Another Torpedo Hits SS Biden’s Vulnerable Port Side
Even as the all-but-officially-running Joe Biden got a HuffPo cover piece touting his union bona fides, progressives with long memories and LexisNexis access scored another direct hit on his politics of the past. A Harper’s piece headlined “Joe Biden’s Disastrous Legislative Legacy” lays out a brief against Uncle Joe that is long, detailed and broad enough to make him look out of step with the Democratic electorate. The pattern it establishes is one of selling out progressive goals for the sake of bipartisanship.
Even the HuffPo piece, which seemed like a sop to Biden after the site’s savage article of the day before, made him seem like a dinosaur. It’s all about the 40-year friendship between Joe and the head of the national firefighters’ union, and how his old pal wants him to run and will be there to support him. Great. Lotta energy there.
Clearing the field of other white centrist men gains Biden dibs on a good-sized bloc of voters, but it also concentrates opposition scrutiny and progressive scorn toward the old guard. The length of this final presidential bid depends on how he handles the pressure.
So there are two Biden’s. The mythological “Uncle Joe” that he was free to play as VP with little scrutiny and a lot of affection from the press. And the “Joe with a Record” that blog readers and Harper’s writers know about.
Biden is now trying to figure out if “Uncle Joe” can outrun “Joe with a Record” to a plurality of primary voters. Similar to “The Maverick” John McCain’s treatment, Uncle Joe will have a large portion of “the media” on his side. But “Joe with a Record” folks give two fucks about what Chris Matthews thinks.
I’ve backed off my prior prediction. Now only a 85% chance he will run.
Let’s also not forget that, on the issue of school desegregation, Biden and Tom Sharp might well have been separated at birth:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bidens-tough-talk-on-1970s-school-desegregation-plan-could-get-new-scrutiny-in-todays-democratic-party/2019/03/07/9115583e-3eb2-11e9-a0d3-1210e58a94cf_story.html?utm_term=.a2acf40aff28
I wonder who can beat the carnival barker if he’s still out of jail and running though. Biden has name recognition and the personality that could be more successful than the others.
The personality point is well taken. Whoever wins the nomination will need to be able to take a punch and return it 10 fold.
If Hillary provided any service to the country it was demonstrating that “being above the pettiness” is a terrible strategy.
there is only one record that matters to biden (an all other politicians) the amount of times they are re-elected
Ashley Biden just resigned from Delaware Center for Justice….getting ready for that official campaign role I guess???
and preparing herself for the eventual Trump tweet about her Coke sniffing party days. Its ashame, shes a great lady but had a wild past but Trump knows no bounds.
Given Biden’s age, I would be surprised if he didn’t have some figurative blackface in his past. He probably even inhaled the blackface. So far we have the socialist with 3 houses, the fake Native American, the gun owner with a prior NRA A grade, Syrian President Assad’s buddy, Mr. Handsy, and who knows who and what else.
I’ll just get my popcorn and enjoy the circular firing squad and see who comes out the whole mess relatively intact. My only hope is for someone to primary Trump and win the nomination. I think Democrats govern better than Republicans, but they tend towards theatrical devices like self-immolation as a purifying ritual which leaves real qualified people by the wayside.
These candidates are humans. Thus, they have human frailties and foibles. But most of them have deeply felt values which serve to influence their proposed policies, That ought to be the crux of the debate. Instead we are treated to the constant exposition of character flaws.
My objection to Biden is with his deeply felt values.
a socialist with 3 houses
(Just say you don’t know what socialism is.)
I know what it is. I’ll give you a dictionary definition. Here, from Merriam Webster. This is the one I use. Do you have a beef with that definition? If so would you provide me with definition from a different source that you find acceptable?
Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
And regardless of your source and definition, what you and others fail to recognize that the vast majority of the English speaking world accepts this definition and therein lies your dilemma, every time anyone uses the word, this is what people who hear the word, think it means. If you want a new definition, by all means feel free to create one and disseminate it, but unless the dictionaries get changed, that’s the definition.
I’m glad to know that DL has commenters who can speak on behalf of “vast majority of the English speaking world ”
Comforting.
So as to not be speaking in code, Bernie is a Democratic Socialist. Critics who point to his non-penury and claim that makes him a “hypocrite” are disingenuous or idiots, or disingenuous idiots. Similar to the people who claim that taking an airplane somewhere makes you a hypocrite if you mention climate change.
Only fools and media types are worried about your concern trolling. Everyone else has moved on.
Fool here.
“what you and others fail to recognize that the vast majority of the English speaking world accepts this definition ”
I disgree. I think the vast majority believe the definition is “boogeyman.”
It’s only educated people who remember the Cold War who define it by the dictionary. Remember, the dictionary changes only after usage does.
The way you use it implies total socialism, when the only thing we’re talking about government taking over the “production” of is health insurance.
The vast majority, otoh, couldn’t debate means of production with you if you hit them in the head with a saboteur’s clog.
The way I use it is the way people perceive it. When you are in the bubble you can prsent all the nuanced aspects of it you want. But when you walk outside, the traditional definition holds.
Look, I know what you guys mean by it. I’m ok with it. The difference is that you think it’s a word that wins. I think it’s a word costs more votes than we afford.
Their constant use of it against Democrats argues for embracing it to defang it. Voters will hear it over and over again no matter what, so it’s best to wear it as a mantle, not a badge of shame.
I think dissecting Merriam Webster definitions is exactly how we’ll seize the means of production and democratize the workplace. Thank god you’re here.
I think you guys misunderestimate the negative implications of “socialism” even for sane people. The policies are indeed often popular (and sensible), but presenting them under the umbrella of socialism will cost us voters we’d otherwise have. Clinging to a term most people see as negative would be a bad reason to lose to Trump and his ilk.
People viewed the word “liberal” as very negative when I started this blog. And these people were Democrats.
I remember!
These folks remind me of the people in those Crohn’s disease commercials who can’t venture more than 100 yards from a public rest room.
Why would you guys want to lose track of the restroom if you’re only gonna piss yourselves? Is embracing the socialist tag (as opposed to policies) some kind of challenge?
Yes. It’s the challenge to live boldly, not timidly.
You seem to be ignoring the part where they’re going to call us socialists anyway.
This is a soccer game. A Trump victory is a loss. A progressive victory is a win. A centrist victory is a draw, and we don’t have time left in the season for a draw to do us any good.
^This^
“Don’t do ____, because Republicans will ____. ”
Loser strategy. It’s been losing for the entire 20 years I’ve been paying attention.
Jumping off a cliff is a challenge too. And we don’t have to help out the other side.
A Trump victory is hardly a draw any way you cut it.
True, but neither a Trump victory nor a centrist victory will move the needle as fast as it needs to move we’re going to survive the 21st century. With the clock running, a tie does us no good. We need a win — not in this presidential race, in the race to change course before we bake ourselves.
Didn’t the Democrats just come off eight years of the presidency? Of course, Obama didn’t call himself a socialist (and wasn’t one).
Actually, for now I’m good with anything that would stamp out Trumpism. If “socialism” does it, fine with me.
I think Trump could destroy us before the climate did.