nancynall.com » Biden?

Biden?

Dis­cuss. Open week­end thread.

53 responses to
“Biden?”

  1. coozledad said on August 23rd, 2008 at 8:11 am

    I can’t imag­ine it help­ing, but then again, I’m always wrong about these things.

  2. Howie said on August 23rd, 2008 at 9:28 am

    This unde­cided inde­pen­dent is now less likely to vote for Obama. What is the oppo­site of veep bounce? Haven’t the dems already said no to Biden for 5 or 6 elec­tion cycles?

  3. alex said on August 23rd, 2008 at 9:52 am

    I won’t second-guess Obama, but I’m glad he’s not tak­ing Bayh. Not because I think Bayh would be a bad veep choice, but because our Bush crony gov­er­nor would appoint one of our two most nox­ious con­gress­men, Souder or Pence, to Bayh’s seat, and either of those two are just like the smell of cat piss in a car­pet — absolutely impos­si­ble to get rid of.

    Biden doesn’t excite me but he doesn’t turn me off either. Obama would’ve done bet­ter with Richard­son, I think. It’ll be inter­est­ing to see who McCain picks. He needs to throw a big bone to the far right with­out alien­at­ing mod­er­ates, and that’s going to be tough.

  4. brian stouder said on August 23rd, 2008 at 10:00 am

    Biden looks to me like a very safe choice — the equiv­a­lent of a safe run­ning play in foot­ball (as opposed to a chancey long pass play), or a layup in golf (as opposed to going for the pin, and risk­ing fly­ing the green). Hon­estly, I was hop­ing for Evan Bayh, even though I knew that giv­ing the Repub­li­cans a Sen­ate seat on a sil­ver plat­ter made HIS selec­tion unlikely; and leav­ing him aside, a sur­prise choice like Hillary Rod­ham Clin­ton was begin­ning to look bet­ter and bet­ter to me, prob­a­bly thanks (in no small mea­sure) to Pam’s increas­ingly pur­sua­sive argu­ments in her favor.

    Indeed, the first thing she and I dis­cussed after read­ing the news was — what hap­pens if McCain picks a woman?

    I think John McCain has a huge oppor­tu­nity next week, to ‘go for the pin’ and name (say) Kay Bai­ley Hutchin­son of Texas as his run­ning mate. She is a known quan­tity with a solid debat­ing style from a big state.….and I think she could get him into the White House.…and iron­i­cally enough, put her self on the path to the pres­i­dency — thanks to dis­af­fected HRC sup­port­ers (and ulti­mately, thanks to Sen­a­tor Clinton’s own tire­less efforts)

    The fall cam­paign would con­sist of grind­ing over all but Obama’s lengthy sen­ate careers and votes, and in the end.….which ticket will still have enough fizz to win? A woman run­ning with McCain is the one sce­nario that scares me; Obama/Biden won’t be a pushover, but McCain/credible woman would be the Republican’s best choice

  5. Judith said on August 23rd, 2008 at 10:01 am

    Joe Biden – expe­ri­ence and intel­lect. And Biden is always ready to present his views and well as to debate them. Biden is one of the few long-serving sen­a­tors who has not amassed wealth dur­ing his terms. He will add to the con­cept of a Lincoln-like ticket with his life print.

  6. Judith said on August 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am

    Why are my com­ments sub­ject to a thirty-minute “edi­to­r­ial option” when oth­ers do not seem to be?

  7. brian stouder said on August 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 am

    Judith — I think they all are. I fixed two mis-spellings on my 10 am post just now

  8. Judith said on August 23rd, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Thanks, Brian! I could read your 10 a.m. post just after I sub­mit­ted my 10:01 a.m. one. So I thought yours went right through while mine was invis­i­ble to every­body until edited.

  9. James said on August 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 am

    Has this been con­firmed, aside from the AP report?

    I have a wacky vision of him com­ing up with Chuck Hagel at the last minute, and the whole Biden thing was a feint.

    I can dream, can’t I?

  10. Judith said on August 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am

  11. nancy said on August 23rd, 2008 at 11:44 am

    Every­one can edit their own com­ments, but no one else’s, which is why you’ll see “edit this” on your own, only.

    Biden. Sigh. I iz dis­ap­pointed. But Alex is right. Bet­ter Bayh in the Sen­ate than Souder or Pence.

  12. Judith said on August 23rd, 2008 at 12:13 pm

    Thanks, Nancy,
    As you can see I am not pro­fi­cient on the use of the computer!

    Sylvia Smith first wrote about the dilemna of a Daniel’s appoint­ment to the Sen­ate to fill Bayh’s seat. And Alex’s point of Souder or Pence is very chill­ing to consider!

  13. Mark West said on August 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    I have a pre-release copy of Biden’s accep­tance speech: “Four score and seven years ago…” Already been done? No, he wrote it first!

    Odd choice in my book.

  14. Catherine said on August 23rd, 2008 at 12:47 pm

    I’m giv­ing Biden the thumbs up. But, what Brian said about McCain choos­ing a woman. Eliz­a­beth Dole or even Condi Rice would be other inter­est­ing choices for him. Although it’s beyond me, how any self-respecting woman could agree to be on a ticket with a man who called his wife the c-word (sorry, after 40-whatever years I still can’t say it).

  15. Gasman said on August 23rd, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    I think Biden was pos­si­bly the best choice for sev­eral rea­sons. First, he has been the ONLY per­son in Wash­ing­ton to enun­ci­ate a sen­si­ble plan for Iraq. Last year he was advo­cat­ing a loose fed­eral sys­tem with strong semi-independent regional states. I’m will­ing to bet you 1000 to one that an Iraqi state based upon the present map will be short lived– thank you George. Once Sadam was gone, there was noth­ing to bind Iraq to its his­toric bor­ders. Iraq’s bor­ders were an arti­fi­cial con­struct drawn up by Euro­pean pow­ers with­out regard to lan­guage, reli­gious, and eth­nic dif­fer­ences in the region. Biden rec­og­nizes this and has sug­gested a path toward more sta­ble states that would pro­vide for the least amount of blood­shed. If the goal was to pro­vide a sta­ble Iraq with the same bor­ders, we’ve pretty much blown it. Look at the for­mer Yugoslavia; with Tito gone, there was noth­ing that could hold it together save another ruth­less dic­ta­tor. So will go Iraq.

    Biden also has a brain and is not afraid to use it. He is also no shrink­ing vio­let and is unlikely to suf­fer the idi­otic cam­paign b.s. of the McCain camp. They still think that they can win a con­test for who is the least elit­ist, just as soon as they get a firm count on McCain’s homes.

    As for Richard­son being a bet­ter choice, don’t you believe it. Buf­fet Bill has been our Gov. for sev­eral years now and he was my LAST choice — save for Hillary. Richard­son is smart enough, but for twenty years I’ve said that Richard­son was run­ning for pres­i­dent. He isn’t exactly dis­hon­est, but he hasn’t made a sin­gle deci­sion ever that he didn’t weigh against his White House bid. If it hap­pens to coin­cide with the best inter­ests of New Mex­i­cans, great. If not, well too damn bad for us. The Buf­fet Bill moniker was bestowed upon the Gov. by me for a rather insen­si­tive inci­dent in 2004. Lieber­man was throw­ing a party in Albu­querque and the Gov. had his state police escorts and dri­ver top 110 m.p.h. on the high­way so he could be first in line at the buf­fet. Never mind the hap­less New Mex­i­cans in his path. Damn the tor­pe­does! He’s also been known to use the National Guard heli­copters for other such triv­ial non­sense. I find him a might regal. He also appears to have no ide­o­log­i­cal under­pin­ning other than to be pro-Richardson. That said, he is infi­nitely prefer­able to the top to scum­bags we have now.

    My beef with Hillary is solely based upon her weaselly con­duct regard­ing the war in Iraq. She had an oppor­tu­nity to exhibit real lead­er­ship and courage and she blew it. Had she opposed the war from the start I am firmly con­vinced she would be the Demo­c­ra­tic nom­i­nee and not Obama. I know that I would have been her most ardent supporter.

    Biden will do just fine. We absolutely need some­one that the rest of the world will take seri­ously and can help repair the dam­age done by Pres­i­dent Cheney and his yap­ping poo­dle W.

  16. Dexter said on August 23rd, 2008 at 1:22 pm

    I have felt it would be Biden for a long time, and Biden it is. What a con­trast to Cheney he will be!
    I would call Obama/Biden openly hos­tile towards Iran, and Biden has this 3-way divi­sion plan for Iraq as we all know, so this will be inter­est­ing.
    I caught Ahmadine­jad on with Char­lie Rose; Rose baited him but Ahmadine­jad held his ground in stat­ing he wants world-wide total nuclear dis­ar­ma­ment, and to use nuclear power only to power the coun­tries.
    Remem­ber, Obama is really mis­trust­ful of Iran’s lead­er­ship, and Biden wants to shake the hell out of Iraq, so this will be worth watch­ing.
    We all know Lieber­man (McInsane’s poo­dle) has screamed into our liv­ing rooms how Iran should already have been bombed, and I feel a McCain/Lieberman win would ensure a Jan­u­ary 21 bomb­ing of Iran.
    Do you believe Ahmadine­jad only wants to light up Iran’s elec­tric plants and not make bombs? I won­der who can prove Iran really wants to make bombs , or who will cre­ate an atmos­phere of Iran-hatred, spiced with lies that we need to bomb Iran.
    McCain and his buddy Lieber­man are on the record…this is one rea­son why we must for­get 21-year old pla­gia­rism and aneurysm old-news sto­ries and elect Pres­i­dent Barack Obama/Vice Pres­i­dent Joe Biden.

  17. Dorothy said on August 23rd, 2008 at 1:48 pm

    Dex­ter, ya took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks for say­ing it so well.

  18. Laura said on August 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm

    Biden? Feh. He’s kind of a blowhard, imo.

  19. Cynthia said on August 23rd, 2008 at 3:21 pm

    Biden? The Repul­bi­cans are going to have a field day with this pick. The man whose judge­ment we’re all sup­posed to trust isn’t show­ing much. Here’s a good arti­cle about Biden from 2001. The man’s a flake.

    http://​www​.tnr​.com/​c​o​l​u​m​n​i​s​t​s​/​s​t​o​r​y​.​h​t​m​l​?​i​d​=​b​a​9​b​0​9​b​b​-​e​d​0​1​-​4​5​8​2​-​b​6​e​c​-​4​4​4​8​3​4​c​9​d​f​7​3​&​a​m​p​;​k​=93697

  20. Cynthia said on August 23rd, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Here’s another arti­cle about Biden from Time mag­a­zine after Biden’s pla­gia­rism escapade while run­ning for Pres in ’88:

  21. derwood said on August 23rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm

    Biden is a good safe choice. He is 65 and would serve for 8 years(assuming Obama is in for 8 years) with­out the issue of him run­ning for Pres­i­dent at the end of 8. I could be wrong, but I don’t see Biden run­ning in 2016 at age 73…but hell McCain is doing it.

    Bayh would have been good but los­ing the Sen­ate seat killed his chances.

    back to MSNBC

    daron

  22. brian stouder said on August 23rd, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Cyn­thia — I think both your arti­cles point up strengths of Biden, rather than weak­nesses. The first one (from New Repub­lic) high­lights a Tru­manesque (in the best sense) qual­ity, wherein he will give a per­son hell, and do it with a smile on his face. As Tru­man said “I don’t give them Hell. I just tell the truth about them and they think it’s Hell.”, and that’s pre­cisely what Biden rightly did with those pre­sump­tu­ous, uni­formed air­line indus­try lob­bi­ests (Amtrak and com­muter rail ser­vice in gen­eral stands to ben­e­fit many more work-a-day Amer­i­cans, EVERY day, than air­line sub­si­dies ever will).

    The sec­ond arti­cle, from Time, nicely mows the overblown “pla­gia­rism” charge back down to size

    Biden in the past had given credit to Kin­nock, but in Iowa he intro­duced the fiery rhetoric by decep­tively claim­ing, “I started think­ing as I was com­ing over here …”

    A missed attri­bu­tion after repeated, cor­rect attri­bu­tion, is very dif­fer­ent from “plagiarism”.

    Biden strikes me as a scrappy politi­cian and speaker, and a happy warrior.…and it is reas­sur­ing to know that if the oppo­si­tion wants to reduce the pres­i­den­tial elec­tion down to an alley fight, that my man Obama has a run­ning­mate beside him who will not hes­i­tate to kick the liv­ing shit out of all com­ers, and do it with a smile on his face!

  23. Judith said on August 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    Well writ­ten, Brian!!! And I agree the strengths of Biden come through in those articles!!!

  24. coozledad said on August 23rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm

    We’re still reg­is­ter­ing a lot of first time Demo­c­ra­tic vot­ers in a Repub­li­can strong­hold. And we’re fol­low­ing up with the county board of elec­tions web­site because the Repub­li­cans have let it slip that their only strat­egy down here is voter sup­pres­sion. The appoint­ment of Hans Von Spakovski to the US Com­mis­sion on Civil Rights is ample demon­stra­tion of that.
    [talk­ing points memo]

  25. MichaelG said on August 23rd, 2008 at 6:41 pm

    Von Spakovski. The Bushies are relent­less, aren’t they? What does it say when L. I. Libby walks free while Mar­ion Jones rots in jail, her plea for pres­i­den­tial mercy unacknowledged?

  26. Gasman said on August 23rd, 2008 at 8:04 pm

    In reread­ing some of the ear­lier posts, I think that some of you are extremely insult­ing to Hillary’s sup­port­ers. Do you really think that they would be swayed by McCain choos­ing Eliz­a­beth Dole or Kay Bai­ley Hutchin­son? Hutchin­son is a blonde Hitler in drag. As some­one who did time in Texas, I would rather eat my own spleen than to see her as V.P. Both Dole and KBH project a cer­tain gen­til­ity, but then so did all of the belles while their slaves were sold, beaten, or worked to death. As long as you appear to be charm­ing who cares how appalling your politics.

    The three things that Hillary has in com­mon with Dole and KBH are two boobs and a vagina. If that is the extent of their sup­port for Hillary, then they are idiots. As I stated in my post above, if Hillary had shown courage and opposed the war, I would have been her biggest sup­porter. I con­tend that the deci­sion to wage an unjust war in Iraq was the sin­gle great­est for­eign pol­icy blun­der in the his­tory of this coun­try. I am all for hav­ing a woman pres­i­dent, but not just any woman, and cer­tainly not any of the three just mentioned.

    Only a peawit votes based upon a candidate’s genitalia.

  27. brian stouder said on August 23rd, 2008 at 8:41 pm

    Sud­denly, I ‘get’ why you sign your­self ‘Gasman’!

  28. Gasman said on August 23rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm

    I’ve never been one to remain silent, how­ever, I have been rel­a­tively and unchar­ac­ter­is­ti­cally quiet since Jan. of 2001. My wife is a for­eign national and I have seen ret­ri­bu­tion meted out to nobod­ies who hap­pened to have a visa or green card sim­ply because they, or a fam­ily mem­ber, or even their gov­ern­ment hadn’t taken a def­er­en­tial enough tone to Bush. My in laws have been rousted at the Cana­dian bor­der. Why? Because it’s obvi­ous that the next great threat to our national secu­rity comes from sep­tu­a­ge­nar­ian Canadians.

    Upon instruc­tions from the White House and the State Depart­ment, bor­der guards have been instructed to engage in a low level has­sle cam­paign of Cana­dian cit­i­zens. Why? Because Canada had the audac­ity to be a truly free nation and to exer­cise its right to chart their own course. It hap­pens more often than you’d imag­ine. If you know any Cana­di­ans, ask them.

    I have great hope that a new non-Republican Admin­is­tra­tion will bring us back from the brink of a fas­cist dic­ta­tor­ship where schmucks like me don’t need to be afraid to speak out for fear of the depor­ta­tion of a spouse.

    I have found my voice and I damn well am going to use it.

  29. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 pm

    Speak all you want, Gas, because there ain’t no fas­cist dic­ta­tor­ship on offer. The choice is how much pater­nal­ism of what sort we’ll set­tle for, and we dis­agree on the rel­a­tive tell-you-what-to-do-ism of the two major parties.

    Lit­tle pla­toons, folks, lit­tle pla­toons. Some pre­fer the atten­tive care of a large insti­tu­tion if its based far enough away (but the devil is in the detail of del­e­ga­tion), and think com­mu­nity influ­ences are always stul­ti­fy­ing, provin­cial, and need smash­ing to reach true lib­er­a­tion. Those are the ones who feared the lit­tle pla­toons of Burke and Toc­queville, and wel­comed the Lit­tle Corporal.

    And recall that Beethoven angrily scratched out Napoleon’s name to change his great sym­phony to “Heroic/Eroica” when he saw what that kind of lib­er­at­ing pater­nal­ism does to cre­ativ­ity and cul­ture and community.

    I know, the early 19th cen­tury isn’t the best place to draw illus­tra­tions for the 2008 elec­tion. And Obama isn’t Bona­parte. But we really ought to be over our early 20th cen­tury fear of Bab­bitt and embrace our inner hob­bit — push deci­sions where you can to the local sphere, and limit power in the fed­eral gov­ern­ment. I’ll vote for Democ­rats who lean that way.

    (Indi­ana folk who want to prove me wrong quickly, if not com­pre­hen­sively, can sim­ply say two words — “town­ship trustees.” My case is flawed if only on that sim­ple argument.)

  30. Gasman said on August 23rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm

    Jeff(tmmo),
    Add to that “school boards.” Pol­i­tics doesn’t get more local or pissy and incom­pe­tent. When I look to local and state gov­ern­ments from Indi­ana (Ft. Wayne), Michi­gan (Detroit), Texas (Dal­las), New Mex­ico (Albu­querque and Santa Fe), I don’t see gov­ern­ment improv­ing as it becomes more prox­i­mate. That is an old saw closely linked to the oxy­moronic term “state’s rights” which of course are non-existent. In my expe­ri­ence the least effi­cient, most incom­pe­tent, and most cor­rupt gov­ern­ments tend to be the most local.

    I’ll also stack the record of lib­er­al­ism against con­ser­vatism any day. What are the great last­ing achieve­ments of con­ser­vatism? I can think of none save some of the worst finan­cial and for­eign pol­icy deba­cles in our his­tory. When you list those accom­plish­ments that have brought us greater lib­erty, they are prob­a­bly lib­eral in con­cep­tion and lead­er­ship, start­ing with the very notion of our democracy.

  31. brian stouder said on August 23rd, 2008 at 11:40 pm

    OK Jeff — “Town­ship Trustees”.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you very much.

    And, Gas­man  — 

    I have great hope that a new non-Republican Admin­is­tra­tion will bring us back from the brink of a fas­cist dic­ta­tor­ship where schmucks like me don’t need to be afraid to speak out for fear of the depor­ta­tion of a spouse.

    Hmm­m­mmm, let’s see. The last pres­i­dent (non-Republican or oth­er­wise) who ordered the sum­mary round-up of Amer­i­can cit­i­zens, peo­ple who had done noth­ing wrong at all, other than being born the wrong race, it was Franklin Delano Roo­sevelt, and tens of thou­sands of inno­cent Amer­i­cans ended up as detainees.

    By way of say­ing, Al Qaeda’s 9/11 sur­prise attacks killed more peo­ple than Japan’s strike against Pearl Har­bor — so maybe one can take a breath and recon­sider our recent his­tory, at least a lit­tle bit

  32. Gasman said on August 24th, 2008 at 12:39 am

    Jeff(tmmo)
    And George Bush’s actions has led to the deaths of more Amer­i­cans than the actions of Osama Bin Laden. There is no excuse for the whole­sale vio­la­tions of rights by Roo­sevelt. It is another exam­ple of what hap­pens when we debase our val­ues and slip into Us vs. Them. It is no bet­ter when from a lib­eral. At the same time as Roo­sevelt, South­ern con­ser­v­a­tive Democ­rats were lynch­ing and ter­ror­iz­ing blacks via Jim Crow. I’ll see your injus­tice and raise you one.

    We used to think of our­selves as the guys in the white hats. We used to honor habeas cor­pus, free speech, the right of assem­bly, reli­gious free­dom, and democ­racy. We used to pun­ish as war crim­i­nals those who engage in the kind of tor­ture that we now use, that our pres­i­dent says is not tor­ture at all.

    I did not say that lib­er­als are free from sin or faults. They just are the ones who con­sis­tently have chal­lenged the Amer­i­can peo­ple to strive for some­thing bet­ter in regards to our lib­er­ties. Are all lib­er­als equal in their adher­ence to the angels of our bet­ter nature? Hell no. I will still accept the chal­lenge from any­body that con­tends that con­ser­vatism has any kind of record to be proud of.

  33. Catherine said on August 24th, 2008 at 1:24 am

    Gas­man, my sug­ges­tion about McCain choos­ing a female run­ning mate was not about pan­der­ing to Hillary’s sup­port­ers, but about mak­ing an inter­est­ing, out-of-the-box choice, that might say, “I’m more prag­matic and mod­er­ate than you might think.” I agree that most of Hillary’s sup­port­ers will not vote for a Repub­li­can. That’s not what I was suggesting.

    At the same time, sug­gest­ing that gen­der is the same as gen­i­talia makes me won­der what rock you’ve been hid­ing under for the last 30 years. But your com­ment about “gen­til­ity’ basi­cally gives the whole thing away, any­way. That was the kind of sex­ist non­sense that under­mined Hillary’s can­di­dacy — NOT her posi­tion on the war.

  34. moe99 said on August 24th, 2008 at 1:55 am

    Here’s an inter­est­ing piece about Biden. I didn’t know his first wife and baby daugh­ter were killed in a car acci­dent right after he was first elected to the Sen­ate. He com­muted DAILY back to Delaware to be with his young sons.

    http://​tinyurl​.com/​68am2u

    He’s also one of the poor­est mem­bers of the Senate.

    http://​www​.opense​crets​.org/​p​f​d​s​/​o​v​e​r​v​i​e​w​.​p​h​p​?​t​y​p​e​=​W​&​a​m​p​;​y​e​a​r​=​2​0​0​6​&​a​m​p​;​f​i​l​t​e​r​=​S​&​a​m​p​;​sort=A

  35. moe99 said on August 24th, 2008 at 2:58 am

    Oh, and Cather­ine, I’m a female attor­ney, been one for 32 years and have suf­fered my own expe­ri­ences with sex­ual dis­crim­i­na­tion and sur­vived but not for­got­ten. And I absolutely REFUSED to sup­port Hillary because of her posi­tion on the war. There are a lot more of us out there than you seem to think.l

  36. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24th, 2008 at 7:42 am

    I do like Biden, as a men­sch, and if Obama is elected, it does make me glad he will be in the admin­is­tra­tion. Gas­man, i know you don’t think lib­er­al­ism is with­out flaw, and i appre­ci­ate know­ing you know that i don’t say that about con­ser­v­a­tives, either.

    What has con­ser­vatism done right? I just got done read­ing tran­scripts of most of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and i will claim Lin­coln and the fight, which became a lit­eral one, to end slav­ery. It wasn’t conservative/Republican only by a long shot, but when you look at Dou­glas and his party in 1860 and the appalling McClel­lan in 1864 put for­ward as the heart and soul of the Demo­c­ra­tic Party … yep, i’m claim­ing that.

    Read Whit­taker Cham­bers’ “Wit­ness.” Robert Taft was no prize, and even young Richard Nixon was cringe –induc­ing, plus that Joe from Wis­con­sin feller. But the “long, dark strug­gle” that was Leninism-Stalinism through the 30’s and into the imme­di­ate post-WWII period — con­ser­vatism can’t be tossed over­board because of one cabin boy with a drink­ing prob­lem called McCarthy. There was a very aggres­sive, mur­der­ous effort to over­throw democ­racy, and Democ­rats had no stom­ach for the strug­gle. If the CPUSA hadn’t been so will­ing to dis­card and kill its own, the tide could have swung against the ship right onto the rocks. (Yes, i think it proven Hiss was a spy — has noth­ing to do with whether Nixon became a cretin in the 60’s and 70’s.)

    Much of what con­ser­vatism accom­plishes, though, is not in the nature of grand, nation­ally vis­i­ble mon­u­ments and pro­grams — by def­i­n­i­tion. But i will say, out of my own direct expe­ri­ence, that wel­fare reform was a huge pos­i­tive step for­ward for lit­er­ally mil­lions. Now, we have to fig­ure out the sim­ple (to me) math that remov­ing 77% of the wel­fare rolls doesn’t mean we cut that bud­get by 77%, because we’re down to the most chal­lenged, most impaired, hard­est to assist folk, and some of the for­mu­las were doomed to fail when 60 months hit these pop­u­la­tions. I give Bill Clin­ton credit for sign­ing it, how­ever will­ingly or not, but it was a con­ser­v­a­tive ini­tia­tive, passed by con­ser­v­a­tives, that is work­ing in most com­mu­ni­ties because of the solid back­stop of con­ser­v­a­tive folk work­ing to cre­ate a more dynamic buffer for the peo­ple who need shorter-term, non-formulaic, non-entitlement-based aid.

    To sum up, Grover Norquist does not only not rep­re­sent con­ser­vatism, i’d argue that he isn’t a con­ser­v­a­tive. He’s a reac­tionary rad­i­cal with a bad atti­tude. And i know lib­er­al­ism can claim much (i hap­pened to love Carville’s book, re: SS and Medicare and such), but con­ser­vatism has plenty on the black side of the ledger book.

  37. alex said on August 24th, 2008 at 9:00 am

    Town­ship trustees… Aren’t those the guys young unwed moth­ers fuck for food stamps? I guess as vot­ers it’s our duty to pick grotesquely ugly ones so as to keep the poor rolls down.

  38. Gasman said on August 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    The liberal/conservative debate has until quite recently had almost no party affil­i­a­tion. There have been times when either party was more of one than the other and times when both had rep­re­sen­ta­tion in both camps. I con­tend that the surest def­i­n­i­tion of con­ser­vatism comes from a pref­er­ence for a top down, elit­ist, or even aris­to­cratic style of gov­ern­ment. That argu­ment pre­dates the con­sti­tu­tion and seems to be at the heart of most of the causes that con­ser­v­a­tives have held dear.

    This would encom­pass the con­ser­v­a­tive pen­chants for aggre­gate rights over indi­vid­ual rights, the canard of “state’s rights”, prop­erty rights, their early addic­tion to slav­ery and sub­se­quently their quest for the holy grail of zero-cost labor (essen­tially slav­ery with a smi­ley face), cor­po­rate wel­fare, and the religious-like zeal for the free mar­ket. These threads seem to be a con­stant in con­ser­v­a­tive pol­i­tics. I don’t even think that the reli­gious issues are core to con­ser­vatism. I think they are affected every four years to mobi­lize the evan­gel­i­cal foot sol­diers and quickly for­got­ten once elec­tions are over.

    Party has almost noth­ing to do with the L/C labels. By the above def­i­n­i­tion Lin­coln was clearly the social lib­eral and Dou­glas and McClel­lan the conservatives.

  39. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24th, 2008 at 3:47 pm

    Well, then con­ser­v­a­tives become “peo­ple i don’t like” and lib­er­als are “peo­ple i like.” Or, con­ser­v­a­tives are the skanky pow­er­mon­gers, and lib­er­als are the oppressed majority.

    I like you, Gas­man, inso­far as one can like a per­son you know only online, but i don’t buy your def­i­n­i­tion of the right wing. Hey, i like Andrew Sul­li­van well enough, too, but his def­i­n­i­tion of “Chris­tian­ist” seems to flex to include any­thing that both­ers him (today) but can always dodge includ­ing incon­ve­nient pos­i­tive expres­sions of faith-based organizations.

    And you’re edg­ing towards the infa­mous WaPo con­struc­tion of “poor, under­e­d­u­cated, and eas­ily led” to define evan­gel­i­cal Chris­tians. It just doesn’t hold up if you get out in the mid­dle of them — we aren’t “foot sol­dier” drones that oper­ate on a radio con­troller with two switches and an on/off button.

    Wait, i just got an e-mail from Paul Weyrich: gotta go. Pro­les to exploit, y’know.

  40. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    BTW, i’ll take 9 out of 10 school boards any day over a state edu­ca­tion bureau­cracy. The Mrs. Grundys and Mr. Com­stocks grab a school board or two here and there and make a splash, but most are pub­lic ser­vants with­out salary and amaz­ing work ethics. State sen­a­tors are often cr4pweasels, who can’t be trusted with a Girl Scout cookie sale let alone the state bud­get, but some­how school boards come in for the bulk of the stereo­typed distaste.

    Give the choice between a long din­ner seated between two school board mem­bers and two state sen­a­tors, and my choice is an easy one. Alex is right, though, if you’re seated next to most town­ship trustees, feign vom­it­ing before they pour the bev­er­ages and run for the door. I don’t under­stand how that sys­tem became quite as toxic as it gen­er­ally is, but it is.

  41. Gasman said on August 24th, 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Jeff(tmmo)
    I agree with you 100% regard­ing state edu­ca­tional bureau­cracy. I’ve inter­acted with them as a cit­i­zen and as a teacher. In each state I’ve lived they seemed to have dredged the bot­tom of the each state’s human­ity barrel.

    As far as my polit­i­cal opin­ions go, I stand as great a chance of being wrong/right as the next schmuck. I just like the idea of being able to say my piece with­out fear that my wife will be deported. Ain’t Amer­ica grand?

    My wife and I have been active in Habi­tat for Human­ity for about 20 years. In the cities where we have lived, the evan­gel­i­cals have had the least par­tic­i­pa­tion in Habi­tat. Habi­tat is ecu­meni­cal, but has an overtly Chris­t­ian mis­sion state­ment right out of the New Tes­ta­ment. My expe­ri­ence is anec­do­tal to be sure, but in this Christian’s expe­ri­ence our local evan­gel­i­cals seemed to be less inter­ested in putting Christ’s words in action (at least as far as Habi­tat is con­cerned) and more inter­ested in a con­sti­tu­tional ban on gay mar­riage. It’s had a very neg­a­tive “evan­gel­i­cal” impact upon me. They have seemed aloof toward us main­lin­ers when it comes to any kind of ecu­meni­cal mis­sion. Not a sci­en­tif­i­cally valid study, merely my direct experience.

  42. Jeff (the mild-mannered one) said on August 24th, 2008 at 4:48 pm

    Ow. That’s more than unfor­tu­nate. I will say fun­da­men­tal­ist folk spend more time wor­ry­ing about doc­tri­nal purity than part­ner­ship, and i spent *no* time sweat­ing to get them aboard the two Habi­tat start-ups i’ve worked … but my fel­low main­lin­ers, lib­eral and con­ser­v­a­tive, have usu­ally been star­tled by how ecu­meni­cal Charis­mat­ics are. They’ll say “yeah, i think you’re going to Hell if you don’t get right with God,” but with a smile, and while still stir­ring the mor­tar trough. I can work with that. Snide fundies, though, who just mon­key wrench com­mu­nity part­ner­ships, are the plague of my Mid­west­ern existence.

    And i think they recruit upper-echelon INS folk from the same bol­gia they dredge state BoE slot-fillers out of. Sorry you have to self-edit, for any rea­son! (cf. Voltaire, defend to the death, your right to say it, etc.)

  43. Catherine said on August 24th, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    moe, you are right and I over­stated it. And I bow to your world experience.

    What frosted me with Hillary’s run, and con­tin­ues to frost me, is how quickly the crit­i­cism veers from pol­icy to gender-oriented per­sonal attacks. I can respect pol­icy dis­agree­ments. But when was the last time a male can­di­date was dissed as a drag queen, or called gen­teel or a belle?

  44. Gasman said on August 24th, 2008 at 8:11 pm

    Cather­ine,
    Absolutely no gen­der bash­ing was intended by my remarks regard­ing Eliz­a­beth Dole or Kay Bai­ley Huc­thin­son. I abhor their pol­i­tics, not their gen­der. I believe that their pub­lic images are affected to a fairly large degree and to the extent that they are, I am crit­i­cal. I lived in Texas and have had a much higher dose of KBH already. I’m not buyin’ the act. I must be allowed to crit­i­cize what I believe to be a politician’s affected pub­lic veneer with­out the charge of sexism.

    Ten years ago I was ecsta­tic at the thought of Hillary Clin­ton as pres­i­dent. It gave me great plea­sure to think of the wring­ing of hands and the gnash­ing of teeth amongst the con­ser­v­a­tives at the notion of her as pres­i­dent. I gen­er­ally like her poli­cies and I think she artic­u­lates them well. My non-support for her comes down her sup­port for the war in Iraq. I think that she showed extremely bad judge­ment and got that one wrong. For me, diehard sup­porter that I was, that was and is a deal breaker.

  45. Linda said on August 24th, 2008 at 8:45 pm

    Tbogg said it best: “…the idea of Obama choos­ing Joe Biden as his run­ning mate is kind of like get­ting under­wear for Christ­mas. You know that you can use it, but it’s not exactly what you were hop­ing for.” But that’s o.k. I think Obama needed an old white guy who has been in the pub­lic eye for a long time to con­vince more ner­vous Amer­i­cans that the world wouldn’t turn upside down if he was elected.

  46. Hattie said on August 25th, 2008 at 12:06 am

    Nice to get some var­ied per­spec­tives here.

  47. moe99 said on August 25th, 2008 at 10:34 am

    Some­one said this morn­ing, Obama’s choice was rem­i­nis­cent of Jfk select­ing LBJ as his run­ning mate. Also was done to inoc­u­late against charges of inexperience.

  48. brian stouder said on August 25th, 2008 at 10:51 am

    And indeed — other than Grover Cleve­land — when has any non-incumbent ever NOT been “inex­pe­ri­enced”? The job is unique; and indeed — what “expe­ri­ence” did the 42 year old Teddy Roo­sevelt bring? (or for that mat­ter, the 52 year old Lin­coln, who had been a state leg­is­la­tor and a one-term con­gress­man from Illinois)

  49. MichaelG said on August 25th, 2008 at 11:55 am

    Gas­man, I was mar­ried for 30 years to a for­eign national. After 9 – 11 she went and got her Amer­i­can cit­i­zen­ship. She feared all the same stuff your wife fears. And thanks for your posts. Saves me the trou­ble and you say it bet­ter than I could.

  50. Gasman said on August 25th, 2008 at 2:55 pm

    MichaelG,
    My wife has con­sid­ered try­ing to get dual cit­i­zen­ship but will not do so while Bush is in office. She also has informed me that if McCain wins that we are mov­ing to Canada. I don’t argue with my wife.

    I live very near Los Alamos National Lab, our nation’s pri­mary research and devel­op­ment facil­ity for nuclear weapons. Even though it is a tiny com­mu­nity, it is one with a lot of fed­eral secu­rity types who aren’t overly con­cerned with my civil lib­er­ties. If I had vented in our local paper like I do here — at least any­time in the last 5 – 6 years — I would bet that I would have been con­tacted by the feds or at least had a file started on me. I don’t like being afraid for merely exer­cis­ing rights the con­sti­tu­tions says that I have.

    As a for­eigner, they could deport my wife with­out cause. We could fight it, but at what cost and how long would it take?

  51. Scout said on August 25th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    This is one of the most amaz­ing com­ment sec­tions I have seen any­where. Kudos, Nancy, you’re evi­dence that smart attracts smart.

    I wasn’t ecsta­tic when I heard the Biden announce­ment, but I have done my research since and am very com­fort­able with the choice. We have to remem­ber there is more at stake here than our lit­tle dream team fan­tasies. There is a boat­load of wrongs to right and to even get a toe­hold we have to win the elec­tion first.

    I am very impressed with Biden’s rel­a­tive lifestyle sim­plic­ity, it’s going to play well along side of Obama’s self made man story. Johnny Ten House’s elit­ist charges are look­ing sil­lier by the day. Not a win­ning strat­egy by his team, but I’m not really complaining.

  52. brian stouder said on August 25th, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Johnny Ten House’s elit­ist charges are look­ing sil­lier by the day

    A great line!! I am steal­ing it, for imme­di­ate, repeated, and unat­trib­uted use!

  53. Scout said on August 26th, 2008 at 3:11 pm

    Brian, It’s all yours! Apply liberally!