Joe Biden Says He Won't Use Dem Opponents' Past Against Them:

[Kahuna7]

‘Should Be Debating What We Do From Here'

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/joe-biden-says-he-wont-use-dem-opponents-past-against-them-should-be-deb

Former vice president-turned-2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden said on Thursday that he won’t use the political histories of his Democratic rivals against them.

As Biden faced questions about Senator Kamala Harris digging into his record at last month’s primary debate, CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked him if he was expecting questions about his past positions to be as strong and relevant as they seem.

“I don’t think they’re relevant,” Biden answered, “because they were taken out of context.

“It’s easy to go back 30, 40, 50 years, and take a context completely out of context,” Biden said. “I get all this information about other people’s past and what they’ve done and not done and I’m not going to go there. If we keep doing that — we should be debating what we do from here.”

[bluewater]

1. Is that politician-speak for "Stop talking about my record" ?

[pangaia]

5. sure sounds like it...

[Cha]

221. Well, the poster Got it Wrong...

Joe Biden Has Three Words for Democratic Candidates Who Took Swipes At Him in California

“Specifically responding to things that you’ve said, Bernie Sanders saying you can’t go back to the past, Elizabeth Warren saying…” Saenz continued.

“Who’s going back to the past?” Biden interrupted.

"Look, I understand. I don’t blame them,” Biden continued. “They’ve got to, you know, they’re good folks but, you know, as I said, see you around.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=139584

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-joe-biden-has-three-words-for-democratic-candidates-who-took-swipes-at-him-in-california/

[George II]

6. .

[Zambero]

43. ...

[onetexan]

77. Double smack

[Cary]

131. IKR?

[Autumn]

9. Yes, he knows the other front runners don't have a political career that goes

back 30, 40, 50 years, except for Bernie.

[LakeArenal]

226. Exactly. They all lack experience.

[Autumn]

228. Exactly. He can't go back 30 or 40 years because most of them were what..like 15?

[LakeArenal]

229. Yes not enough experience.

[Autumn]

234. Yes not even in politics yet. So basicly promising he won't do something he can't do.

[LakeArenal]

239. You say potato, I say 🤷🏼‍♀️

[stopbush]

10. Yes. A trifle convenient, no?

Especially when one considers the negative effect the citing of only ONE example of Joe’s political record has had on his campaign.

[Andy823]

68. Yes ONE example

and there are a dozen or more attacks on Harris on this board because of the ONE citing.

[Butterflylady]

100. But none from Biden.

That's the difference.

[mcar]

120. Yep

[Thekaspervote]

124. Oh please!! Why don't you post something + about your candidate. Biden is being a fair player

Which is more than I can say for your candidate! did ya all forget that they signed a unity pledge not to attack each other

[R B Garr]

16. lol, he could have easily walloped Harris right back.

He hinted at it by saying she was a prosecutor while he was a public defender. He let her slide. She has plenty of baggage.

[Demit]

73. He was a public defender for a few months, till he got another law firm job.

The job at the good law firm he left was an internship. Evidently they didn't offer him a position, and he didn't have another law firm job lined up yet. He soon did, though, and that ended his career as a public defender.

[R B Garr]

76. So what, she was never a public defender.

She was a prosecutor. That was his point, and that drew an immediate contrast and hint that he knew her record as a prosecutor.

[Demit]

83. I'd love to know his record as a public defender. Since he brought it up.

Or was it so long ago we are wrong to be interested? Only Joe Biden is allowed to hark back to something he did in the past but if we want to know more about it we are "digging things up"?

[R B Garr]

85. Public defender vs prosecutor. That is the immediate contrast.

One wants to put people in jail.

One wants to keep people out of jail.

It’s an immediate, undeniable contrast.

[Demit]

92. Public defender: a job Biden held so briefly you never heard about it before this.

A job you take when you're in between law firm jobs.

Ask yourself why he didn't STAY a public defender, if he had such high-flying ideals?

[R B Garr]

95. Why wasn't Harris a public defender?

Prosecutors put people in jail. What’s up with that.

[AncientGeezer]

103. She ran for the Office no less....she sought it

[R B Garr]

107. lol, just a quick headline shows she fought public defenders...

[tonedevil]

108. Is it your contention...

that public defenders are better people than Prosecutors? Do you believe there is no legitimate purpose for Prosecutors in the legal system?

[R B Garr]

111. It's a simple contrast.

Public defenders want to keep people out of jail.

Prosecutors want to put people in jail.

My personal beliefs or desires have nothing to do with those facts.

[tonedevil]

127. You don't actually know their desires.

you only know the roles they have in the legal system. Your facts aren't demonstrably factual and even to the extent they are true statements they are still meaningless. Prosecutors bring charges against people who are suspected of committing a crime. I think we can all agree there are people who are in fact deserving of being in jail. How would they be put there if there were no Prosecutors. Public defenders have an important role in the system as well since any of us would not want to be put in jail automatically any time charges are brought against us.

[R B Garr]

134. You were asking about me. How laughable that you

think I need a lecture over a simple contrast between prosecutors and public defenders.

But, we do know their desires based on their actions.

It’s a simple contrast.

Harris ran an election to gain her seat as a prosecutor. Standing for election means you desire to be elected.

Biden contrasted that he was a public defender. That was an immediate contrast with her elected prosecutor’s position.

[tonedevil]

143. Wanting to be a Prosecutor...

doesn't mean you want to put people in jail. Which is what you wrote that I was responding to. While it may be a simple contrast it is also meaningless. You don't come out and say it, but you do seem to be hinting that Harris being a Prosecutor makes her of nefarious character while Biden having been a public defender makes him virtuous.

[R B Garr]

149. Prosecutors put people in jail.

Public defenders keep them out.

Each case has their own circumstances, of course.

What’s meaningless is to personalize this. It was a simple contrast in a debate, and it was very effective. The implication was also that Biden knew of some cases to use against Harris, but he declined.

[tonedevil]

153. OK /nt

[Demit]

165. Harris was an ADA in the District Attorney's office for years before running for the top job.

And you should look at the things she accomplished once she did become DA. Here's a good Mother Jones article to start with:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/the-secret-to-understanding-kamala-harris/

This excerpt is about "Back on Track," a program she initiated as DA:

"she set out to build a program for people who, if reached in time, were less likely to reoffend: first-time nonviolent drug offenders, specifically those aged 18 to 30. If these offenders pleaded guilty, they could join a 12- to 18-month program of individualized support, which included job training, more than 200 hours of community service, and a requirement to find steady employment or enroll in school. It leaned heavily on public-private partnerships to create job and support services. The DA’s office reserved the right to jail participants if they broke any of the rules—even missing appointments—or were charged with another crime. At the end, there was a graduation at which a judge, who typically volunteered his or her time, would expunge the felony charge from the participant’s record."

Contrary to wanting to put people in jail, Back on Track was about keeping people out of it.


So what did Biden do, in the months he spent in the Public Defender's office?

[R B Garr]

166. Busing is a useless issue to voters . 40 year old issues

that are useless now are a waste of time. She should run on her record as a DA if she’s proud of it.

In the debate, the contrast was simple. Public defenders keep people out of jail, prosecutors put people in jail. It drew an immediate contrast .

[Demit]

176. If Biden did any good as a public defender I'd love to hear it. I'm all ears.

Usually if you're at a job for a scant few months you're still learning the ropes. Especially when your last job was as a legal intern.

Yes, Biden wanted to make a contrast, that was obvious. Unfortunately he based it on the flimsiest of experience, at a job he abandoned as soon as he got an offer from a law firm. But that's Joe. He does like to exaggerate for effect.

[R B Garr]

196. How utterly inane to distract with fabrications about

what someone did on their job some 40 years ago complete with the useless but desperate observation that Biden surely didn’t do a good job, lol. Sorry, it’s just a complete tangent that means absolutely nothing. Didn’t Harris date Willie Brown?? Can I make unnecessary assaults on her character and her jobs from that info?? Of course not, and that is a real situation that she acknowledges. You are just fabricating endless character assaults about Biden. Enough, it’s really disturbing, eww.

We saw the debate, and the contrast he drew ar that time was a good one. She became a DA , he became a public defender. It was a perfect visualization.

[Demit]

202. I didn't fabricate anything, nor did I say that he surely didn't do a good job.

What I can say is that he exaggerates, or flat out makes things up, because he's done it numerous times. He's been caught at it. It's been written about. Sorry if it disturbs you, but Joe Biden likes to make himself look good and he sometimes strays a little too far from the truth to do it.

It's funny how you simultaneously praise the fact that he was a public defender and say it's a complete tangent that means nothing.

[R B Garr]

206. You are completely distracting with your own fabrications.

How utterly useless to be obsessed about what his job performance was. It sounds like you can’t tolerate that he got in a very good contrast in the debate so you want to discount his job performance from 40 years ago. Truly bizarre.

Edit: now you’re just twisting what I said, I guess trying to muddy the waters. I’ll say again: he got in a good contrast. Public defenders keep people out of jail. Prosecutors put people in jail. That was a great contrast.

Do we get to malign Harris’ character by saying she makes things up?? How does this work.

[AncientGeezer]

106. Sen. Harris ran for the D.A.'s office....she sought it. An elected position.

[R B Garr]

113. Oh, yes, I thought you were saying she wanted to be a

public defender. I was going to answer the same thing, she ran for her D.A. seat.

[Blue_true]

203. Believe it or not. It is a lot harder to get a job as a prosecutor than it is as a public defender.

That is likely why a lot of public defenders aren't very good.

Look like Joe took the job as a public defender as a stopgap job and left it when something better came up, that does not exactly scream dedication.

[R B Garr]

204. That wasn't the point. It's not about which job is harder

to get or fabricated and useless typing about what their job performance was.

[Blue_true]

212. But Biden parried back at Harris by pointing out that he was a public defender

while she was a prosecutor. The fact that he took the public defender job to avoid unemployment and left it as soon as a law firm job was offered to him is pertinent to the discussion.

Look, I like Joe. I think that he gave strong, no bullshit answers on healthcare and immigration. I wish Warren and Harris were closer where he is. We should not have open borders, but when people are running from terror and murder, we should shield them and humanely care for them while we give them a fair hearing on why we should allow them into the country - Joe got that dead right.

[R B Garr]

214. Your fabrications are not part of the discussion,

since you were not there when Biden took a job nor do you know what was going through his mind, lol, this has gotten really rather silly. Sorry.

I’m just wondering what would happen if I linked to existing articles on Harris’ relationship with Willie Brown and her career ladder. I’m only saying that because of the absurd fabrications and character assaults on Biden based on one job he says he had during a debate. It’s unreal.

[mcar]

121. She was a prosecutor??!!

Horrors! Zounds! Ye gods!

[bluewater]

160. Bazinga! Let's throw out our entire Criminal Justice system! Viva la Revolution!

I know really. lol

What's next, Biden takes issue with Judges? (judges lock people up!) Police officers?

Zounds!

[R B Garr]

161. Yeah, lock em up! U betcha

[mcar]

179. Those who truly deserve it?

You betcha? Or do you think rapists, pedophiles, and murderers should not be prosecuted?

[emmaverybo]

230. How could he play the big bad wolf to her "little girl?" She does have baggage, but he won't be

the one to open it up.

[shanny]

17. 'Zactly.

[Politicub]

33. I think he's saying he won't talk about his opponents' pasts...

though I find it hard to believe he will be able to do that for the duration of the primary season.

I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

And just because he has an approach that ignores someone’s record, it doesn’t mean it’s the right or best approach. It’s just an approach.

[loyalsister]

41. Pretty much

I have heard that defense from someone who I criticized for using the n word. It was one white guy using it affectionately when joking with another white guy. The context was one of them resembled Sherman Helmsley and it had been a running joke since a Black man pointed it out and used that word to make a joke.
I don't buy it then and I have concluded that "out of context" has become a generic defense to write off anything that would be unacceptable to someone other than the speaker.

[stonecutter357]

56. lol you think an x republican has no record ?

[progressoid]

89. She freely talks about it.

And why she's an EX-republican.

[stonecutter357]

93. I know in the 80's how bad republican were !

[emulatorloo]

63. No, it's politician speak for 'I Won't Lie About Other Democrats'

[Cha]

191. ..

[LakeArenal]

227. Or mischaracterize purposefully.

[zentrum]

87. Yup. I...

Last edited Fri Jul 5, 2019, 06:39 PM - Edit history (1)

.....won't hold you accountable if you won't hold me accountable.

I won't call you out for what you stood for if you won't call me out for stuff I stood for..

And worse than this---it seems to say--we Pols never really stand for anything except being in office, so let's not mention stuff we did and said to get here. Okay?

[Thekaspervote]

128. That is such a stretch!!

[Butterflylady]

98. No, it's called integrity.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

118. Bingo!! Good luck with that Joe!!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[progressoid]

126. He doesn't want to go through this again...

[Cha]

190. That's actually Biden's style but I wouldn't

expect you to know.

[Blue_true]

201. I am willing to give him a break on past mistakes if he can explain how

and why he changed. I liked the answers that he gave on Medicare for All and immigrants. I think he was on target on both.

[Cha]

220. NO.. you got it Wrong Again about Joe Biden..

Joe Biden Has Three Words for Democratic Candidates Who Took Swipes At Him in California

“Specifically responding to things that you’ve said, Bernie Sanders saying you can’t go back to the past, Elizabeth Warren saying…” Saenz continued.

“Who’s going back to the past?” Biden interrupted.

"Look, I understand. I don’t blame them,” Biden continued. “They’ve got to, you know, they’re good folks but, you know, as I said, see you around.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=139584

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-joe-biden-has-three-words-for-democratic-candidates-who-took-swipes-at-him-in-california/

[emmaverybo]

231. He has been guided by integrity and principal in his dealing with friends and rivals alike his

entire political career. Not known for taking the low road, the cheap shot, the opportunistic path to
his own glory. He is respected for his decency, tested over many years.

His civil rights record is far stronger than any other candidate.

[Kahuna7]

236. His civil rights record is stronger because...

He's the only one that has one.

[emmaverybo]

238. OMG. You are right! NT

[gulliver]

244. I honestly don't think our candidates should be referred to derisively as "politicians."

We're all the good guys here. No need to attack Dems.

[LanternWaste]

248. That's what I'd infer if the candidate I supported was getting spanked...

[Demsrule86]

2. A veiled threat there...he won't do it but others might.

Go Joe.

[SouthernProgressive]

3. One of the reasons many of us love him is that we don't even need to consider having him.....

Sign a pledge.

[George II]

7. The one who bragged that he was the FIRST to sign it was the first to break it.

[OhZone]

44. Truth!

[namahage]

62. He did sign it, of course.

https://pledge.indivisible.org/

The only ones to date who have not are:

Michael Bennet
Tulsi Gabbard
Mike Gravel
Wayne Messam
Andrew Yang

[SouthernProgressive]

114. No brainer for him. We know that. NT

[True Dough]

4. Joe Biden: "I want all the advantages of 45 years in politics, but none of the associated baggage."

Doesn't work that way, Mr. Biden. It's your record and it's open to scrutiny during the primary. Be better prepared to defend it. And if you insist it's being taken out of context, convince us your opponents have it all wrong.

Good luck!

[George II]

12. So is Mayor Pete's, and proportionally he now has a lot more baggage than Biden does.

[True Dough]

14. And another major difference is that Pete is taking complete ownership

and vowing to fix the issue, whereas Biden insists everything is misunderstood and taken out of context.

[George II]

20. Sorry, I disagree on both points.

[True Dough]

24. It's a discussion forum

I don't expect everyone is going to agree, but I'll speak my mind.

[R B Garr]

21. It's not baggage to tell black voters to their faces that he's

not asking for their vote?! There was a clip of him saying that circulating all over the place. Wait! It was taken out of context, amirite?

[True Dough]

25. Of course those things happen

but anyone with critical thinking skills can deduce for themselves what was intended and what's really going on.

[R B Garr]

27. Or some can exploit it, twist it, and rub it in, fully knowing

what they are doing.

[True Dough]

32. Life is full of those types

It's up to each of us to figure out who's blowing smoke and who has a legitimate point of concern.

[R B Garr]

52. So talking about things that are deliberately taken

out of context sounds like one of those “life is full of those type” moments.

[True Dough]

57. I've seen plenty of disagreement from longstanding members of this forum

over Biden and busing being taken out of context. See, you can clearly delineate on some issues while others are more gray. Each voter gets on vote, so each of us has to decide where the truth lies and whether the issue is "make or break."

[R B Garr]

60. What's interesting is that Harris is now pleading for

her walkback of her debate comments to be taken in context. She wants all her “nuance” to be thoughtfully considered in context, but Biden only got a few seconds to answer her accusation that he hurt her. Context indeed.

[True Dough]

65. Harris only had a moment on the debate stage to put Joe on the spot

They've both had oodles of time since to address those nuances you speak of. It's not a simple issue. While a crowded debate stage is not the ideal place to raise it, the candidates are determined to boost their profiles, make their case and diminish their opponents' chances of being the Dem nominee. That's how the game is played. If not viciously at first, it inevitably goes there. And we'll need a tack sharp and battle-ready Democratic leader to take down Don the Con.

[R B Garr]

72. Flat out wrong according to her campaign. She planned it

well in advance and had t-shirts ready to promote her “little girl” line. That’s been all over the internet since the day after the debate, so here you are deliberately spreading misinformation. She also had the floor, interrupting to ensure she could set up her jabs. Now you’ve illustrated how easily things are taken out of context, thanks.

And laughable about Trump. He would love to have Harris bring up inflammatory racism issues not of any concern to voters today.

[True Dough]

74. Read more carefully

I wrote that Harris only had a moment while on the stage to put Joe on the spot. I didn't claim that she hadn't prepared for that moment. The only one who looked completely unprepared was Joe (and Beto, but that's another story).

[R B Garr]

78. She had many moments. I saw her speaking for awhile.

I don’t have to read anything. I saw it happening.

[True Dough]

81. When you accuse someone of spreading misinformation

you should be able to substantiate that. You just accused me of it and have no grounds. That's what reading more carefully can do for you.

[R B Garr]

84. Harris fully planned her attack and had plenty of time

to deliver it. Writing alternative scenarios to what her own campaign has admitted to is misinformation. It was all over the internet and news, too, hard to miss.

[True Dough]

88. "...and had plenty of time to deliver it."

But that's contrary to what you wrote earlier about her having to explain nuances. She wasn't able to get into the nuances on the debate stage because there was so limited time. She had sharpened her pencil but she was only given an opportunity to write a synopsis, not a treatise.

[R B Garr]

90. LOL, that is after the debate. She made comments

walking back her debate attack, but she said she wants her comments in proper context. Maybe you missed some of the media coverage because of the holiday. You are mixing up times and events.

[True Dough]

96. "After a heated Twitter exchange between the Biden and Harris campaigns

After a heated Twitter exchange between the Biden and Harris campaigns, Harris, during an interview in Des Moines, Iowa, said she is not in the same position as Biden on busing and that she has yet to hear Biden agree that the busing that was mandated in the era she was bused was necessary."

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-prepared-kamala-harris-debate-attack-busing/story?id=64146031

[R B Garr]

97. She has been challenged on her new input, and wanted to make

sure she was taken in context. You can look up what Mayor Pete’s communications manager said about her. Axelrid had a comment, too. You obviously missed it.

[True Dough]

112. Axelrod was a key player in Obama's campaign

so, as much as I respect him, he surely has a soft spot for Biden.

Look, maybe Harris didn't do the best job in delivering her punch. Either way, Biden has suffered in the eyes of many for looking so unprepared. That better have proved to be a wake-up call for him. He's not going to breeze through the primary and automatically qualify to be the one to take on Trump. If Joe doesn't get his act together quickly, he's going to see his downward trend continue.

[R B Garr]

117. Well, in this particular exchange, he is vindicated by the

Harris turnabout or clarification on her positions, and her misrepresentations. Looks like the seconds allowed in debate to answer might not be the deciding factor in polls over the long haul. The aftermath of debate performances look to shape things, as well.

But this thread was about Biden going negative on fellow Democrats, and he said he’s not going to. That takes us back to the original comment that surely he could have hit Kamala back on her D.A. record, but he chose not to. He hinted at it by contrasting that he was a public defender.

[True Dough]

119. There are several more debates to come

He's going to need to be rock solid or sink like a stone.

[R B Garr]

129. I don't think a 40-year old issue that is not on people's

minds is going to matter. Health care, union benefits mean more to current voters.

[True Dough]

136. There's a wealth of outstanding Dem candidates

with enticing proposals on health care, the economy, taxes, child care, climate change, student debt relief, etc.

Only one of them has 45 years in office to stand on. That's a benefit to Biden, who's been a great asset to our party, but it's also a burden and he's not going to be able to back his way out of defending some of his positions and decisions from the past. That's what my original post in this thread was all about.

[R B Garr]

152. If they are so outstanding, then no need to bring up 40-year

old issues that just inflame. You are agreeing with Biden now—make this about real issues that affect voters.

[True Dough]

157. It all can be done: discussing the past, present and future

Some voters are more inclined to judge a candidate by actions of the past as opposed to promises for the future. Once again, that could prove to be a boon for Biden or, in some cases, a liability. He'll have to answer for it all.

[R B Garr]

159. And then there's the Obama years. VP to a wildly popular

President, the first African American president. Every candidate out there has some liabilities, that is a given. Some won’t consider anyone who drove Al Franken out, for instance.

[True Dough]

162. Well, since you're changing the subject Kirsten Gillibrand

we can certainly agree that she's near the bottom of the list of some tremendous options for the nominee.

[Thekaspervote]

142. I think harris, and those that continue to try and keep a 40+ yr old issue alive says a lot

If she thinks she can win on this issue, I hope she goes for it!! Cause the average voter is not even going to know about or care about it!

She might get my attention if she would bring her campaign into to the present and address issues that concern the American people right now!!

[True Dough]

148. I'd dare say that was the first salvo in a long campaign

Buckle up! There will be plenty of other issues to come, some contemporary, some from the past.

[R B Garr]

163. Not really a salvo though. More like a manipulative distraction

that is backfiring.

[True Dough]

164. Premature to say backfiring

Harris got a bump in the polls. It's obviously not going to be sustained in full, but she gained some supporters who are looking for a candidate with "killer instinct." Others are turned off by the aggression, which they see as uncalled for.

Whether she continues with that approach and whether it works to her benefit or detriment will be a story that's told over the coming months.

[R B Garr]

168. It's pretty obvious the main objection to Joe is he's

the frontrunner and in the way of their candidate. So far the ancient busing issue is not an issue with voters, pretty much the definition of a Fail, but for the poll bump. Issues for voters vs manipulations for poll bumps.

[True Dough]

169. It was the defining moment of the debate

It's what everyone was talking about the next day (and the day after that, and the day after that). We'll see what the next big moment is and who gains and who falters.

[R B Garr]

171. That's what I mean, he could have brought up her record,

there are at least a few things he could have hit her with, but didn’t. She also has some baggage.

[True Dough]

172. Well, that's Joe's decision to make

He can either punch back or remain the punching bag. Sounds like he wants to take the high road. I know when Michele Obama was promoting "they go low, we go high" and I quoted that a few times in regards to underhanded tactics by the ReThugs, there were quite a few DUers who said, "F_ _ _ that, shit! We need to hit 'em back!"

Some prefer a politician who is prepared to slug it out, even if it gets a bit dirty at times.

[R B Garr]

175. I don't think I've ever heard a candidate say she

was hurt in a debate before. A new one, not exactly tough, but that probably wasn’t the intention. Hard to prepare for. Kind of manipulative.

Oh well, it was a defining moment for me because it was shocking to see her bring up a 40-year old issue?tgat doesn’t affect current voters.

[True Dough]

178. You keep insisting it doesn't affect current voters

but you're wrong on that count. Whether they're invested in the issue, they're making judgments about Harris employing a prosecutorial strategy during the debate. She cross-examined Joe like a perp. Some applaud her for it. Some condemn her for it. But it put Harris in the spotlight.

[R B Garr]

195. She had to manipulate a useless 40-year old issue

that is of no use to voters. Busing in the 70’s is not a current issue. Prosecutor strategy doesn’t mean expressing someone hurt you in a cracked emotional voice. That was also on display. We need to focus on issues that matter now and matter to voters.

[True Dough]

197. We need to focus on today, tomorrow and everything from the candidates' past

A full vetting is in order for every one of 'em.

[R B Garr]

199. Now we're saddled with an inflammatory and useless

issue. Busing in the 70’s doesn’t matter to voters now. That’s on her and a reflection of her judgment. We need to focus on decisions like that, too.

[True Dough]

200. Busing won't be a lingering issue for much longer, IMO

There will be other issues that will displace it in future debates.

[R B Garr]

208. She might have just put a target on her back, though.

Others might ask her about her judgment. I heard Joe complimenting her yesterday to the media, so that’s a good show of unity.

[True Dough]

211. That's the thing about debates

Everyone picks a lane, and then chooses whether to blast out of the gates, or save their energy for the home stretch. Some might prefer to trip up their opponents. The latter is definitely going to become a target for others.

[Cha]

222. DU isn't the only one talking about "backtracking"..

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=189642

[Thekaspervote]

138. "Althou a crowded debate stage was not the ideal place" need anyone say anymore

[True Dough]

141. It was fair game

It's not the ideal place, but it's the stage they've been given for now. Make the most of it or get out of the way!

[emmaverybo]

237. She actually was allowed to go way overtime. NT

[Thekaspervote]

133. And do ya really think busing is a winning issue? Geez last I knew health care was #1

Right behind getting rid of dotard.

Let’s ask the average voter on the street if they intend to pick a candidate based on their position on busing? Do ya think they will even know what you are talking about??!!

[True Dough]

139. I just finished typing this post

it is just as relevant here...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1287&pid=190797

[jromans]

205. Its not just busing

The problem is she made it seem like Biden was passing legislation that was inherently racist. Basically saying if you are minority, don't vote for him because he doesn't think about you when he votes for legislation, or doesn't care.

I don't think this specific issue should have been brought up at the debate. But she took the opportunity and flew with it.

[StarfishSaver]

215. When did she "make it seem like Biden was passing legislation that was inherently racist"?

She didn't even mention his legislation. She simply said he opposed busing. And when he threw out a state's rights defense, she pointed out that the federal government often needs to get involved in local matters to protect people's civil rights.

She never said anything about his legislation or said or implied that "if you are minority, don't vote for him because he doesn't think about you when he votes for legislation, or doesn't care.""

If anyone has a problem with what she said, that's fine. But reaching into thin air to pull out things she never even came close to saying isn't an effective strategy for any argument.

[emmaverybo]

233. When that started with Pete, people here stopped it and the press also desisted. I am not a

Pete fan, but I weighed in.

[Demsrule86]

29. And how is that meaningful? He knew early in his term that cops were saying racist stuff...

The police chief (Black) was demoted or out of a job because of his taping cops saying racist shit...info is still sealed? Why? the taping or wire tapping ...whatever was not legal apparently. but did Mayor Pete launch another legal investigation? No he didn't. The records were sealed and the matter was dropped. I don't see how his words almost seven years later...are taking ownership. He did little and I don't see much happening now with the police shooting. And this is way more of the moment than 50 year old busing...this issue is current and Mayor Pete has no one in the AA community to speak for him in his home state either...Why is that? He is finishing his second term.

[True Dough]

38. "I don't see much happening now with the police shooting."

1) You're not looking. Pete has taken numerous steps to improve accountability within the police force. As he's said, it hasn't proven to be enough so now he's made it a top priority.

2) There's a special prosecutor that's been assigned to the case. That individual should not be tampered with.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/special-prosecutor-assigned-investigate-police-shooting-south-bend/story?id=64133142

[Demsrule86]

40. Almost 7 years after he knew their was an issue...and no offense...here in Ohio the investigate

and investigate these things and nothing comes of it.

[Celerity]

50. same old dodgy spin you have been trying for months

The FBI came to Buttigieg a few weeks after he took office and said Boykins was under federal investigation for illegal wiretapping. Boykins had found out over a year before that an old taping system designed for cops to not miss tips was still up and running. He let it run and the communications director, Karen DePaepe, listened to them for months. She heard something, took it to Boykins, and he tried to threaten the cops.

They freaked out and called the Feds. Those tapes have been judged to be illegal by a Federal judge in 2015 and needed to be destroyed, but an appellate court said it had to be settled in a state court, where it stands now (and the judge is RW Rethug appointed by Pence). Buttigieg asked for Boykins' resignation, which he gave, but the next morning he took it back. After that he was demoted to captain, and the communications director was fired. Boykins stayed on at the force as a captain until he retired 5 years later, in 2017, with a full pension.

Everyone sued, the cops got half a million USD, Boykins got only 75K, and Karen DePaepe (the coms director) got 235K, but remained fired for cause.

If Buttigieg had broken the rules/law and released those potentially illegal tapes (and every agency and judgement so far has said they are illegal wiretapping), he could have opened up the city to millions more in lawsuits. The whole thing (which again started before he was mayor) has already cost South Bend over 2 millions USD.

I so smell political skulduggery as the judge it was kicked down to, (after a Federal judge said the tapes were illegal, it was appealed and kicked to a state court) St. Joseph County Superior Court Judge Steven Hostetler, is a RW Republican who was a finalist for Pence to place on the Indiana Supreme Court. Pence also placed him there on the bench in the first place. Every ruling so far has said the tapes were illegal wiretapping and should be destroyed (except for the federal appeals case, which just kicked it back to the state courts.)

He has a lot of political motivation to try and shit stir this whole thing, and just 3 days he now ruled the whole thing is going to drag on even more. It is already at 7 years (8 it you count the year before Pete was mayor) and counting.


St. Joseph County Judge Steven Hostetler a finalist for Supreme Court

https://www.southbendtribune.com/news/local/st-joseph-county-judge-steven-hostetler-a-finalist-for-supreme/article_d874219e-7f1e-5d47-b3d6-e5f02984399c.html

INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — St. Joseph Superior Court Judge Steven L. Hostetler is among three finalists recommended to Gov. Mike Pence to fill an upcoming vacancy on the state's Supreme Court.



also

https://ballotpedia.org/Steven_L._Hostetler

Steven L. Hostetler is a judge for the Superior Court of St. Joseph County, Indiana. He was appointed to the court by Governor Mike Pence to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of former judge Michael P. Scopelitis. Hostetler assumed office on June 6, 2013.

Buttigieg has not listened to the tapes, and his (until the next mayor takes over) office is just the custodial guardian.

[redstateblues]

61. It will all be for naught if Pete can't get above 0%

With POC in SC

[Celerity]

71. I agree.I unfortunately think the shooting tragedy is going to be the coffin nail probably for him

this go-round. I am a realist, but until I see a definitive negative inflection point, I shall endeavour to remain a Buttigieg supporter, as I think he would make the best POTUS for the nation as a whole if elected. He also have time on his side, as he is only 37.

That all said, I will always respond to shaded attacks on any candidate in our primaries that I deem to be unfair and attempts at false-framing. It is sad that most all of these over the past few months in regards to Pete have mostly come from the supporters of one candidate (not Bernie) in particular. The ironic thing is is that (not counting past positions) Pete and that other candidate are pretty similar in many (not all) of their positions, far closer than say Bernie or Warren are to them. Maybe Pete is picked for VP (only if a woman is at the top of the ticket can I see that happening.)

[Demsrule86]

102. It wasn't an attack...I don't think he handled this properly...sure I get about the illegal part

but why not a new investigation or a special counself or something ...but nothing was done. So when he 'accepts' responsibility, I just don't find that compelling.

[Celerity]

105. new investigation over what? The Boykins wiretapping thing is still being litigated, and there will

obviously be (it has already started) a wide-sweeping investigation over the shooting and systemic racism in the SBPD.

[Demsrule86]

109. It is being litigated about releasing the information...why not another investigation? Why not a

task force to identify racist cops? As for the shooting investigation...it will go the same way most of them do...the cops get away with it.

[Celerity]

115. as I stated before, there is so far no legal evidence that the cops did what Boykins accused them of

Tainted fruit.

I am sure you are familiar with that legal concept. Until there is a final legal determining of the legality of the wiretapping those tapes are 100% inadmissible. Boykins himself ensured that by his continuing to illegally wiretap for close to a year. As far as I know, South Bend and Indiana still operate under the rule of law.

[Demsrule86]

182. Why not unseal the records then?

[Celerity]

185. they cannot be unsealed until a court orders them unsealed, so far the controlling

legal entities have ruled them illegal wiretapping.

If a court of final determination rules that they need to be released then obviously Buttigieg or whoever is controlling the office of mayor at that time (which is the acting legal custodian) will release them.

[Demsrule86]

186. He is in his second term. He could have been working on it...

[Celerity]

187. its been in the courts hands (from state to federal and now back to state) for years

Pete has no control over multiple judicial systems.

[Demsrule86]

99. I said they were illegal...but the fact was illegal or not, he knew there was a problem and did

nothing to address it...how about launching a legal investigation? So I consider... his taking responsibility to be lip service. Talk is cheap as they say...where was the action? And I like Pete bu this was an unforced error and just plain wrong IMHO.

[Celerity]

110. no one other than Boykins and the coms director, and maybe the FBI/and Feds have actually heard

what was on the tapes. They have been sealed by law for the past 7 years. If he had just went willy-nilly firing people based off what up until now has been legally found by courts to be illegal evidence, you could add a zero or two onto the half million dollar settlement that the cops got after they sued the city.

[marylandblue]

184. Yup, that's a problem for Pete, it's a black mark on his record,

and he is making no pretense that it is not. He is trying to make amends. Whether that is enough is for you to decide in the voting booth.

Biden also has black marks in his record, as do Warren and all the others. We take the best candidate, warts and all. But please don't try to hide the warts because we see them anyway.

[Demsrule86]

188. Not hiding anything but as this post has shown...warts are in the eye of the beholder.

We bring our personal prejudices and beliefs to any discussion...but time will tell and it will be sorted hout in the voting booth for sure.

[Politicub]

37. Yes. This. It's what is so refreshing and modern about Buttigieg.

His humble nature stands in stark contrast to how politicians tend to operate.

[Demsrule86]

47. I don't get that and I like Buttigieg...smart and all...but the simplest thing in the world is to

'take responsibility' ...without action and he knew of the problems seven years ago...witht the wire tapping...and took no action. Why is this seven year old investigation under seal? And the police always 'investigate' Police shootings and almost never hold any of the shooters responsible ...

[Politicub]

59. Yes, it should be the simplest thing in the world. So

why does Biden have such a hard time doing it.

The genius of mayor Pete is that he is straightforward. You know exactly where he stands on issues. He doesn’t try to play some game where he starts babbling political catch phrases when he’s caught off guard. Actually, I don’t think he has been caught off guard this primary season.

I don’t know the answers to your rhetorical questions. Because they are rhetorical, I don’t think you’re expecting answers. Beating around the bush with rhetorical questions is precisely the problem. Just say what you think. If you think he’s a racist, say it. If you think he’s incompetent, say it. I can’t read your mind.

On edit: because of Buttigieg’s actions, I know he’s neither of those things. Nor is he apathetic. He is deeply troubled by what happened. Yet some want to use a tragedy to further an agenda.

[Demsrule86]

104. Because it is not meaningful...and why in the world would Biden accept responsibility for trumped up

charges? Busing is a great example. But Pete didn't address a problem although he knew about it early in his first term and now he accepts responsibility almost at the end of his second term...I don't see that as accepting responsibility. He could have had another investigation...he could have identified the racist cops...done something...but he didn't.

[Politicub]

147. I'll be on my way. We differ philosophically so I don't

see the point of continuing this conversation.

[Demsrule86]

181. Fair enough.

[emmaverybo]

125. He owns he fired the police chief. He has never said it was a mistake to fire a very popular police

chief the AA community felt represented them. He has never said the reason he gave for doing so did not hold up to the light of day. That’s ok. Many feel he was wrong. He does not view the firing as a mistake.

Biden, similarly, owns his busing position.

[R B Garr]

18. lol, the "good luck" is more needed to convince people

that a 40-year old inflammatory issue like busing is worth inflicting on current voters. Calling people racists who don’t want to talk about the “issue” is next up. Good luck, indeed.

[bluewater]

22. +1000

[Chitown Kev]

49. Yep.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

123. Yup its called vetting & no candidate should be allowed to hide from his or her record. Nice try Joe

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[Clash City Rocker]

252. Exactly. Are we supposed to think that if Trump won't bring up his record?

The purpose of vetting is to bring things into the light before the candidate becomes the only person standing between Democratic leadership and four more years of the orange fascist. If there are skeletons in Biden’s closet, it’s better that they get exposed now. If there are no skeletons, he has nothing to worry about.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

253. Of course, is only fair... if Joe can't respond to fellow Democrats re his record...

how's he sposed to take on tRumpty Dumbty?!


Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!
Welcome to the revolution!!!

[gulliver]

245. Mistakes in a person's record are far less important than experience.

This "baggage" idea is basically poppycock. If there were something in Biden's past that indicated he had character flaws, that would be different. Dems have a big orange fish to fry. I don't care about penny ante "baggage."

[True Dough]

246. Mistakes in a person's record are far less important than experience.

Only if the individual uses experience to recognize and avoid similar mistakes.

[dchill]

8. Uh... he just did.

[zackymilly]

64. Yes he did. nt

[mac56]

11. Good for Joe.

Leading by example.

The Republicans are eager to dogpile on our candidate(s). We don't need to do their work for them.

[OhZone]

45. Exactly!

[democratisphere]

13. We had better focus on the task at hand.

Remove drumpf from office. This SOS every day is getting crazy and stale.

[gordianot]

15. That is fine just stop self inflicted wounds.

Also remember that the joke defense does not work unlike Republicans you will be judged by what you say. Teflon is not available in the Democratic Party.

[EffieBlack]

19. Does that mean he's going to stop talking about his past record, too?

Or just that he doesn’t want anyone else talking about it?

Either way, it seems a strange way to conduct a campaign.

[mcar]

132. He can't have it both ways

and I note that some on this board who applaud his statement also think it's fine to attack Harris for her past career.

[EffieBlack]

193. And many of them haven't limited their attacks to her past career

They’re shamelessly going after her past personal life, too.

[mcar]

194. It's revolting

and makes me sad.

[Kahuna7]

243. Neither can she. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

23. Joe, I certainly hope you won't have need to break that promise, but I also hope you're not...

knee-capping yourself at the same time. Others have shown they're willing to go there, but I'll certainly understand when the dogpile becomes too overwhelming, you'll have to fight fire with fire. There's wisdom in not damaging your opponents to the point where they limp, battered and bruised, into the general.

[Tiggeroshii]

26. One of the reasons he probably isnt going to win...

He has ran for president so many times and has yet to win a single state primary. I dont think he is very good at it.

[bahrbearian]

58. "The problem with Bernie is he is just to dicisive"

@markos: “The problem with Bernie Sanders is that he has the exact same message he had four years ago.”


https://twitter.com/MeetThePress

[wyldwolf]

28. As we've seen, there are plenty of skeletons in other candidate's closets

But I see we're back to the 2016 game where supporters of one certain candidate work to have posts the factually depict that candidate's record removed.

[Kahuna7]

35. Those skeletons will come out, but Joe won't be the one to release them. nt

[R B Garr]

48. Exactly. I just read one of the truancy arrests of a black female

caretaker under the truancy program. She was caring for a juvenile female who had sickle cell anemia with frequent medical appointments. Wow, sad situation.

[Kahuna7]

53. You know what they say about people in glass houses......

[R B Garr]

54. Amen. I've heard of those stories but ignored them, but

not now.

[Kahuna7]

55. There are some particulary nasty attacks against KH

on twitter just now.

[Thekaspervote]

146. And they are not coming from Biden.. he did in fact defend her on twitter...more than once!!

[mcar]

135. Link?

[R B Garr]

137. Google the politicians name and War on Truancy

[mcar]

140. I have read several articles about Harris and her prosecutorial career

Nothing about your claim.

[R B Garr]

145. Apparently you didn't Google it

It’s the first thing that comes up. Cherre Peoples. You should actually Google it.

[highplainsdem]

192. Google this

kamala harris truancy caretaker sickle cell anemia

which I just did, using keywords from the first post about this, because I hadn't heard the story before, either.

You should turn up a Huffington Post article about it on the first page of search results.

Long article, but well worth reading.

[Kahuna7]

232. In my best Geraldine Jones voice:

Joe Biden made me do it! WOOOO!

[emmaverybo]

235. Be amazing if she did a "this was that little sick girl you left without a caretaker." See how

smartly Harris would handle that one. You gotta build up to it deceptively though.

[treestar]

39. And it is usually twisted

In some way to make it look worse than it was.

Harris’ Facebook page has many comments fro people saying they liked her before this.

Most voters have had it with the negativity.

[wyldwolf]

80. no, it's not usually twisted

Posts in 2016 that quoted one particular candidate, verabatim, and in context, were alerted and removed.

Same thing has started happening now, though I'm sure they're frustrated because they lack the numbers here now to be as successful as they were then. I've been on two of the juries myself.

[highplainsdem]

189. No kidding.

[Politicub]

30. He's right about how things should not be taken out of context.

Someone’s past behavior is one of the best ways to predict future behavior, so someone’s record is important. They all need to be good at defending themselves from things they’re not expecting, though.

[treestar]

36. Yet there are complaints

About democrats always being on the defensive side.

[shanny]

31. Does he want to run on experience but not on his record?

[empedocles]

42. Circular firing squads, if unchecked, will concentrate on all top contenders.

2020, like 2016, provides great opportunities for some Dems to make Dems more vulnerable. For Dems to make a traitortrump win more possible. 'cons know, and desperately hope, some Dems will continue, as they have so far, to come through for the republicon cause again.

[treestar]

51. I looked forward to your

Accepting Warren criticism. Let’s start with medical device manufacturers in Massachusetts. Then we will go to claiming Native American ancestry. Then we will dig up more stuff. And her schoolmarm air. That is all fine with you is it not ? Why do you want to it to be about her negatives ?

[emulatorloo]

69. Yeah when the half-truth smear campaigns start against Warren and Harris, I doubt many

DU’ers are going to find them as praiseworthy and cute. And they aren’t going to come from Biden.


Of course I’ll push back on Machiavellian smear campaigns on ANY of our candidates.

[treestar]

207. +1 and I've pushed back on all those Warren attacks

[emulatorloo]

224. Same here. I'm here to defeat Trump.

[Politicub]

82. LOL - A post battle royale!

Whee!!

[shanny]

156. "her schoolmarm air"? seriously?

hilarity aside, do you think non-deplorable Americans might be in the mood for a demonstrably smart and educated person with a plan?

and yes, I am sure I will be able to withstand the attacks on "my" candidate because a) I am not emotionally invested since b) she's my compromise choice. But do have at it, if it tickles your fancy.

[treestar]

209. I don't see how you are calmly and collectedly

handling the attack. Those attacks have already been made, so you have to be prepared and there's no excuse.

And yet you are emotionally invested in attacking Biden.

Voters are sick of negative campaigning.

[shanny]

217. You don't know me from Adam and you certainly don't know

if I am emotionally invested in attacking Biden.

Do I think he is the exact wrong person for the job at this time? Yeah, I do. Am I upset about it? No, I'm not--because it is exactly what I expect at this time. Do I think we will move past Biden to someone more appropriate? I do hope so, but actually have very little confidence in the matter. One is unlikely to get upset when one has no hope in the first place.

I don't think there is much hope, if any, that the US can right itself. I don't think there is much hope, if any, that the global political and economic system can right itself. I don't think there is much hope, if any, that the human species can survive the colossal fucking mess it has made of its only planet.

This, in a way, is very liberating. Do you get it now?

[treestar]

240. I don't see why it has to be negative

About the others rather than positive about yours. It does not make them stronger. It just makes voters cynical. It is often not real vetting but trying to make them look bad. That never makes the critic look good.

[shanny]

247. That's fine.

I apologize for not feeling very positive about anything much these days. And I feel terrible that that doesn't make me look good.

[emulatorloo]

66. No, he doesn't want to lie about other Democrats and smear them with half-truths

in a machevelian manner.

[Thekaspervote]

150. Yes!! He wans to run on his record. A record of civil rights, women's rights, LBGQt rights

Busing... really give it a REST!! The above issues I mentioned are what voters care about past and present. Not some now twisted contrived he said she said... oh she started it!! This kind of frivolous back biting never helps anyone!!

[treestar]

34. I agree.

They need to be positive. Negative campaigning just makes voters cynical and depresses turnout.

[OhZone]

46. Go Joe!

<3 <3 <3

[RandySF]

67. Are we stuck on what happened over a 20minute period last week?

[Thekaspervote]

151. YES!! At least some are here... it should be a dead issue

She earned some money, gained 1-2 pts in the polls.

Hopefully mr. Biden will be able to constructively handle any further outbursts without being knee capped

[Jakes Progress]

70. Another way of saying "Leave me alone"

I would prefer that candidates address stupid or poor actions from their past by saying that they have grown. One thing that decades in politics would be good for is the perspective. I would admire a candidate who said (as Obama did) that they have evolved and would not do the things now that they did then.

Biden has a chance to show that he is a reflective rather than reflexive candidate. It won't help him to say the past doesn't matter if he continues to insist that he never has done anything wrong and would do the same today.

[emulatorloo]

75. Another way of saying "I won't lie about my fellow Democrats by dishonesty misrepresenting their

records.”

[Jakes Progress]

79. Tell me the lie being told about Biden by fellow Democrats.

Our party doesn't need to be the party where facts don't matter.

Did you even read the post you responded to? Or just the headline?

[emulatorloo]

86. Insinuating Biden is a racist segregationist is a lie.

Don’t piss on my shoes and tell me it’s raining.

I didn’t think it was very cute when people were insinuating Beto is in the pocket of big oil (he’s not),

I didn’t think it was cleaver when people insinuated Warren is a centrist tool of the establishment (she’s not)

Nor did I think it was brilliant strategy when it was insinuated that Senator Harris was a corrupt prosecutor (she wasn’t)

“Our party doesn't need to be the party where facts don't matter.”

Well, if you want to revel in all these ‘factual’ smear campaigns against our Democratic candidates, then that’s your prerogative.

My impulse is to defend our candidates against dishonest smears.

[Jakes Progress]

91. I don't think that is what happened.

She wanted to know if he has grown past the seventies. He did vote exactly as Harris said. When flustered, he used the language of the old south to defend his actions. Using states rights as a defense was just silly.

He would be a bigger man if he could just admit that he has made errors in judgement and that he can see why his actions from that period created problems that he didn't foresee.

I have a lot of respect for those who have been doing something for a long time if they can show that they have learned from their experiences. I'm not to keen on those who declare over and over that everything they have ever done is perfect, that they have never done anything that needed changing or called for an apology.

Harris actually handed Biden a gift that night of the debate. His ego didn't let him use it to his advantage.

[emulatorloo]

94. Sure

Link to tweet

So yeah, what was the point.

Biden’s got a solid record on Civil Rights. If you wish to ignore that that’s fine.

All of our candidates are good people. It won’t help your candidate to try to make them look bad.

Btw Harris is still on my shortlist. Let’s hear her focus on policy and her record of achievements

[Buzz cook]

213. Your talking point is dishonest.

Buaing was court ordered not federally mandated. These are two different things and Biden supporters are making the false comparison.

It is worlds different for a court to find a specific area is unlawfully segregated and for the federal government to mandate busing on a national level.

[StarfishSaver]

216. This has been explained ad nauseum

Yet the same dishonest arguments are being made, notwithstanding the fact that they've been shown to be false.

It's one thing to be ignorant or mistaken. This is something else altogether.

[Demsrule86]

116. Biden was portrayed as a racist with a pre-planned attack by Harris during the debate...

using the all important issue of busing T-shirts ready to be sold at the debate.

[Thekaspervote]

154. Busing and t-shirts!! Now there's some issues that will excite the average voter!!

[Demsrule86]

180. Haha ...isn't that the truth...busing...a modern exciting topic...

[Thekaspervote]

218. Oh yes.. modern issue indeed!

[Jakes Progress]

249. You seem to have missed the debate.

You seem to be basing you "argument" on Biden press releases.

Get a copy of the debate. Watch the section this thread refers to. Actually listen to the words. I know it is easier to let the spin teams tell you what to think, but if you watch what actually happened, it is hard to support your assertions in this post.

My main problem was how flustered and incensed Biden was that anyone would suggest that he has ever done anything that he needs to apologize for. I can only imagine how tongue tied and dodgy he would be when trump attacked. He should view this as learning experience. (And for Pete's sake, don't use Dixiecrat excuses for your position on any matter dealing with race.)

[Demsrule86]

250. I watched the debate...i heard every word.it was a hit job.

[Cha]

219. No, that's Not true.. Biden has already

said he understands they have to go after him.

Joe Biden Has Three Words for Democratic Candidates Who Took Swipes At Him in California

“Specifically responding to things that you’ve said, Bernie Sanders saying you can’t go back to the past, Elizabeth Warren saying…” Saenz continued.

“Who’s going back to the past?” Biden interrupted.

"Look, I understand. I don’t blame them,” Biden continued. “They’ve got to, you know, they’re good folks but, you know, as I said, see you around.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=139584

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-joe-biden-has-three-words-for-democratic-candidates-who-took-swipes-at-him-in-california/

[Martin Eden]

101. Our Democratic candidates should not tear each other down, BUT ...

... as VOTERS, perhaps the most accurate criteria we have for evaluating candidates is THEIR RECORD.

I like Joe Biden, but for me he disqualified himself in Democratic primaries (along with Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and others) in October 2002 when he voted to give GW Bush authority to invade Iraq.

That was a deal breaker for me, and I hold to it.

I will, of course, vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election whomever it may be.

[Galraedia]

144. The Nation Wanted to go to War

The Bush administration lied us into war and used 9/11 as a pretext. Everyone who was against it was labeled as un-American and as hating America. Biden was up for re-election less than a month after Republicans forced the vote in October of 2002. Republicans still controlled every branch of the federal government until 2007. The American people were fine with the Iraq war until they weren't. Biden went with what the people that voted for him wanted and the problem is that people are stupid.

[Martin Eden]

167. What you describe is the worst kind of politician and failure of leadership

Knowing that the national tragedy of 9/11 was being exploited with a pack of lies to take our nation into an unjustified war -- then going along with it anyway by sticking a finger into the political winds of the moment -- is utterly contemptible.

I really don't think Joe Biden is as bad as you unintentionally make him out to be.

I'll explain why the IWR vote is a deal breaker for me.

Heading into October 2002 was when we needed, more than ever, strong Democratic leaders to stand up and speak truth to power about the campaign of deceit taking us into a potentially disastrous war. I was here at DU, and we knew all about PNAC and the bogus case for war being foisted on the public.

Any United States Senator who didn't know that was not qualified to hold his or her office.

Biden and others, despite the lies, may have thought this war for regime change would turn out well -- or perhaps they were at least partially on board with the PNAC agenda.

At the most charitable, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry showed very poor judgment in the most critically important foreign policy decision of the their Senate careers. I was especially heartbroken with John Kerry, who rose to prominence as a leader of Vietnam Veterans against the Vietnam war.

Not all Democrats in Congress failed that test. Slightly more than half the Dems in the combined House & Senate voted AGAINST the Iraq War Resolution that gave GW Bush authority to invade Iraq. The "NATION" did not want to go to war, unless you redefine that term to exclude the millions who marched in protest before the war was launched (myself included). True leaders don't follow polls based on lies; they tell the truth and change the polls by standing up and doing what is right and necessary.

Anyone who thought that once given that authority Bush/Cheney would exercise restraint and invade only if Iraq failed to cooperate with UN inspections was deluding themselves.

The fact is that in early 2003 the UN inspectors were already coming to the conclusion that the extensive infrastructure necessary for a nuclear weapons program simply didn't exist in Iraq. They had been given access to every facility, and had found nothing to substantiate the alarming claims made by Bush/Cheney. They were, in fact, asking for more time to complete their work when Bush forced their withdrawal with the impending invasion. The most immediate threat was their official rationale for this war would soon evaporate along with the mushroom clouds we were told to fear.

Where was Joe Biden at this time? If you can provide evidence that he stood up in March 2003 and spoke forcefully to demand the inspectors be allowed to finish their job I might reconsider that deal breaker I mentioned, though doubtful. The IWR vote in October 2002 is when strong and wise leadership mattered the most.

[Galraedia]

174. Biden's own son was sent to Iraq

The vote took place months before UN inspectors came to that conclusion, as you yourself pointed out. There is also this:

The place where Biden is most vulnerable is that he voted to give George W. Bush the authority to invade Iraq. But as David Corn recently noted, it is actually a bit more complicated than that. Initially Biden worked on a bipartisan bill with Senators Lugar and Hagel to reign in the administration.

They proposed an alternative to Bush’s resolution that would only allow Bush to attack Iraq for the purpose of destroying WMD and only after seeking UN approval. If the UN turned Bush down, he would have to come back to Congress and prove Saddam posed a WMD threat so “grave” that only military action could eliminate it. Bush couldn’t just hop into war on his own.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2019/05/03/some-things-that-might-surprise-you-about-bidens-foreign-policy-positions/

House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Mo.) thwarted Biden’s bill. So while he did vote for the war he also tried to prevent it. Republicans should have never allowed the vote for authorization to come forward in the first place, as the only thing they knew was what the Bush Administration was telling them. It was only later that they found out that they were lied to. Knowing what happened on 9/11 and what they were told, Republicans forced them to make a decision. The question then is: do you vote yes and invade Iraq or do you vote nay and risk another terrorist attack potentially with nuclear weapons. This is the frame work that they were working with at the time. Republicans that lied us into war still won in 2004 and kept a majority until the election in 2006.

[Martin Eden]

177. "It was only later that they found out that they were lied to"

I don't buy that for a second. Those who didn't know Bushco was lying either didn't want to know or didn't bother looking. The falsity of the White House Iraq Group was obvious here at DU.

I knew about Biden's efforts towards a different IWR authorization. When that was shot down, he should have voted against the IWR -- as did more than half the Democrats in Congress.

Republicans forced him to make a decision? That should have been a pretty good clue it was the wrong decision.

The 2004 election makes a very, very, strong case for my argument. Democrats were complicit in the decision to go to war and they lost anyway. 2004 was very close for John Kerry. What hurt him as much as anything was his apparent flip flop on Iraq war funding (I was against it before I was for it). By November 2004 it was apparent the occupation was going south, WMD were a hoax, and "Mission Accomplished" was a cruel joke.

Kerry was saddled with his IWR vote. Had he stood up and demonstrated strong leadership, then been proven right by events, he most likely would have defeated Bush in 2004.

The link you provided had good information on Biden's foreign policy positions. He was not as much of a hawk as Hillary, but the article did not provide evidence that Biden spoke out strongly in 2003 against the invasion when it was apparent that Bush would not let the UN inspectors complete their work.

[BeyondGeography]

122. What Church Lady said

[PatrickforO]

130. I'm not buying that 100% and I'll tell you why.

The best predictor of what you WILL do is what you HAVE done.

That said, all the senators and governors running have advocated the interests of people in their states, and this advocacy sometimes goes counter to the interests of the whole country. But they are doing their jobs because that is how our system works.

So on the one hand, I'm inclined at first blush to give them all, including Joe, a pass, with the caveat that they'd all better explain why they have evolved on those particular issues.

In terms of Biden, the example is that he was in fact one of four Dem Senators to support the 2005 bankruptcy laws. The mitigating factor was that Biden was the Senator for Delaware, and Delaware is where these credit card companies are all incorporated. So of course, if Biden is being a good Senator, he's going to support them. That is certainly what I'd expect from a Delaware guy.

However, as a presidential candidate, I equally expect that Biden would back off on that position, because if elected, he won't just be representing Delaware and its financial services companies, but all of America, which means all of the American people and all of the American businesses. So what I want to hear from Joe, is how he stands now on these bankruptcy laws, on predatory lending practices, high interest rates, student debt and so on. Because people ARE suffering because of that 2005 bankruptcy law.

You know who I really admire, because his honesty blew me away? Buttigieg. When Rachel asked him that hardball question about race problems in South Bend, he gave a completely honest response. That doesn't mean the problems are going away, but it does mean that people with integrity will now watch to see what he does now. He's got a tough row ahead with African Americans and may not make it, but you've got to admire his honesty, and pull for him to make successful strides forward with the AA community.

That's what I want to see from ALL these people. If Biden came out and said, "Yes, at the time I was one of the Senators from Delaware, and many of the credit card companies are incorporated and have substantial offices there. They were my constituents at the time and so I supported those bankruptcy laws. At this point, here is my position as a presidential candidate..."

That goes for all of them - Warren, Harris, Sanders, etc. They have all done it, and since it is in their records they must answer a) what I did then and why, and b) what I will do as president and why.

Do that, and we'll have a hell of a lot more solidly vetted bunch of candidates.

[StarfishSaver]

198. I was really impressed with Buttigieg's answer, too

Very honest and straightforward

[DasMadchen]

155. "It's no FAIR to judge me on what I've said and done"

"How DARE you question my white, male privilege!"

[toofold4this]

158. They really aren't relevant BUT Joe's inability to apologize (see the fascist) is BAD

In 2007ish, the only person my father and I agreed would make a good pres. was Joe.
Dad was a republican but in his high-level position was pro-middleclass which is anti-republican.
Dad didn't live long enough to see the results of the general election.

Times have changed. I'm still a slightly progressive centrist democrat. It's not an
oxymoron , I concerned about the overly progressive stance that will turn off
too many independent young folks. First, I was pro-Klobuchar (heart be still) then
pro-Biden then I watched the debates (Warren rocked it and I changed my mind about
Joe).

I adore Biden and his amazing wife. Saw him with one of the GWB girls giving a truly moving presentation
of his book. But when Harris called him on his past stances, despite the fact they
really were taken out of context and people can change their mind, Joe
dearest one sounded umpian and I loathe that. A simple, apology rather than playing
defense would've been what so many of my friend would prefer. He's coming across
as antiquated. I'm close to his age and I've had to change and adapt because this is time for
the newer generations to control their fate as best they can.* *If the internal and external
foreign adversarial hacking can be stopped. If not, we're beyond screwed.

So, could Biden beat the despot who makes errors & lies like a drooling Cujo... I don't know
because Cujo has a following who don't care that it lies and loves the hatred and fear
being pushed out of everyplace possible. Biden will be nailed with it.

[Demsrule86]

183. Apologize for what? For a position 40 years ago that apparently Harris now supports. Those who don't

like Biden want n apology tour because they know that will hurt his chances...he doesn't need to apologize.

[Deb]

170. He doesn't need to.

Leaders bring out the best in people.

[FloridaBlues]

173. He may not for right now not that won't stop other candidates from going after.

There may come a time where biden will have to bring up past votes or issues on their past.

[HopeAgain]

210. Smart enough to know he is in a glass house. nt

[Cha]

223. This is for all those accusing Biden of trying to Duck

Attacks from other candidates..

Joe Biden Has Three Words for Democratic Candidates Who Took Swipes At Him in California

“Specifically responding to things that you’ve said, Bernie Sanders saying you can’t go back to the past, Elizabeth Warren saying…” Saenz continued.

“Who’s going back to the past?” Biden interrupted.

"Look, I understand. I don’t blame them,” Biden continued. “They’ve got to, you know, they’re good folks but, you know, as I said, see you around.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=139584

https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-joe-biden-has-three-words-for-democratic-candidates-who-took-swipes-at-him-in-california/

Aloha, Kahuna!

[Gothmog]

225. Joe Biden Is The Only Democrat With A Clear Advantage Over Trump In New Poll

Link to tweet

[SidDithers]

241. "Hey guys, let's not look at our histories, OK? Deal?"...nt

Sid

[Kahuna7]

242. What's sauce for the goose..... nt

[True Blue American]

251. I agree with Joe!

Want to hear what their plans are, not what happened 50, 40 or even yesterday.