What the heck, let’s have a Biden thread.
Kathy at The G Spot, although pointing out Biden’s positives — such as VAWA — has some reasons progressives should be unhappy:
Biden’s record on choice is weak. He’s nominally pro-choice, but he supported the ban on so-called “partial birth” abortions, opposes public funding for abortion, and received a none-too-encouraging rating of 60% from NARAL last year. But what concerns me even more are his votes in favor of limiting the estate tax and “reforming” bankruptcy law. The bankruptcy bill, in particular, was an abomination, and his vote in favor of it was unconscionable. That bill will ruin peoples’ lives — in fact, I’m sure it has already. I’ve heard the rationale that since Biden is from Delaware, he’s “the senator from MBNA” by default, but I don’t buy that excuse. Does anyone really think Biden, who’s held his senate seat for longer than most Americans have been alive, would have suddenly become politically vulnerable if he’d voted differently? I doubt it. It’s not like opposing the bill would have been unpopular with the voters.
Then there’s a whole other issue — call it, the asshole factor. Biden is a hothead and a blowhard, and he’s well-known for his habit of making gaffes and unfortunate remarks. Here are some of his greatest hits:
(You’ll have to click through to Kathy’s to read the greatest hits!)
Meanwhile Ezra argues that the choice of Biden should please progressives:
For progressives, this is encouraging pick. More encouraging than Bayh, or Kaine, or even, in a way, Sebelius. More encouraging than picks who might have been more progressive, but less pugnacious. Elevating Biden suggests that the Obama campaign has decided to have an argument. Not try to win on momentum and inspiration and GOTV, but to engage, and win, an argument about which set of ideas is better for the future of the country. And in Biden, they’ve engaged at the point of greatest vulnerability and opportunity for Democrats: National security.
A political history of the past few years in Democratic politics is a history of the party’s failed attempts to dance away from foreign policy discussions. There was the Thomas Frank school of thought: Pivot from “national security to economic insecurity.” There was the George Lakoff approach: Reframe the language. There was the Kerry approach: “How can they be opening firehouses in Baghdad and closing them in Boise?” But even if these approaches had succeeded — they didn’t — they would still have bespoke long-term weakness in the Democratic Party: A fundamental inability to win arguments about American foreign policy.
A Democrat has not been elected during wartime in over 50 years. A healthy party cannot only prosper when the world is at peace and the waters are quiet. But seven years of Republican incompetence and failure have generated tremendous mistrust in the conservative foreign policy approach. Iraq was a historic blunder, Osama bin Laden is loose, America’s international standing is dismal. There’s an opening for Democrats to press the advantage, argue that they, in fact, have the better record, and the sounder ideas, on national security. But they have to actually engage the argument. They can’t hope that events will do the work for them. Picking Biden, the Obama campaign signaled that this is a project they want to take on, and a project they realize will have to be engaged affirmatively and aggressively.
I think both Kathy and Ezra make good cases, and in my usual wishy-washy fashion I agree with them both. But it’s D-Day who wrote something that had me screaming “yes! SO true!” at my computer monitor: ((Well, not really. But somewhere inside, I screamed it.))
Actually, who betrayed the public is you, the media, again, because you just couldn’t stand not being insiders for ten minutes and waiting out the pick and maybe using those resources of staking out potential candidates’ homes and working the phones on, I don’t know, illegal wars and torture. The press only breaks out their investigative skills every four years so they can scoop their competition by 20 seconds. Would it have killed them to embargo the story and let the campaign play it out the way they wanted? Would it have mattered to anyone?
This secret was so tantalizing to them, making it necessary to marshal the full resources of the American media, while eight years of secret government and secret law received no such attention. The discovery of the pick was an end in itself, justifying their clubby, insider self-images as the coolest kids in the room. And then, after they’ve undermined the rollout, they blame the candidate.
Curtsy: Auguste. (And see here for more well-earned press-bashing.)
Yes, yes, and yes. I’d like Biden to have voted against the soi disant partial birth ban, I’d like him to have voted in favor of marriage equality, I’d like him to be in favor of using taxpayer money on abortion. But he authored VAWA, he’s been consistently pro-choice on the central question of abortion, and he led the fight against Robert Bork.
In short, he’s not perfect, but he’s not Joe Lieberman, either. And he got off enough good shots at McCain today that I think he’s going to be just fine.
I think it is evidence of how totally jaded I have become about politics that my very first reaction to hearing the news was something along the lines of: “Hahaha! Oh, excellent. Biden’s a laugh riot, and he makes the most appalling gaffes. This should make for great entertainment!”
Yes, it has come to this. I’ve so utterly lost hope that things will ever get better that all I want now from the political sphere is a steady stream of cheap yuks.
I guess the war (which Biden voted for) is no longer even an issue?
Two points:
1) While he may not be perfect on reproductive freedom, as a devout Roman Catholic he’s practically a radical (and miles better than damned near any Republican).
2) For many of us, the war is still very much an issue. But which of the Senators who voted against it in 2002 would be a better choice for the ticket? I’ll give Biden this: He’s forthrightly admitted his vote was a mistake.
All things considered, I think he’s a smart choice, and would make good vice president.
He’s forthrightly admitted his vote was a mistake.
I’m sympathetic. I wasn’t exactly pro-war, but I wasn’t exactly anti-war, either. I should have been. I was wrong not to be. But I wasn’t. And had I been in office in 2002, I surely could have convinced myself to vote for the AUMF. And I would have been wrong.
I don’t have a problem with politicians being wrong. Politicians will be wrong. They’re humans, after all. I have a problem with politicians who don’t learn from being wrong. Biden was wrong — and admitted it, and said so, flatly. Yes, it would have been better if he was right in the first place — but since he wasn’t, he’s done the next best thing.
I yearn for the good old days when the veep didn’t really do anything.
I’ve decided that giving Biden the nod was a horrible, horrible mistake.
Gee, I guess abortion’s worth fighting for except for those who can’t afford one. In my opinion, without voting for federal funding support, a candidate is really anti-abortion and definitely anti-choice.
Elkins, I am with you. I know exactly what you mean… to make it worse, I was actually thinking OOOOooohhh, he will eviscerate McCain, and I just wanted to see blood.
Still do, actually.
I vote yes on Biden, because the bloodletting will be fierce, you watch. The “7 kitchen tables” thing is just the beginning.
(((rubs hands in undisguised glee)))
Choosing Biden pretty much shoots down all the “change” rhetoric.
Why, Amp? Biden is literally the best vice presidential candidate ever.
Choosing Biden pretty much shoots down all the “change” rhetoric.
And if you believe that, the logical conclusion is that McCain’s choice of anybody who isn’t himself pretty much shoots down all the “maverick” and “POW means experience w/ foreign policy” rhetoric.
Really, Jed, you need to polish up your own rhetoric first.
While I was perturbed that the story “broke” before Obama officially sent his text message to supporters, I wouldn’t be surprised–at all–if the source of the early Biden story was a leak from the Obama campaign. Perhaps it was an attempt to get two stories out of the same announcement?
His link tends to suggest a lateral displacement of the glossus muscle.
I wouldn’t be surprised–at all–if the source of the early Biden story was a leak from the Obama campaign.
I heard that it was the Secret Service moving in to protect Biden that tipped the press.
This secret was so tantalizing to them, making it necessary to marshal the full resources of the American media, while eight years of secret government and secret law received no such attention.
Blame the media? Nope, sorry. I don’t agree. What the media does is to sell people what they want to buy.
You CAN read or hear coverage of all of the topics that you listed. The reason they don’t lead the news media’s evening shows and appear on the headlines of all the papers is because when a show does do so people get confused, yawn, and skip through to the entertainment section to see if Brittney’s lost that weight she gained during her pregnancy. Why do you think that the only time such stories are on TV are during the Sunday morning talk shows? I figure it’s because no one is watching TV then anyway and they can’t find a show that will cost less to broadcast during that time.
The American public gets the media coverage it is willing to pay for.
In my opinion, without voting for federal funding support, a candidate is really anti-abortion and definitely anti-choice.
Interesting. So if someone is not willing to take my money from me and give it to someone so they can exercise a right, they are actually for depriving everyone of that right? Forgive me, but that seems to me to be a logical re-statement of what you are saying. Am I wrong? If so, I must say I don’t agree. The government is charged to protect you from efforts by it or by others to prevent you from exercising your rights, but that isn’t equivalent to providing you with the financial ability to exercise them.
I have a right to own a gun. If a Senator won’t vote for the government to buy guns for everyone who can’t afford one, does that mean that the Senator is actually against the right to own a gun?
Doesn’t this conflict with the oft-held conservative position that the media has a liberal bias? After all, media conglomerates are only giving customers what they want. If the problem were persistent, an upstart, strapping young competitor would come in, steal market share, and BOOM. The whole concept of a biased – or hell, even a flawed – media is impossible under a free market.
The actual answer is that no, no it’s not, far from it. Look, I agree with you that blaming the media is usually just a cheap, hollow gesture that appeals to the lowest common denominator: the only universal truths about the media shared by people of all ideologies, political or otherwise, is that (1) the media is evil and (2) the media is biased against me and people like me. So yeah, you can’t blame the media for everything.
But the idea that the media is completely blameless, or that they are merely a faceless vector for our collective wants, doesn’t pass muster. It has characteristics and a culture of its own, and lack of journalistic ethics is often one of them. The reason is that the media, like many large scale conglomerates, are disciplined by the market the same way a local government is disciplined by a referendum or a major sports franchise’s management is disciplined by a losing streak: indirectly and over the long term. Even projects to the right the ship can peter out over the long horizon or get lost in the shuffle amidst new management, and if the management is set in its incorrigible ways (or worse, ideologically committed to a certain path), the status quo could probably be maintained for surprisingly long times against moderate consumer pressure.
I don’t agree with the views of some anarchists that the media intentionally tries to force celebrity gossip on us instead of relevant news, because an uninformed populace is a docile one, et cetera. (Certain some sectors of the media might, but there’s also probably energetic idealism on the other side, fresh out of journalism schools and high off the legend of muckrakers and Watergate.) But I don’t find the idea inherently impossible. The media and its customer base are related but not neatly equivocable.
The qualitative difference here is that abortion is a medical procedure, and so the standard of comparison is not gun ownership, but other medical procedures. Sure, abortion is usually elective – and I don’t mean that in a disparaging way at all, but the word “elective” has a meaning – but many aren’t, and for those that aren’t, are they treated and funded the same way as any other medically necessary procedure? That to me seems to be the debate.
Yeah, this is a common line pushed by the right. The Onion made fun of it:
—Myca
Well, I’ll be glad to respond to you, slyphead, but Radfem wrote the statement I quoted and I’d like to see her respond to it.
The qualitative difference here is that abortion is a medical procedure, and so the standard of comparison is not gun ownership, but other medical procedures. Sure, abortion is usually elective – and I don’t mean that in a disparaging way at all, but the word “elective” has a meaning – but many aren’t, and for those that aren’t, are they treated and funded the same way as any other medically necessary procedure? That to me seems to be the debate.
What I’m talking about is whether Radfem meant that to deny to pay for someone who wishes to take advantage of a right but cannot pay for it themselves is equivalent to denying the existence of the right itself. As far as this particular procedure goes it seems as though you’re talking about the standard disclaimer in many abortion opponents’ positions wherein they grant that abortions can be legitimized if they are “necessary to preserve the health of the mother.” Usually this bogs down in a couple of threads where it is argued that all abortions are to be viewed as necessary to preserve the health of the mother because some people hold that if a woman who wants an abortion is denied it and is “forced” to have the child then her mental health is affected and others point out that there are certain health risks to even the most routine pregnancy and birth.
There are conditions wherein just about everyone agrees that pregnancy will cause an extraordinary hazard to the mother’s health. On that basis one would expect that such conditions should be able to be the recipient of public funding to the same extent as other life or health threatening conditions are. But I’m not sure that this is what Radfem is talking about. I suspect that she thinks that any woman who desires but cannot afford an abortion should have access to public funding for them. But she has not responded, so I will not take the argument further unless or until she does.
Doesn’t this conflict with the oft-held conservative position that the media has a liberal bias?
Well, it’s a mixture of both I suppose.
After all, media conglomerates are only giving customers what they want. If the problem were persistent, an upstart, strapping young competitor would come in, steal market share, and BOOM.
I believe they call themselves “FOX News.” And they grabbed a rather large market share, didn’t they? But even then, how much of their coverage is analytical and how much of it is sound bites spun the other way? And how much of it is the same old car chase, fire and here’s the latest kid Angelina Jolie adopted?
Actually this is mostly addressed to those individuals who are arguing about whether or not Biden is truly a pro-choice candidate and if so, what’s his ratings by NARAL and other groups which with him fluctulate widely. My argument is that his opposition to federally funding abortions makes me not view him as being prochoice. Because he’s advocating limitations on who can get abortions and who can’t by what money can be spent. And if feminists buy into that for any reason, even with him being the lesser of two evils on this issue, then they’re selling out a lot of women. Maybe that’s when NARAL gave him a lower score was because of his stance on that issue. Hopefully that’s the case. But it also seemed to me that the Democratic Party’s latest platform on this issue was somewhat different than Biden’s views.
Maybe I’m in the minority among women advocates but I don’t really trust the Democrats with reproductive issues and I think unless there’s serious mobilization of those who do advocate for them, there will be less reason to trust as time goes on.
The interesting thing about guns is that most people seem to be able to get their hands on one if they need to, but one difference is the quality of gun they can afford to buy. Which might be similar to quality of medical care in some cases as well. As for conceal and carry permits, economic circumstances might factor in those in many places as well. I was reading some articles how in some cities with elected sheriffs for example, campaign donors and “friends” are at the top of the lists behind politicians.
Having known women who yes, would die or could die or be seriously injured if they hadn’t gotten abortions, including some who had to hunt down the increasingly elusive late-term abortions. In most cases, they had the money even to travel out of state (especially in the cases of late-term abortions) and in other cases, other women helped them.
So my argument was addressed mainly at those who say they’re prochoice and think Biden’s a great pick b/c of he’s “prochoice”.
Thanks for the clarification, Radfem. I’m not particularly familiar with Sen. Biden or his reasons for opposing a bill that would have (or did – did it pass?) provide federal funding for abortions. Maybe he wanted a slight modification, maybe he’s completely against it under any circumstances, maybe it was due to some other part of the bill altogether?
If a woman has some kind of medical problem wherein the medical opinion is “this woman stands a greater chance than usual that she’ll die in childbirth” I can see where she should have access to whatever kind of state/federal funding for an abortion that would be equivalent to whatever kind of healthcare funding she’s have available to her for other life-threatening conditions. Gad that’s convoluted, but I’m running out of time. OTOH, if there is no such issue then I don’t see why the state should pay for it anymore than they should pay for any other elective procedure.
Pat Kight said:
1) While he may not be perfect on reproductive freedom, as a devout Roman Catholic he’s practically a radical (and miles better than damned near any Republican).
Devout Roman Catholic, eh? Not according to the Roman Catholics.
Bishops don’t ask devout Catholics to refrain from taking Communion. “Pro-choice” and “devout Catholic” are contradictory terms. The Catholic Church is not a democracy. If you don’t go along with doctrine such as “abortion is wrong”, you can’t call yourself a devout Catholic no matter how many times you go to mass and take Communion, especially when your own Bishop has called for people who act as you do to not do so.
If conservatives are to be believed, FOX is the lone conservative outlet amidst a sea of hopelessly liberal bias. If what the media does is to sell people what they want to buy, then this arrangement – four liberal networks* (CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and CBS, I might be missing one or another) versus one conservative one – must accurately represent the balance of demands of the American news-viewing public.
I’m not saying that therefore that corporations conspire against the public – that’s a ridiculous strawman. But equally ridiculous is the notion that corporations only ever exist to serve their customers, so if criticize their behaviour, you are really attacking their customers (and therefore free choice, and therefore America… ). Corporations, including media corporations, ultimately exist to serve their customers and seek to do so, but since market discipline becomes more indirect the larger you get, they may not be doing so in the most effective manner possible. (Compare how a sports franchise deals with a losing streak, though this example is perhaps a little extreme.) Particular management regimes could straddle the company with ideological baggage, but they persist because for large and comfortable companies, the correlation may be hard to prove. Firms aren’t merely neutral agents of aggregate demand; with size and power come characteristics and traits of their own.
This is not to say that we don’t in fact have ourselves to blame for useless, celebrity-driven news; no, on that point, I agree.
*I’m not agreeing here that the media is liberal – I find it quite conservative, though obviously my perspective is clouded. I should think this disclaimer is obvious, but you never can be too careful. Another, better analogy may be Hollywood: it’s categorically impossible for Hollywood to be at odds with American values, because Americans are their customers. (For the sake of argument, ignore global tickets, which for most movies is still only add-on revenue.) In truth, of course, Hollywood does indeed have values much more liberal than its customers. I could go on, but I’d just be repeating arguments I’ve already made.