democratic-civil-war-is-here?ref=home

    But the FACTS and REALITY clearly show that it's the Democrat Party who is going to implode...

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    Let me take a moment here and address the actual FACTS of that fabled "Blue Wave" of 2018 that ya'all like to brag about..

    Clinton lost 52 House seats and lost 8 Senate seats in his first mid term election...

    Obama lost 60 House seats and lost 6 Senate seats in his first mid-term election...

    In contrast President Trump lost only 30 House seats and gained 4 Senate seats....

    So, let's quit with the fantasy that 2018 was any sort of Blue Wave.. At BEST, it was nothing but a trickle...

    The last two DUMBOCRAT Presidents did much MUCH worse their first Mid-Term than Trump did...

    Once again.. Ya'all have hysterical delusions...

    I have facts and reality...

    We now return ya'all to yer regularly scheduled Biden-Bashing...

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all (NEN) complain that Biden is not sensitive to the identity politics of the Democrat Party..

    That's certainly a possibility...

    But do ya'all have the gumption to consider ANOTHER possibility???

    That maybe the Democrat Party is OVERLY sensitive to their identity politics platform??

    10,000 quatloos says ya'all WON'T seriously consider the possibility..

  46. [46] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Perhaps Biden is smarter than people think and he is just taking a page from Trump's playbook.

    Say something stupid that people will get all upset aboot and misinterpret so they will talk aboot that instead of concentrating on something that really is a problem for Biden.

    And from the look of this comments section it is working.

    Despite the article containing two gaffes, the comments here are mostly aboot the boy/son gaffe and not the speech to Biden's Buddies.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    Despite the article containing two gaffes, the comments here are mostly aboot the boy/son gaffe and not the speech to Biden's Buddies.

    Good point...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Although, I would have to say..

    I question the wisdom of intimating that one is a racist to cover up the fact that one is beholden to Wall Street...

    Seems to me a risky step to take..

  49. [49] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    It seems to work for Trump.

  50. [50] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Liz (6)-
    Thank you for providing one way that Biden is similar to Hillary.

    Let's see if it plays out the same.

    Will Biden release a transscript of the speech to Biden's Buddies?

    We're still waiting for the transcripts of Hillary's speeches to Hillary's Homeboys.

    Or should that Hillary's Home-sons? :D

  51. [51] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Or should that BE Hillary's home-sons.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems to work for Trump.

    It's not really Trump's playbook..

    Trump likes to put stuff out there that shocks the Left, but the Right loves...

    Biden put something out there that shocks the Left *AND* Right...

    There would be no upside to this ploy, if it was indeed a ploy..

    No, what I think is more likely is that, as with the handsy incidents, Joe honestly didn't see anything wrong with what he said and he was truly shocked (and hurt) that anyone from the Left would try to paint him as racist...

    This was simply a case of Joe being Joe and the rest of the Democrat Party has moved so far Left that Biden comes across as a Righty...

    The truly sad thing is, there is no way a far Left candidate can prevail against President Trump..

    Biden is the Democrat Party's ONLY hope to beat Trump..

    And, like true Democrat Party fashion, the Dims are offering their BEST LAST hope as a sacrifice on the altar of Party Purity..

    Who could have POSSIBLY predicted this would happen??

    Oh... Wait... :D

  53. [53] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    I would disagree that the rest of the Democratic Party has moved so far left that Biden comes across as a Righty.

    I think the Democratic Party has moved so far right over the last few decades that the Centrist candidates appear be from the Left.

    And the majority of those centrist candidates are only appearing to support more things from the left by passing legislation that will never become law during this congressional term and during campaigning.

    When they do get elected and gain control to actually pass that legislation then the excuses replace the votes to pass the legislation- we'll get to that later because right now we have to concentrate on other priorities, that's how Republicans govern and we are better than that so we are going to work with and compromise with the Republicans (which is not what they say they will do while campaigning), Half a loaf is better than nothing (even though they are really only offering a half a slice), etc.

    Biden is the Dems only hope to beat Trump?

    If an old white man pretending to be a woman couldn't beat Trump in 2016 how is a real old white man going to do it in 2020?

    You are right that a candidate from the Left can't beat Trump in 2020.

    But since the Dems are only offering candidates from the right and from the center pretending to be from the left, that is not a concern for 2020.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    If an old white man pretending to be a woman couldn't beat Trump in 2016 how is a real old white man going to do it in 2020?

    Because all the other candidates are living in their own deluded Left Wing world...

  55. [55] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Huh?

    What other candidates?

    In a race between Trump and Biden Trump is the other candidate.

    Unless you're referring to a Green or Socialist Party candidate. There certainly wouldn't be any Libertarians living in a deluded left wing world- they are firmly in the deluded right wing world like Trump.

    If you are referring to the other Democratic hopefuls
    once again they are not from the left, they are from the center.

    The notion they are from the left is part of the deluded right wing world view.

    I know it's convenient for you to believe that, but Kenya really expect people that can think will buy that delusion?

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    In a race between Trump and Biden Trump is the other candidate.

    Biden has to get thru the Primary first..

    That's what I am talking about..

    If you are referring to the other Democratic hopefuls
    once again they are not from the left, they are from the center.

    I guess it all depends on one's point of view.. :D

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AY733_Noonan_M_20190620143403.jpg

    Look at the diversity of a Trump crowd..

    Men, women, hispanics, blacks, asians....

    All bound together by love of country and a desire to Keep America Great... :D

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    My Sister, My Uncle and Trump
    They loved him and were sure he’d win. I couldn’t share their jolliness, but I respected their rebellion.

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/my-sister-my-uncle-and-trump-11561069936

    Ya know... If y'all could step away from yer hate and intolerance and actually approach things with an open mind, y'all might actually learn something..

    NNNNaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww It's too easy just to hate...

  59. [59] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    "I guess it all depends on one's point of view..."

    You could say that.

    It would be more accurate to say it all depends on how one interprets the evidence, if one were to pay attention to evidence rather than look for or only pay attention to evidence that fits their point of view.

  60. [60] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    And come to think of it, the delusion that the other Democratic hopefuls are from the left is also part of the deluded left wing world view.

    Anyone that is truly left that thinks the big money Democrats have anything in mind for the left other than for the left to be left out is delusional.

  61. [61] 
    Paula wrote:

    [27] Liz: Dan Pfeiffer worked with Obama and Biden and knows him personally and well. AND likes him a lot. He was not happy with having to respond to Biden's comments.

    It's interesting that you seem to think YOU are in a position to tell us who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. FYI I don't accept your self-proclaimed status as arbiter of accuracy re: JB.

    Finally, running for POTUS (especially as a Dem) means having to endure a ton of vetting. (Running for POTUS as a woman and/or minority Dem doubles that.) Dealing with it comes with the territory.

    Biden has a long history and it's being scrutinized. Longstanding politicians always have to deal with defending their records, just as newbies get hit with "you don't have enough experience".

    Biden's challenge is to show that he's moved with the times and can deal with problems/conditions we face now. His nostalgic ruminations work against that, resulting in episodes of self-inflicted damage.

    My contention is: Joe Biden is a genuinely nice man who means well, but has also been very comfortable for many years. He's a man who has been the center of his own universe; he's white, well-off, well-educated and is very comfortable with other very comfortable people. He has giant areas of obliviousness as a result, which he reflexively and adamantly defends, and if he fails, that will be why.

  62. [62] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    I'm not sure what your comment has to do with people purposefully misinterpreting what Biden said and inaccurately assigning words and motives to his speech.

    Being vetting and challenged is good and I hope he gets a lot more of that going forward. But, that is not what I'm talking about here.

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My contention is: Joe Biden is a genuinely nice man who means well, but has also been very comfortable for many years. He's a man who has been the center of his own universe; he's white, well-off, well-educated and is very comfortable with other very comfortable people. He has giant areas of obliviousness as a result, which he reflexively and adamantly defends, and if he fails, that will be why.

    Your conclusions don't surprise me.

    But, I have a question for you that may - MAY - change your view of him and how comfortable he sits.

    After the war in Iraq started going south, which Democrat in Congress spent most of their waking moments trying to find a way out by changing US policy toward Iraq?

    It wasn't Hillary or John Edwards or Barack Obama.

    Biden had been thinking about running for president in 2004 but he became too busy on the Iraq file and that was more important than another shot at the oval office.

    At the time, John Kerry had tapped Biden to be his secretary of state. Biden would consider that only if Republicans controlled the senate. Because if Democrats control the senate in 2005, then he'd rather be chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee!

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Speaking of who controlled the senate in 2005 when the Bankruptcy Bill passed.

    Biden had voted against these types of bills in the past but, on this one, he was able to make amendments that protected women and children. On the rest of the bill, he had no control as a member of the minority party.

    Everybody always leaves this part out when they bash Biden for voting for the 2005 Bankruptcy bill. I don't understand why ...

  65. [65] 
    TheStig wrote:

    I don't think the Joe Biden Is a Racist Meme is going to have legs.

    First off, it's a dog bites man story. Joe Biden is a gaffe machine. That is not exactly a revelation. You can only push this peanut so far.

    Second there are tons of competing stories that are more compelling: like the Drone Shoot Down, and what exactly is Trump going to do about it - at any given moment, because it seems to be in flux. The charge will percolate on Fox News and social media and such forever, as zealots of a certain kind pat each other's fanny. That's just the way the modern press ecosystem works.

    Third, Biden can rightfully claim to have a strong record on Civil Rights Legislation. NAACP has given its 100% rating to Biden....and here is my single allowable reference for this:

    https://votesmart.org/interest-group/893/rating/2937?p=1&of=rating

    Now it is true that some of Biden's votes on crime and matters of business and the economy have disproportionately harmed the Black Community, but this was collateral damage that hit pretty much all low income people, and people of color are disproportionately poor. Overall, the voters were clambering for "get tough on crime" - and politicians responded in kind.

    In the end, Joe is Joe - he can be prone speak his mind before he has really thought the media:public interpretation thru. I think he'll be pretty well prepared (coached) for the first debate.

    Let the games begin.

  66. [66] 
    Paula wrote:

    [62]EW: with people purposefully misinterpreting what Biden said and inaccurately assigning words and motives to his speech.

    That is your claim. It is simply an assertion - you don't know squat about it, you're just stating your opinion as a fact.

    RE: bankruptcy bill, forget it. Joe blew that call, and even if he softened it somewhat it was a heinous piece of legislation that, all the way back then, perfectly illustrates how comfortable he was and how out of touch he was with working people at the time.

    Yeah he has some good stuff in his record - I didn't say he doesn't. It isn't enough.

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stig..

    Would you agree that, if Biden is clobbered in the first debate, he's done???

  68. [68] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That is your claim. It is simply an assertion - you don't know squat about it, you're just stating your opinion as a fact.

    Yes, well, around here facts are often confused with opinion.

    Do you think Biden's critics know squat?

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [67],

    Always the optimist.

  70. [70] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    RE: bankruptcy bill, forget it. Joe blew that call, and even if he softened it somewhat it was a heinous piece of legislation that, all the way back then, perfectly illustrates how comfortable he was and how out of touch he was with working people at the time.

    That is your opinion, Paula. And, it's not based on the facts.

    Did you read the part about the Senate being controlled by Republicans? What, pray tell, did Biden do to blow it? Do you know what protections he was able to include in the bill?

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    I just read that Hunter Biden is wrapped up tight with China in some business dealings..

    And that Hunter Biden divorced his wife after Beau Biden died and then married Beau Biden's widow...

    Whooaaaaa........

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    [67],

    Always the optimist.

    Agreed... This weekend in South Carolina will be the first test of Biden's stayability factor..

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Biden doesn't have a vagina..

    THAT and THAT ALONE is what disqualifies him to some commenters here in Weigantia...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    Trooper Jerry Smith
    Nebraska State Patrol, Nebraska
    End of Watch: Thursday, June 20, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1c1f544ea7b54a58eeb922b13ed887fee999c194c40e07aed62a98eda2ef6593.jpg

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    END OF WATCH

    [Corporal Jose Espericueta]
    Corporal Jose Espericueta
    Mission Police Department, Texas
    End of Watch: Thursday, June 20, 2019

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/13839e8d10b9303c8d9aee50576e15b15f4844be91d15073a21097a85b780c50.jpg

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Judge Orders Appointment of Special Prosecutor in Jussie Smollett Case, Additional Prosecution Back on the Table
    https://theblast.com/c/jussie-smollett-special-prosecutor

    Looks like Jussie is not out of the woods yet..

    Couldn't happen to a more deserving scumbag...

    False accusations of racist attacks is worse than 20 actual racist attacks...

    Because it puts in doubt ACTUAL racist attacks and makes it that much harder for REAL victims to seek justice..

    A life in prison sentence is not out of line for Jussie Smollet...

    Or, better yet.. Force him to become a cop (assuming he can pass the psych eval) and make him SEE what horror he caused..

  77. [77] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Children are dying and living in filth in US custody at the border as we speak and Democrats and Republicans and others are doing nothing about it!

    Why!?

  78. [78] 
    Paula wrote:

    [70] Doesn't matter if Senate was Repub - Biden was FOR the bill. He defended it. He championed it. There was a lot of outcry against it at the time - he blew it all off.

    If you voted against it, as my Dems did, you're not responsible for it. That wasn't the case with Biden. He owns it.

  79. [79] 
    Paula wrote:

    As MANY Dems did -

  80. [80] 
    Michale wrote:

    Children are dying and living in filth in US custody at the border as we speak and Democrats and Republicans and others are doing nothing about it!

    It's been going on at the US southern border for DECADES...

    And the problem is that US politicians don't have the political will to do the right thing...

    THAT is why it's happening..

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you voted against it, as my Dems did, you're not responsible for it.

    So, that means that Hillary was responsible for the Iraq War...

    Is THAT what you are saying???

  82. [82] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [66]{Joe} has some good stuff in his record - I didn't say he doesn't. It isn't enough.

    For what? Beating Trump? Or were you trying to assign some other purpose to him?

    Keep your eye on the ball, Paula. If the Dem primary becomes a stupid "I'm more pure than you" contest, then we lose.

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Keep your eye on the ball, Paula. If the Dem primary becomes a stupid "I'm more pure than you" contest, then we lose.

    So, now you have adopted my position.. :D

    That's just gotta hurt, eh? :D

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    But you.... I.... WE have hit the nail on the head..

    If Democrats go for Party Purity, they will lose...

    It's that simple...

  85. [85] 
    Paula wrote:

    [82] Balthasar:

    It isn't enough for me to support Biden in the current field. I don't.

    I don't agree he's the only candidate who can beat Blotus - polls now show several D candidates can. Although how meaningful ANY of that is at this early point is highly debatable.

    The first debates are next week and the primaries will really be underway. We'll see where we land.

    I already said I'd vote for JB if that's the choice I'm stuck with. I will also vote for BS if that's the choice.

    As for "I'm more pure than you" - bullshit. I'm not arguing, in any way, shape or form, about "purity".

    I'm saying Biden has a record, both as a legislator, as VP and as a candidate. That record has good and bad. That record results in me preferring other candidates.

    Isn't that what primaries are about?

  86. [86] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    now you have adopted my position..

    I haven't adopted ANYONE'S position. The debates will begin to sort things out. I just think that all of this chatter about party purity is just bunkum.

    BEAT Trump is the only slogan that should emerge.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't agree he's the only candidate who can beat Blotus - polls now show several D candidates can.

    Yea??? Tell me.. How did the polls do in the 2016 election??

    It's SOOOO cute that you think polls, especially polls almost a year and a half out have *ANY* relevance.. :D

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    I haven't adopted ANYONE'S position.

    Sure ya have..

    " If the Dem primary becomes a stupid "I'm more pure than you" contest, then we lose."

    I have been saying that for MONTHS now..

    Glad ta see it's finally rubbed off on ya :D

    I just think that all of this chatter about party purity is just bunkum.

    BEAT Trump is the only slogan that should emerge.

    Which is exactly what I have said ALSO for months now..

    But, considering how bad the Dumbocrats have jumped on Biden for his "racist" :eyeroll: tendencies, it's clear that electability has taken a back seat to Party Purity...

    Will it hold?? Probably.. More likely grows stronger..

    As you said, the debates will be a very good indicator but the South Carolina convention this weekend will also give us a good sense of which way the Dim Party goes..

    Electabiity or Party Purity??

    I am betting the latter..

  89. [89] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Isn't that what primaries are about?

    It is, and it isn't. The party loyalists (the 'woke people') make it very hard to get middle-of-the-road candidates through. Very tough for folks like me, for whom Bernie and Warren and Booker go too far.

    And, like you, I'll vote for the candidate that emerges anyway. Because beating Trump is the mission.

  90. [90] 
    Paula wrote:

    [86] Balthasar: You need to be more selective about charging "purity". The "purity" argument is almost entirely owned by hardcore Berniers.

    I didn't adopt your position - that's BEEN my position.

    But the question of who can beat Blotus and all the rest is, right now, nothing but conjecture.

    Separately, not liking Biden's "reaching-out" isn't about "purity" it's about his wanting to continue to use a tactic that constantly fails. (MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND) I don't like Biden waxing nostaligic about it I don't like Klobuchar or Booker or anyone else thinking that's the way to deal with the GOP either BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK. It simply enables them to get worse and worse and worse.

    This expresses it well:

    Most other Democrats at least have the sense not to extend that rule to their actual general-election opponents. But even when Democrats deign to declare that they are opposed to Republican rule, it frequently seems forced, as if they’re pandering to their supporters while secretly hoping their nonsupporters won’t get offended. At the heart of this predilection for the flight over the fight is a tacit ideology that is wildly out of step with the political reality of Trump’s America, where villains abound with almost comic ubiquity. And it is an ideology that, for the first time in living memory, is being challenged by an invigorated populist left, not only out of principle, but also out of a sense that the old way is naïve and ultimately self-defeating. The future of the Democratic Party, and by extension the country, may well depend on whether the party is finally willing to ditch its fretful posture of peacemaking and give war a chance.?..

    All the while, Democratic leaders continue to campaign and govern from a crouched, defensive position even after they win power. They have bought into the central ideological proposition, peddled by apparatchiks and consultants aligned with the conservative movement, that America is an incorrigibly “center-right” nation, and they have precious little strategy or inclination to move that consensus leftward—to fight, in other words, to change the national consensus; the sort of activity that was once understood as “politics.” ?

    https://newrepublic.com/article/154113/democratic-party-fighting-spirit-give-war-chance

  91. [91] 
    Paula wrote:

    Maybe we're forced into a 2-step scenario where getting rid of Blotus can only be done by electing some supposed "centrist" - the definition of which is vague and ever-shifting, and only 4-8 yrs later elect someone focused on now and not conditions 30-50 years ago,

    OR

    Maybe we can both get rid of Blotus AND start moving the country in a direction where real problems start actually getting solved starting in 2020.

    We'll see.

  92. [92] 
    Michale wrote:

    "Getting rid of Blotus" is going to be really difficult when you have Dumbocrats clamoring for impeachment thereby sending waves and waves of independents into the Trump camp...

    And nominating as your champion someone who is to the Left of Ted Kaczynski...

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Democrat Party's problem is that the vast majority of the Party is a Paula and NOT a Biden...

    That is why President Trump will win in a landslide..

  94. [94] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    The Democratic Party's problem is they are controlled by Biden's Buddies and that whether the rest of the Party are a Paula or a Biden or a Bernie they mostly accept whatever Biden's Buddies offer rather than demand candidates that will move the country forward which can only be accomplished by not accepting what Biden's Buddies offer.

  95. [95] 
    Paula wrote:

    Stephen King links to a good video with Robert DeNiro and other celebrities breaking down the collusion covered in the Mueller Report:

    https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1141801299299700739

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Stephen King links to a good video with Robert DeNiro and other celebrities breaking down the collusion covered in the Mueller Report:

    So, a bunch of ignorant celebrities who are completely out of touch with Americans are who the Democrats listen to??

    Oh yea.. THAT will win ya'all the election...

    :eyeroll:

    Do ya'all see how utterly frak'ed ya'all are???

    I mean.. Seriously!!!

  97. [97] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Paula,

    Separately, not liking Biden's "reaching-out" isn't about "purity" it's about his wanting to continue to use a tactic that constantly fails. (MERRICK FUCKING GARLAND)

    I hope you know that what Senator McConnell(sp?)did to Merrick Garland is decidedly NOT what Biden once proposed for Supreme Court nominees in the last year of a president's term.

  98. [98] 
    Paula wrote:

    [97] Of course I know what McConnell did. The point is on the other end of that transaction was Obama/Biden. Giving up that seat with nothing but a series of tut tuts was, as it turns out, a catastrophic failure.

  99. [99] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What could they have done to ensure Garland had at least an interview with Republican senators?

  100. [100] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Also, Paula, please re-read my post and then you will see that I wasn't suggesting that you didn't know what Mitch did, but rather if you knew that what Mitch was saying about Biden agreeing with him was patently false.

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    What could they have done to ensure Garland had at least an interview with Republican senators?

    Absolutely nothing...

  102. [102] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Are you absolutely sure about that?

  103. [103] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Does anyone know if there will be any opportunity online for viewing the event tonight in South Carolina?

  104. [104] 
    Paula wrote:

    [100] Liz: Yes, McConnell was lying about "the Biden Rule" - again, that supports my point.

    How is it possible JB could suggest the GOP will suddenly start to play nice if he, JB, is POTUS?

  105. [105] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Don't be fooled. McConnell didn't just luck into a way to defeat Merrick Garland. He used a year-long filibuster, his office in the Senate, the sudden accident that Harry Reed had, and a lot of compliant Republicans to pull off that stunt. To do it, he needed all four of these things.

    Given the circumstances, there was nothing that Obama or Biden could do. A change in the Senate rules is required, but that's been in McConnell's hands this entire time. Sure it was a catastrophic failure, but it was one that was a while in the making, and will take a while to fix.

  106. [106] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Well, the only answer I have to that is that Joe Biden wasn't the president. Which is not to say anything disparaging about President Obama whom I fully supported and support.

    I don't think Biden is under any illusions about what has become of the GOP or how they will react to him as president.

    I still don't understand what makes you think that Obama/Biden could have acted differently wrt the Garland nomination.

    Unless you are saying that Biden hasn't shown that he can work successfully with congressional republicans. In which case I take your point.

    But, again, if Biden is elected president in 2020, the situation with regard to relations between the WH and congress will be different from the Obama years - not saying better or worse, just different.

    And, I think a lot will depend on who Biden taps to be his running mate, if he gets that far. Maybe you will remember the last time he ran in 2008 he suggested in one of the debates that he would choose Chuck Hagel, a moderate Republican, to be his running mate.

    How would you feel about him choosing a moderate Republican, currently in or out of public office, to be his running mate?

  107. [107] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [106] is in response to [104]

  108. [108] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [104]: How is it possible JB could suggest the GOP will suddenly start to play nice if he, JB, is POTUS?

    1. New President, new rules. Especially this time.

    2. The Republicans will be out of power, so ready to play ball. If McConnell is still in power in the Senate, he would have to negotiate with JB to pass necessary bills. That's where the ability to face him down would come in handy.

  109. [109] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Balthasar,

    What are the chances do you think that if Biden is elected, then Democrats will hold house and gain senate?

    I can only imagine how different things may be if that were to happen!

  110. [110] 
    Paula wrote:

    [108] Balthasar:

    I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. GOP has shown being out of power just makes them more obstructive. They do better out of power because there only job, in their eyes, is to obstruct. Being in power shows they can't govern but they damn well can obstruct.

    In terms of "what could Obama/Biden/Dems have done re: Merrick Garland" - yeah, a set of circumstances worked to McConnell's advantage. That doesn't mean Dems couldn't have responded far more strongly doing who the hell knows what - but stuff they didn't do.

    I will not waste time posing hypotheticals about what they might have tried that they didn't - the point remains, GOP continually pushes the envelope on doing things that are anti-Democratic/democratic and counter to the constitution and rule of law and Dems have a terrible history of responding weakly and ineffectively.

    I have zero confidence that a change of administration will do shit to end GOP abuse. It isn't going to be enough to vote them out - assuming they don't hack 2020 and win steal the election. Repubs have to actually pay prices beyond losing office. NO "looking forward not back" this time.

  111. [111] 
    Paula wrote:

    [106] Liz:

    How would you feel about him choosing a moderate Republican, currently in or out of public office, to be his running mate?

    I think that would be beyond stupid and should rule Biden out instantly if he was foolish enough to suggest such a thing.

    When will you get it?

    Republicans do not merit ANY FORM OF REWARD or even outreach after the atrocity of this administration which is being FULLY SUPPORTED by the GOP.

    The GOP needs to be hounded out of office, it's major figures should be shunned for the rest of their lives, and any person running as a republican for the next generation should be expected to PROVE he/she is NOT a dishonest traitor. They have lost any/all right to any benefit of doubt.

    This election will not be a come-together election UNLESS Blotus is kicked out before 2020. If he's still infesting the WH then it will be a base turnout election and being buddies with concentration-camp supporters is not going bring out the Dem base.

  112. [112] 
    Paula wrote:

    [110] their not there

  113. [113] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Their not where? :)

  114. [114] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    That doesn't mean Dems couldn't have responded far more strongly doing who the hell knows what - but stuff they didn't do.

    Oh, man, does that ever hit the nail on the head!!!!

    That was the thing that so frustrated me about the Obama/Biden administration - lack of consistent and effective communication Re. policy moves and how they compare to those of Republicans. They sure weren't the explainers-in-chief.

    If there is anything that I worry about when it comes to Biden? … that I too often explain his policies etc. better than he does. :(

  115. [115] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think that would be beyond stupid and should rule Biden out instantly if he was foolish enough to suggest such a thing.

    Then I hope he doesn't suggest such a thing again until well after he's elected!

    Can't you name one republican who's still alive and who might be able to prove to you that he/she is not dishonest and a traitor?

  116. [116] 
    Paula wrote:

    [115] Can't you name one republican who's still alive and who might be able to prove to you that he/she is not dishonest and a traitor?

    If you still call yourself a Republican you own: Blotus, concentration camps and dead children, complete breakdown of security in the WH, nepotism, bribery, emoluments abuses, the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi, the rise of nazism, White Supremacy, the theft of a SCOTUS seat, conspiring with Russia to hack elections, hacked elections around the country, voter suppression, the handing off of our federal gov to despicable corrupt thieves and incompetent idealogues, the surge in hate crimes, suicides, opiode deaths and more.

    So no, I can't name any repub who could prove he/she's not a dishonest traitor. They can prove it by leaving the party and dedicating their remaining lives grind it into the dust.

  117. [117] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    What are the chances do you think that if Biden is elected, then Democrats will hold house and gain senate?

    Pretty good, actually. Just a gut feeling right now.

    I think you are engaging in wishful thinking. GOP has shown being out of power just makes them more obstructive.

    Maybe. Until that doesn't work anymore. The Right wing has had a pretty good run the last 30 years, but I think that most folks have had enough of it. I can easily imagine Trump being the Right's last big candidate for a long time. The south might hang in there a while, but Texas turning blue would blow a pretty big hole in that.

  118. [118] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You make a good point … no, you make a very good point.

  119. [119] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    [118] in response to [116]

  120. [120] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Pretty good, actually. Just a gut feeling right now.

    That's encouraging!

    How do your political gut feelings usually turn out?

  121. [121] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    They can prove it by leaving the party and dedicating their remaining lives grind it into the dust.

    Now, there's a thought!

    What about that guy - former GOP governor who was/is running against Trump?

  122. [122] 
    Paula wrote:

    [121] If any Repub wants to primary Blotus they should go for it. But I hope they would still go down to defeat.

  123. [123] 
    Paula wrote:

    To their Dem opponent, I mean. Let them beat Blotus (unlikely given the GOP base is made up of frothing thugs and evangelical end-timers) and then lose to the Dem.

  124. [124] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Anyone want to guess who'll be the MDDOTW recipient tonight?

    I'm taking bets! :)

  125. [125] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    How do your political gut feelings usually turn out?

    Not bad, save for 2016 (of course).

  126. [126] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Very nice.

  127. [127] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I wouldn't mind too much if there wasn't an FTP column this week ...

  128. [128] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    44

    Let me take a moment here and address the actual FACTS of that fabled "Blue Wave" of 2018 that ya'all like to brag about..

    In contrast President Trump lost only 30 House seats and gained 4 Senate seats....

    Wrong, wrong, wrong... your figures are wrong! Why do you insist on posting bullshit and labelling it as "facts." You are the worst perpetrator on this board of doing this and proving nothing more than either your propensity to lie or misinform... or both!

    Now about that Red Tsunami you kept promising over and over and over ad nauseam for a myriad of reasons: You couldn't have been more wrong hundreds of times over.

    Your figures regarding how many seats "Trump" lost in the House of Representatives is wrong by several seats; of course, you've shorted the Democratic Party gains. As far as the GOP gains you are reporting in the Senate, you have inflated these by a factor of 100%. That's right, sunshine, you have doubled the number of net gains by the GOP in the Senate.

    You want facts. Anybody else want facts? I got facts!

    MIDTERMS 2018

    Net seat change of Democrats in the House: +41
    Net seat change of Republicans in the Senate: +2

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_elections

    Also, the Democratic Party picked up the governorships in 7 states, but I digress.

    So, no matter how you want to spin it to make it through your day, there was a Blue Wave. A big Bad Ass Blue Wave. The Democrats won by a popular vote margin of +8.6%, the largest margin in any election since Watergate.

    If you'd honestly like to correct some misinformation regarding the way elections are referred to on this blog, you can stop claiming that President Trump won in a "landslide" since Trump lost the popular vote by multiple millions but won the presidency in the Electoral College by approximately 78,000 votes in 3 states.

    Please stop posting fiction on the blog. The only thing you're teaching anyone around here is how misinformed and/or pathological you happen to be. :)

  129. [129] 
    Kick wrote:

    All this Biden stuff? Seriously?

    Much ado about nothing. Okay, not "nothing"... but almost nothing. Seriously. :)

  130. [130] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Indeed.

    Well, except for the "not "nothing"" part. :)

  131. [131] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    Russ, please tell me that you think as I do that Senator Booker needs to rethink his line on this.

    Obviously, I'm not Russ, but I too think Booker is overblowing this.

    I don't know for a fact but I would wager that Booker is not unlike most Americans who come from a place where Biden is barely respected.

    EM, seriously, Booker's real problem is that Biden is respected in South Carolina.

    The facts are these, EM: Booker must perform decently in the early states until South Carolina and Super Tuesday roll around to have a chance, and for that matter, this applies to all the approximately 18 or so candidates who aren't sitting in... oh, say... the top 5-6 positions, which Booker isn't.

    02/03/2020: Iowa Caucuses
    02/11/2020: New Hampshire Primary
    02/22/2020: Nevada Caucuses
    02/29/2020: South Carolina Primary (got us a leap year)
    03/03/2020: Super Tuesday! These are all Primaries

    Alabama
    Arkansas
    California
    Colorado
    Democrats Abroad
    Maine
    Massachusetts
    Minnesota
    North Carolina
    Oklahoma
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Vermont
    Virginia

  132. [132] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM

    Oops. Meant to add that California usually goes last, and they decided they aren't having that anymore. California used to be a huge haul sitting at the end where candidates would hold out until the end. Well, all that changes in 2020 because California is done with it and voting on Super Tuesday.

    And that changes everything. :)

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    FACT: No sitting president has survived a serious primary challenge in the past 50 years.

    I like those statistics so thanks go out to William Weld.

    Paging John Kasich, John Kasich... your country needs you, and you're not busy. :)

  134. [134] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hey, Kick!

    If Senator Hagel is done with all of this political stuff, how would you feel if Biden chose Kasich as his running mate?

  135. [135] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM
    134

    If Biden survives all this BS and piling on and wins the nomination, his choice for VP should be one of the following, and in this order:

    1. Stacey Abrams
    2. Kamala Harris
    3. Elizabeth Warren

    I believe I said this before, and I am correct about this so... no argument from you. ;)

    Seriously, though, do some research and tell me how long it's been seen the Democratic ticket was 2 white guys. Oh, nevermind, it was 2004... 16 years when 2020 rolls in... so that ship has sailed. :)

  136. [136] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Kick-135

    I think it's kind of a shame to waste any of them in the VP slot. It's thankless job. Warren is probably the smartest person in DC. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  137. [137] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    I think Biden's VP will not be in a thankless job. Biden's VP is going to be a very busy person.

    If it's Jerry Brown, then you can forget about VP. They'll be co-presidents, for all intents and purposes with Brown heading up the climate change file, domestically and internationally.

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    As I said...

    The majority of the Democrat Party is like Paula.

    That is why the Democrats will lose and lose big in 2020...

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    138

    There's no such thing as the "Democrat Party," and you are the biggest source of misinformation on this blog.

    That is why the Democrats will lose and lose big in 2020...

    Based on what? The GOP's giant pick up of 2 whole seats in 2018? Check your numbers, moron. You're wrong. :)

Comments for this article are closed.