Biden Now Says He Regrets Touting Work With Racist Senators

[bluewater]

Joe Biden said Saturday that he regrets comments he made last month about his past work with segregationist senators—remarks that ignited scrutiny and criticism of his record on racial issues.

“Was I wrong a few weeks ago? Yes, I was, and I regret it,” the former vice president said Saturday at a speech in South Carolina.
He said it was a mistake to give the impression he was praising former Democratic Sens. James Eastland and Herman Talmadge—noted racists—while talking about the need for civility in politics.

“I’m sorry for any of the pain or misconception I may have caused anybody,” Biden said.

Biden’s references to Eastland and Talmadge brought criticism from his 2020 rivals that continued into the first Democratic debate, where Sen. Kamala Harris teed off on his opposition to federally mandated busing to desegregate schools.

Biden—who saw his lead in the polls shrink while Harris gained ground after the debate—said it was unfair to judge him on the basis of one gaffe.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/joe-biden-now-says-he-regrets-touting-work-with-racist-senators-eastland-and-talmadge

It's good to apologize, better late than never.

But wait, this is a narrow apology, correct? He is not apologizing for actually working with segregationist Senators to support anti-busing legislation in 1976 and 1977, right?


He is only apologizing for recently touting his working with those senators, for mentioning being civil to them.

“I’m sorry for any of the pain or misconception I may have caused anybody,” Biden

He's not talking about any pain or misconception he might have caused to people back in the 1970's, right?

[RHMerriman]

1. It's even better for cynics not to have tried to make political hay out of it in the first place

It's even better for cynics not to have tried to make political hay out of it in the first place.

[SidDithers]

9. Glad he apologized for his hurtful words...

“I’m sorry for any of the pain or misconception I may have caused anybody,”

Sid

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Yes, Joe needed to apologize...now that he did, perhaps he'll be more careful in expressin his views

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

[RHMerriman]

129. Some people are "hurt" by words...

Some people are strong enough to deal with words, and go on to actually roll up their sleeves and get things done, in spite of the unpleasant realities...

Plenty of glib, emotional manipulators from privileged backgrounds in public life in this country; we don't need any more of them.

Give me the individual - man or woman - who wades in and fights the actual enemy, as opposed to those who are given so much and then sit and carp about how others' best efforts somehow fall short, when the critic has yet to ever sacrifice anything.

[NYMinute]

2. OP's motive is transparent

It is Biden bashing pure and simple.

[bluewater]

3. very transparent actually

I am trying to clarify exactly what Biden apologized for.

Please feel free to correct me if I was wrong. It was a narrow apology, right?

[NYMinute]

28. It won't help your Senator BS nt

[shanny]

58. Warren is BS?

who knew

[bluewater]

60. pssst, Shanny, people are still fixated on Sanders... pass it along...

[shanny]

78. IKR?

[Vegas Roller]

74. We can see a lot of former BS devotees

masquerading as undecided or … supporters of someone else.

[shanny]

80. lol for the "masquerading"

as if people aren't allowed to choose whomever the eff they please.


BTW, who's "we"?

[Blue_true]

95. A lot of those people were legitimately torn between Bernie and other candidates.

Some have chosen those other candidates or chosen to become undecided and wait for more debates.

You should not belittle them for changing their minds, for doing something that is perfectly understandable.

[UniteFightBack]

68. Yes especially when you look at the overall mosaic of posts made...it's quite obvious. nt

[emmaverybo]

4. He apologized for THEIR misconception, which was nothing but willful misinterpretation they

gladly spread around and encouraged so as to boost their own political chances.

Yes, Booker and Harris.

OP transparent.

[Cha]

7. Freaking yeah.. "transparent".

[bluewater]

10. So, we agree, it's a narrow apology.

[emmaverybo]

20. Glad it was. He was too gracious as usual. They should own their exploitation of a story they well

know was not in praise of or coddling of segregationists.

Biden’s civil rights record is far stronger than their own. Their attempt to cut into Biden’s support
With the Black electorate using faux personal outrage and hurt is not a good tactic.

A much more transparent challenge to his record could have been made without resorting to
willful misinterpretation and putting words into his mouth as well as a spin on the anecdote intention.

[bluewater]

30. Thank you.

I agree with you that Biden did not apologize for all of the exchange during the first debate nor it's basis.

[redstateblues]

105. Well said

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

35. Seems to be, but it seems Joe's at least taking some responsibility for the misconception.

That's something... admitting he caused the hurt, so you gotta give Joe credit for that at a minimum.


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

[melman]

13. Can you really do that?

Apologize for someone else's "misconception"? Seems odd.

[bluewater]

15. Is it a form of non-apology apology?

A non-apology apology, sometimes called a nonpology or fauxpology,[1][2] is a statement in the form of an apology that does not express remorse. It is common in both politics and public relations.

Saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" to someone who has been offended by a statement is a non-apology apology. It does not admit there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and may imply the person took offense for hypersensitive or irrational reasons.

Another form of non-apology does not apologize directly to the injured or insulted party, but generically "to anyone who might have been offended".[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

[melman]

16. Yes

It seems to be exactly that.

[still_one]

79. Hmmm, I wonder if Senator Warren will apologize for voting for Reagan twice?

[Celerity]

88. that is a complete falsehood

Hmmm, I wonder if Senator Warren will apologize for voting for Reagan twice?

That is false.


Warren didn't register as a Republican until 1991, and almost never voted for a Repub POTUS

She grew up in an FDR Democratic household.

Her first vote the POTUS was AGAINST Nixon in 1972. She did vote for Ford, but liked Carter. She voted Carter in 1980 and Mondale in 1984. In 1988 she voted for Dukakis, and in 1992, Clinton. Obviously voted for Clinton again in 1996 and every other Democrat since then. She registered as a Republican because she had moved to PA and liked Arlen Specter, who also switched to our Party from Republican.

Her first presidential vote, in 1972, had been cast against a man she said she disliked passionately, Richard Nixon. But reflecting on how little she had paid attention to day-to-day politics at the time, she couldn’t immediately recall who had been running against him. When told it was Democrat George McGovern, she said, Yes, she would have voted for him but didn’t have any specific memory of having done so. (She was living in New Jersey at the time.)

Going to the polls, she said, was nothing new for her. Warren’s mother had been a poll worker and brought her young daughter to the polls each Election Day.

Nixon was re-elected that year, of course, but resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford. Warren said she had voted for him in 1976, believing that “Ford was a decent man.”

But she was happy with Jimmy Carter, who beat him. “I thought he [also] was a decent man,” she said, transferring her then-standard for what she wanted in a politician from Ford to Carter. “He was a really good man.”

As the ’80s wore on and her research on bankruptcy progressed, Warren started waking up politically. At the time, though, the two parties had yet to separate entirely along ideological lines, as some deeply conservative and racist Democrats still held office, as did some genuinely liberal Republicans.

In 1988, Warren voted for Michael Dukakis but, in 1992, split her ticket, voting for Republican Arlen Specter for Senate and Democrat Bill Clinton for president. Specter is a good example of the one-time flexibility of the party system and the politicians within it: He began and ended his career as a Democrat, but was a Republican for much of the middle of it.

By the fall of 1987, she had moved to Pennsylvania and registered there as a Republican. Warren said she couldn’t quite remember why she did it but that she was a fan of Specter. “Again, I thought he was a decent man,” she said. She couldn’t recall whom he ran against. (His Democratic opponent was Lynn Yeakel.)

That GOP registration, though, has set off speculation over the years that one of the Senate’s most progressive champions may have at one time been a Ronald Reagan backer.

So we asked her: Is it true? Is it possible the champion of the regulatory cops on Wall Street voted for the man who made deregulation a hallmark of his presidency?

No.

In 1980, she said, she was a registered independent living in Missouri City, Texas, and cast her vote to re-elect Carter.

When Reagan won, she wasn’t happy but not crushed the way she was on election night in 2016. “I was disappointed and didn’t like him, but I wasn’t deeply worried for the country, not anything like when Trump was elected,” she explained. If she could go back in time, she said, she would tell herself “this was a far more pivotal historical moment than you understand.”

Maybe people also have issues with former Republicans Howard Dean, Leon Panetta, Chris Coons (has Biden's old seat in the Senate), Carolyn McCarthy, Harley Rouda, Gabby Giffords, James Webb, Wendy Davis, Gil Cisneros, Jim Jeffords, Patrick Murphy, and Specter himself, etc.etc etc. Some of them even ran (oh the HORROR!) for President.


Warren is tied for the 2nd lowest Trump score in the entire Senate



compare that to the highest Democrats




NO way can she be framed as some ex-villainous Rethug who was in it for the cash (she grew up dirt poor), accused of (falsely) voting for Reagan, and/or is some late-comer to the Demoratc Party game.

She is a ROCK SOLID Democrat, a wonderful, warm, hyper-intelligent, lucid-thinking person and would make a superb POTUS.

[still_one]

92. She never denied it

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/189657--liberal-favorite-elizabeth-warren-admits-she-was-a-republican%3famp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/elizabeth-warren-reaganomics-republican-history.amp

[Celerity]

94. I just showed you she specifically said she did not vote for Reagan and was upset he won

done with your disinfo attempts

[still_one]

100. The Hill and Slate disagree with the Intercept

[ucrdem]

102. LOL, and anything in the Intercept is basically a fancy tweet. nt

[still_one]

104. The intercept and Ryan Grim from TYT have a definite agenda

and yes, they have been know to misrepresent

[Celerity]

109. I didnt see any of the Biden people whinging on about The Intercept when they definitively debunked

the bullshit RW-pushed, MSM (The NYT had a field day) picked up smears about Biden and his son and the Ukraine.

So situational, smdh

other example of situational posturing is Joy Reid

1 Joy tears in Bernie (fairly IMHO) equals Joy is great, a truthteller, a wonderful Democratic ally

2 Joy gets caught with old homophobic blog posts, then lies and falsely claims she was hacked equals anyone who says she did post that shit (because she was still anti-Bernie at that time) is using 'RW-talking posts' and is probably a Russian, lol

3 Joy now, in 2019 puts the heat on Biden, likes Harris and others.... equals Joy is a troll/divider AND amazingly IS NOW INDEED a homophobe (in some cases said by the very same people who were rabidly defending her against the outing of those blogs pieces before, lolol) so she sucks according to many (mostly in other particular candidates camp)


I personally think she was right in her critiques on Bernie, I also think she was a homophobe, and did lie about the hacking, but sorta came clean enough to satisfy me (I am a lesbian of colour, so I do have some skin in the game), has definitely changed her viewpoints (at least publicly) and I also think she was overall fair to Biden, and Pete (she was pretty harsh on him as well).

Nothing I said requires me to hypocritically change any previously held viewpoint just because she was critical of the candidate I support.


NOW......


here is the Intercept putting the smears against Biden to bed with a vengeance

Link to tweet

Alex Seitz-Wald
✔
@aseitzwald
The Intercept comes to Joe Biden’s defense in l’affair Rudy in Ukraine. https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/ …

62
9:55 PM - May 11, 2019


A Republican Conspiracy Theory About a Biden-in-Ukraine Scandal Has Gone Mainstream. But It Is Not True.

https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/

VIRAL RUMORS that Joe Biden abused his power as vice president to protect his son’s business interests in Ukraine in 2016, which spread last week from the pro-Trump media ecosystem to The New York Times, are “absolute nonsense,” according to Ukraine’s leading anti-corruption activist. That evaluation is backed by foreign correspondents in Kiev and a former official with knowledge of Biden’s outreach to Ukraine after President Viktor Yanukovych was deposed in a popular uprising in 2014.

In an interview with The Intercept, Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front page stories in The New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.

The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.

The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.

Properly debunking this particular conspiracy theory is easier said than done, though, since it is set in Ukraine, a country with byzantine political intrigue at the best of times, and these are not the best of times. The rivalries between political factions in Kiev are so intense that even the country’s new anti-corruption agencies are at each other’s throats.

There is no question that Biden did, during a visit to Kiev in late 2015, threaten to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was dismissed. But the vice president, who was leading the Obama administration’s effort to fight corruption in Ukraine, did the country a favor by hastening Shokin’s departure, Kaleniuk said, since he had failed to properly investigate corrupt officials.


snip


It is a super detailed, sourced, documented, in-depth, long, thorough crushing of the false rot used to smear Biden. Far from a

basically a fancy tweet.

If you ever run into someone trying to push that tosh against Joe, that is by far the best debunking article you will find, at least that I have seen so far, and I have seen a lot of them.

[Celerity]

107. no they do not, and here is more verification, you are simply not telling the truth

I dealt with someone exactly like you back in April, saying the same untruths, even used the same 2011 article, kept pushing the same tosh. They were not the only one, but they were amazing similar in style and tone and even articles used to you.

Warren only voted for one Republican for POTUS, Ford in 1976. She was a Registered Republican in Montgomery County Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1996, at which time she switched to being a Democrat.

You really need to stop the outright falsehood that she voted for Reagan (and to make it more egregious, you said twice), that is a lie, pure and simple.



https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613

Warren has acknowledged her Republican past before, but she does not often discuss it, or else downplays it. In a recent interview over tea at her home in Cambridge, Massachusetts, she said she assumes the first time she registered as a Democrat was 1996, but added, “I’m not even 100 percent sure what I was registered as.” According to Warren, in the six presidential elections she voted in before 1996, she cast her ballot for just one GOP nominee, Gerald Ford in 1976. She does not talk about her Republican past in either of her books or as part of the biography she recounts in her stump speech; the information often comes as a surprise even to Beltway politicos and longtime Warren allies.

https://thinkprogress.org/why-elizabeth-warren-left-the-gop-e78680711424/

Warren has quickly become a populist hero to liberals. Stephanopoulos, host of ABC’s The Week, noted something in her background that “might surprise” her supporters: the fact that she has voted Republican in the past, and was a registered Republican in Pennsylvania from 1991 to 1996. Warren said she left the party after that because she felt it was siding more and more with Wall Street:

I was an independent. I was with the GOP for a while because I really thought that it was a party that was principled in its conservative approach to economics and to markets. And I feel like the GOP party just left that. They moved to a party that said, “No, it’s not about a level playing field. It’s now about a field that’s gotten tilted.” And they really stood up for the big financial institutions when the big financial institutions are just hammering middle class American families. I just feel like that’s a party that moved way, way away.

Warren’s instincts on the GOP’s sympathy for the big financial institutions proved prescient. Former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) spent the 1990s spearheading legislation that made the 2008 financial crisis possible: the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which broke down the firewall between commercial banks and the far riskier investment banks, as well as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the over-the-counter derivatives that played a key role in the 2008 financial collapse. Both bills passed with majority Republican support, though they were also supported by a good deal of Democrats and the Clinton White House.

snip



You can take that first article ( The Politico one above , here is the URL again... https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/04/12/elizabeth-warren-profile-young-republican-2020-president-226613 )

Make an OP if you want. It asks a lot of tough questions, goes deep into her past, paints a complex picture. I am certain some of the Warren people will not like it, but it is simply about policy and philosophy. That is a fair debate. I have zero issues with you or anyone else doing that.

What is not fair is you and others untruthfully saying or intimating or inferring, or playing other semantic games to imply that she voted for Reagan (in your case twice) in a drive-by hit post (I have seen this done multiple times), when she specifically, now, says SHE DID NOT VOTE FOR REAGAN IN EITHER ELECTION (1980 and 1984).

The only Republican she voted for for POTUS was Ford. Hell she voted for McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis, 3 of the most crushing electoral defeats we have ever had.

It is bashing a fellow Democrat with outright lies to keep saying this (that she voted for Reagan) over and over.

[still_one]

108. I have no issue with those references. Thanks for correcting me, and pointing out my incorrect

assessment

Someone yesterday posted, obviously incorrectly, the incorrect assertion that I unfortunately propagated. I stand corrected, and will not propagate the falsehood further, and correctly point out the facts as you did for me

Appreciate your patience, with me on this

Thanks

[Celerity]

110. fairplay, thanks for the reply

[still_one]

111. .......................

[Voltaire2]

17. You can and do when you've been told

to do damage control.

[George II]

19. I guess one can do that, he did that.

[melman]

22. Did what?

[George II]

26. This, it was only about 25 minutes ago:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1287&pid=192681

13. Can you really do that?

Apologize for someone else's "misconception"? Seems odd.

[blm]

5. Please show some restraint. Most Warren supporters do not

Take every opportunity to bash a fellow candidate. Certainly not at DU.

[bluewater]

12. Please point out where I "bashed" anyone in the OP.

[blm]

18. It's implicit even if you are unwilling to admit it

Some of us have been through every DU primary.

[bluewater]

39. You seem to be equating "bashing" with "vetting" or even "opposing"

We are allowed to oppose a primary candidate, right?

We are not pretending that there aren't any candidates who we wish NOT to get the nomination, are we?

I am clearly opposing Biden's primary run, but I will support him if he wins the nomination.

[BannonsLiver]

150. Clever game.

It’ll be interesting to see how long you get to play it.

[Cha]

91. Yes, so many see right through it..

Mahalo, blm

[Autumn]

114. You posted a current article on what Joe said on Saturday. It doesn't point out

that he is ahead in the polls, he's the only one who can win against Trump and by Gosh he's wonderful. That's bashing.

[bluewater]

124. ikr

lol

[Cha]

6. That's all you have.. A Noun A Verb and Bad Joe Biden.

[George II]

25. Yeah, I saw a takeoff on that a little while ago, but it wasn't Bad Joe Biden.

[customerserviceguy]

27. Shades of Rudy Giuliani! n/t

[WA-03 Democrat]

46. So true Cha!!!

I like all of our candidates (some more then others!)

We need to focus fire on the Putin Patriots aka The Payer of Porn Stars.

Just like Putin did not want Hillary it’s the same with Joe. Harris and Warren seem unpopular in Moscow too!

Go Joe Go!

[bluewater]

53. "Back in the Saddle Again" by Gene Autry

Back in the Saddle Again
Gene Autry

I'm back in the saddle again
Out where a friend is a friend
Where the longhorn cattle feed
On the lowly gypsum weed
Back in the saddle again

Ridin' the range once more
Totin' my old .44
Where you sleep out every night
And the only law is right
Back in the saddle again

lol

got to get right back up on the horse, they say.

Thanks for bumping the thread.

[Cha]

87. No Thanks for your Noun a Verb and Bad Joe Biden..

Looks like I'm not the only one who sees that.

[bluewater]

90. "Tubthumping" by Chumbawamba

Tubthumping
by
Chumbawamba

(The truth is, I thought it mattered)
(I thought that music mattered.)
(But does it? Pollocks! Not compared to how people matter)
(We'll be singing, when we're winning, we'll be singing)
I get knocked down, but I get up again
You are never gonna keep me down
I get knocked down, but I get up again
You are never gonna keep me down
I get knocked down, but I get up again
You are never gonna keep me down
I get knocked down, but I get up again
You are never gonna keep me down

lol

"You take a crash, you get back up and next time you succeed and that's a great feeling."
- Shaun White, 3 time Olympic Gold Medal Winner



Thank you for bumping this thread!

[George II]

138. I guess I missed it, when where you "out of the saddle"?

[bluewater]

140. Pardon?

Be _specific_ with your question. lol

[George II]

141. Your post #53.

[bluewater]

142. Again, Pardon?

What about it?

Do you have a _specific_ question? Please ask a _specific_ question so I can answer you.

[George II]

146. Again, your post #53.

I did ask you a specific question in post #138.

ps - I have a typo there, I should have said "were", not "where".

[bluewater]

147. Still seems cryptic

Would you please get back to me when you could be more _specific_?

Thanks.

[sheshe2]

152. Lol!

[Demit]

8. He said it was unfair to judge him on the basis of one gaffe.

Putting aside the question of whether waxing nostalgic about segregationists was nothing more than a gaffe, how many gaffes do we have to wait for him to make before it's fair to criticize him, I wonder?

[emmaverybo]

23. Waxing nostalgic about segregationists. There you did it again. And you don't have to do anything

but support, promote, and honestly point out your candidates’ superior qualifications to Biden.

[George II]

32. It's like those two Senators (who were DEMOCRATS, by the way) were ONLY segregationists.

[bluewater]

48. "were ONLY segregationalists" ?

Well, they were outright racist bastards too.

Would you please elaborate on the point you are trying to make?

[Blue_true]

99. I think that some good DU people are so determined to defend Biden that they fail to

see what men like Eastland and Stennis were. Men like Hollins reformed and became solid modern democrats.

[Blue_true]

96. They were ONLY segregationists.

They came from the Democratic Party that came about after the civil war, the party that confederates flocked to because they hated that Lincoln had freed slaves. They were from a southern wing of the Democratic Party that seperated out and dehumanized Black people, one of their fathers even lunched a man and his wife. They were not today's democrats, today they would be White supremacists that anchor the Republican Party.

[StarfishSaver]

106. But other than that white supremacists segregationist stuff, they were great guys

[Demit]

38. "The candidate expressed annoyance that opponents are digging into his career on Capitol Hill

instead of his eight years as Obama’s No.2."

I haven't settled on a candidate yet, but it will be one who doesn't "express annoyance" that people are looking at what they've done in their career. I would consider that a superior qualification right off the bat.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

41. Everyone deserves at least one "mulligan."

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

[treestar]

116. you are deliberately interpreting it that way

when he was only making the point that no matter how much one differed with another Senator, you could still work something out, which you can't do now.

Jesus Christ on a Trailer Hitch!

He should have made that point rather than "apologize." Sick of catering to people who do this kind of shit. They want to find a racist? They need to look further and they can find some real ones.

[Demit]

123. I repeated what he said, about his own gaffe. I used his own words.

It seems to me that you're the one doing the interpreting.

And now you're criticizing him, for not saying what you think he should have said?? It seems you don't quite trust Biden's political instincts, either.

[Vegas Roller]

21. Some people's goal is to drag down all the front runners

so the great messiah Senator BS is in the front again.

David Sirota releases these talking points via surrogates and the devotees post on various message boards.

[tonedevil]

14. Does he really not know...

that he changed a key sentence in his walk down memory lane which greatly increases the possibility of a negative interpretation. In the past Biden has said he never called me Senator, he always called me son. When he last delivered it he said he never called me boy, he always called me son. I do not see how anyone can miss the drastic change in meaning between those two sentences. A simple I misspoke could go so far in clarifying his intention. Choosing a Republican or two that he worked with would demonstrate his ability to work across the aisle not just with the worst racists in the Senate.

[Vegas Roller]

24. To my innocent and straightforward mind

What Biden said was "he never called me boy (because I was white), he called me son (which is equally derogatory)."


Summary -- They were as derogatory to me even though I was White but I still worked with them (for the benefit of the nation.)

[tonedevil]

50. It isn't equally derogatory...

boy straight up and unequivocally expresses the contemptuous superiority of the speaker. While son can be used similarly even then it is softer, but depending on context it can indicate the affection of a mentor for mentee. When Senator-son is used it is very clear Eastland is being disrespectful. The boy-son version means he had more derogatory names for people, but chose the more polite name for Biden. Consider that with the racial context of the word boy, the horrible record on race Eastland had, and the murky controversy of anti-busing I suspect it can upset and dismay PoC who as was mentioned would be forbidden from having any role in governing if Eastland had his way.
To me that is why it is legitimate to say I don't think Joe Biden is a racist, but he can say some things that really don't sit right. While it has been 10 years or more ago I think this unfortunate phrasing is illustrative of that:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

It really isn't always just people trying to pick on Biden the front runner, sometimes there is a legitimate issue.

[Demit]

70. He's still saying things that don't sit right. The stereotypes are still top of mind for him.

The "gay waiter" and "gangbanger" remarks were a few days ago, his reference to predatory lenders as "Shylocks" was a few years ago. His joke that you can't go into a 7-11 unless you have a slight Indian accent was awhile back—but it's all of a piece. It's indicative of how he thinks in stereotypes. And then he just blurts them out. It's really unlikeable.

[tonedevil]

73. It's why I am trepedatious of him in the general election. /nt

[treestar]

118. It's not a legit issue

It's trying to find something to use.

There are some people out there who really are racists.

Obama picked Biden in spite of his "articulateness" comment. It was a smart pick, because it was being said Obama didn't have experience.

[bluewater]

125. Maybe we should ask the Legit Issue Police?

Wait, there is no such thing as the Legit Issue Police.

People are left to decide for themselves what the issues are.

[treestar]

144. Well it's not convincing

When it is just an excuse ti gin up outrage

[bluewater]

145. Many people feel as you do.

Thanks for the Discussion.

[George II]

34. It's a negative interpretation only to those who want to interpret it negatively.

[tonedevil]

55. You honestly see no difference...

in how the two sentences can be interpreted? Please allow me to demonstrate.

Senator, I'd sure like you to vote with me on the bill.
Son, I'd sure like you to vote with me on the bill.
Boy, I'd sure like you to vote with me on the bill.

Perhaps you can see that one of these things is not like the other?

[customerserviceguy]

36. I did not know that

It really changes the meaning radically when you say "boy" instead of "Senator" in that sentence. I wonder why neither Joe Biden nor his staff have pointed that out forcefully enough.

[tonedevil]

51. It seems obvious to me. /nt

[marylandblue]

89. Because once he made the mistake, he was trapped.

The story wasn't great to begin with. His staff told him not use it. Then he screwed up his own old story he shouldn't have even been using. So it's still a gaffe.

I think his best move would have been to just call it a gaffe, laugh at himself, chide the press for ignoring real problems, and introduce some new civil rights policy.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

29. This is disqualifying

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

43. One of the few times I disagree with you HBS... could make a stronger argument that

OTHER positions and votes by Biden are FAR more disqualifying than this. But, I respect you opinion, as usual. Though, with each successive unforced error, it's easy to see why Biden lost the two Democratic primary races he entered in 1988 and 2008.


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

[George II]

49. In what manner is it "disqualifying"? I trust President Barack Obama's judgement regarding Biden.

[still_one]

82. So is someone appointing people to their campaign who voted for Jill Stein, and encouraging others

to do likewise?

How about someone voting for Reagan twice?

[samnsara]

31. om my effing gawd...we are friends with japan right? guess what they did?

and germany? well guess who they spawned? times fucking change....no amount of propa is gonna change my mind about joe....

[shanny]

61. they changed their ways.

they didn't try to 'splain them away.

[Voltaire2]

112. The analogy would work if somebody

was bragging about how well they got along with von Ribbentrop, and how civil he was.

[jberryhill]

37. Let it go

[Lotusflower70]

40. Hmm

It seems too little too late to me. But it was absolutely ridiculous of him to say he wasn't prepared for the debate. Seriously? This is for the future of democracy. If you aren't prepared, go home.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. Fair point... does make you wonder how badly Joe wants it.

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

[Lotusflower70]

47. I know right

He is taking so much for granted. He is ignoring women and minorities. It just makes me sick how antiquated he is. As far as the nomination is concerned, you have to earn it and so far he isn't it.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

54. I agree... congrats to your candidate's showing in the debate.

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

[Thekaspervote]

151. Ignoring women and minorities? He's championed civil rights, women's rights LBGQt rights issues

Here is his record..if you are so inclined to read instead of making statements that are not true

https://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Joe_Biden_Civil_Rights.htm

[Skya Rhen]

97. "I was prepared for them to come after me but I wasn't prepared for the person who came at me, the

way she came at me," Biden said. "She knows Beau, she knows me."


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-2020-former-vp-says-he-wasnt-prepared-for-attacks-from-kamala-harris-at-debate/


***********************************************************************************************

Please provide a link with Biden saying that he wasn't prepared for the debate.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

42. That's a pretty meh apology and is several weeks after the event.

I continue to be unimpressed with Biden and his team. I believe he's a good man. He's not a great candidate.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. Perhaps Biden needs to look for new advisors to help with avoiding these unforced errors.

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

[shanny]

56. IMO what he really needs to do is drop his campaign for the nomination

(as has been pointed out, it's a mystery as to whether he actually wants it--he doesn't seem like he is doing the work) and retire as a beloved elder statesman.

He's not doing himself or us any favors.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. It wouldn't shock me to see Joe drop out, but if he can "right the ship"

after Kamala threw him under the bus, then Joe still has a chance, though slim.


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

[Skya Rhen]

103. Joe is the clear front runner. So, the leader should drop out so that the ones lagging behind

can move up ahead in the line?

I don't encourage this lazy form of "winning". If the trailing candidates are worth their salt, they would win on their own merit (which is what Biden is doing).

Note, that Joe is not asking anyone to drop out...

[shanny]

52. This is his pattern: he doesn't seem to accept that he did anything wrong.

Not with Anita Hill ("I wish there was something I could have done"...from the chairman of the committee) and now about working with segregationists. He apologizes for bringing it up now--and any pain that might have caused--but not about doing it then.

And he still thinks he can work with Republicans. I never thought I'd praise Michael Bennet (my senator) for something like this (I've always thought he was too tight with banks and big business) but he pegged Biden in the debate. The Bush tax cuts were due to expire, all the leverage was on our side...and Biden negotiated a deal with his former colleagues that ended up preserving most of those tax cuts AND sticking us with the sequester. It was a bad deal.

IMO that was a far more consequential blow than the brouhaha about busing--and I am totally not surprised that the MSM has chosen to highlight the latter as opposed to the former.

[bluewater]

59. "Biden negotiated a deal with his former colleagues that ended up preserving most of those tax cuts"

I think that point will come up again if Biden tout's how he "worked with Republicans" again.

Someone might even raise it on their own, it's a great point.

[Chitown Kev]

93. Yep...I got the point that he was trying to make

and then to see the deal that he made...follow that up with the deal that he made with McConnell and...nothing changed...

...makes you wonder if Biden was among the advisors that wanted Obama to no longer fight for the ACA after Scott Brown was elected

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Yeah, Joe's promoting his ability to work with RethugliKKKons has me baffled...

I don't see how that wins him votes.


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

[33taw]

57. Working with people they dislike is part of politics.

We need more people willing to work together. Many of the policies we embrace will need a path forward that will involve compromise even within our own party.

[melman]

65. Who said he disliked them?

"Eastland, Stennis, Thurmond. All these men became my friends" - Joe Biden

Link to tweet

[33taw]

71. It is okay to have friends that don't look or think like us.

Pushing them away will not help. Engaging them will. I worked in government for 32 years and had to work with many I did not agree with. But, having some level of respect and friendliness helped make progress.

[bluewater]

72. I have never been friends with anyone I knew to be a racist.

Is it too much to ask the same of our nominee in 2020?

Well, maybe it would be OK if they apologized for being friends with known racist Senators, and apologized before being forced to do so by public opinion.

[33taw]

81. Joe Biden is not a racist. He worked with them and did what he needed to do.

I knew people 40 years ago that were friends that were racist. I moved on. If I saw them today, I would be friendly and respectful. And yes, I would introduce them as a friend from long ago.

[shanny]

66. We need people on the other side of the aisle to work with people they dislike.

WE do it all the time.

[Honeycombe8]

64. Democrats need to stop apologizing. He's saying he inartfully referred to his working on bills...

with the segregationists, and gave people the wrong impression. If that was a gaffe, be assured he'll make more of 'em. The other candidates will, too.

[mainstreetonce]

67. I don't think he should have apologized.

I don't think he said anything wrong.

I hope his advisors know what they are doing.

If this helps...ok

Anything that helps beat Trump.

[oasis]

101. I agree, knowing many will accept his apology and move on.

Those " poor, concerned souls" who will continue to raise a stink about it, were never going to vote for him anyway.

[tishaLA]

69. Remember when he said Cory Booker should apologize to HIM?

Nearly a month later/too late, he acknowledges what was clear at the time

[EffieBlack]

75. So, can we finally be done with the "How DARE Harris say Biden's comments were hurtful" poutrages?

[bluewater]

76. Oh, you optimist you.

[Indygram]

77. Glad he finally did this

Just wish he would have done it right away and avoid all this time spent arguing over it. Happy he ended up in the right place in the end, though.

[onetexan]

86. i for one don't think Biden should have apologized. BUT even when he was NOT in the wrong he chose

to take the high road to end the ridiculous accusation, considering his life-long record on civil rights.
That takes magnanimity and strength of character. KUDOS VP Biden!!

[padah513]

83. Ah the daily Biden post

Been here a day short of a month, has close to 500 posts, and most of them are negative against a Democratic candidate. Kudos my friend!!!

[bluewater]

84. Hi

[highplainsdem]

85. Oh, if only it were merely one daily anti-Biden post...

[treestar]

121. And of course demand apology and when he caves

find it not good enough!

This is why Republicans win.

[ucrdem]

98. He said what he needed to say and any effort to deconstruct the wording is ill advised. nt

[Voltaire2]

113. Biden keeps kicking his gaffe back up

into the news. This is now like three weeks of gyrations over this idiocy.

[ucrdem]

115. LOL

[treestar]

120. OMG! IKR?

[ucrdem]

122. Yep ... we've seen this movie many times

[bluewater]

126. He had to apologize though

He has lost half of his support among African American Democrats since the debate.

He must be losing even more to sudden change course and apologize even partly now.

[wyldwolf]

117. Now if FDR, JFK, LBJ, and Jimmy Carter would just apologize for working with segregationists...

"Progressives" might be placated... until the next faux scandal.

[treestar]

119. +1

[bluewater]

127. Damn them. I won't vote for FDR, JFK, LBJ or Carter in the 2020 Primaries then!!

silly silly silly

[wyldwolf]

128. And you likely wouldn't have

Not pure enough for you.

[bluewater]

130. Ah! The personal attack! The last gasp of a faling argument. lol

Also known as the Ad hominem fallacy.

Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

[wyldwolf]

135. How is that a personal attack?

Suggesting you would have voted for someone else in the Democratic primary
campaigns of past elections seems
likely based on your choice now.



Aww. How cute! You know the definition
of ‘ad hominem.’

[yardwork]

131. Let's just drop it. Busing is not a winning issues to discuss in 2020.

This is a no-win argument for Democrats in 2020. Let's move forward, not argue about our positions on busing in the 1970s. All it does is make the hard-core racists gleeful as we shoot one another in this circular firing squad.

I'd prefer that Democrats win the White House, Congress, and state and local elections in 2020 so that we can do something about the racism, bigotry, economic inequality, climate emergency, and human rights abuses on our border that plague our nation.

Will you join me?

[bluewater]

132. You just bumped a day old post

Not trying to seem rude by saying that.

Bumping older threads just keeps that topic alive.

But I take your point. As long as nothing new and newsworthy breaks on this topic, I won't be discussing it.

If a candidate brings it up again though, what are we to do? Ignore them?

[yardwork]

133. It was at the top of the page when I saw it just now.

I didn't notice when you first posted it, but it's been at the top of the page this afternoon.

I think that the candidates should drop it and so should we.

[bluewater]

134. I undestand.

People keep bumping this thread, many while complaining about it. Go figure.

Best Regards. I will take your advice to heart.

[Gothmog]

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

Link to tweet

[ecstatic]

137. FFS, it's time to move on

Nobody was actually insulted or hurt in 2019 over his stance in the 70s. Not a single person. Time to move on.

Those who don't like his statements, whether about the segregationists, the sisters, the hugs, etc, vote for someone else. That's what the primary is for.

[MustLoveBeagles]

139. Thank you

[bluewater]

143. You all are bumping a thread from yesterday

Are you on a phone perhaps? On a PC you can see a threads start time.

Replying to day old threads moves them up to the top of the forum again.

[ucrdem]

148. Thread win. nt

[BannonsLiver]

149. OPs like this are the reason demands for apologies are mostly bullshit and disingenuous

The aggrieved simply move the goal posts a little to the left.

[emmaverybo]

153. Said it all in a nutshell. That's what's up with apology ransoms and these kind of posts. NT

[delisen]

154. Biden just claimed there was no Russian interference "on his watch"

in our 2016 election.

But the Russian interference in 2016 did occur while Biden was Vice President.

This is not making sense.

The Mueller Report, the FBI, and Intelligence agencies have documented Russian interference and the fact that Russian actually breached election systems around the country.

Only Republicans have tried to deny this and even now most of them have had to accept the facts. Of course now they are seizing on Biden's statement.

I have been very strong in defending Biden against criticism of his age, and his behavior toward women and girls.

However I think he needs to prepare more before doing these interviews. Denying reality is what Trump does and it is toxic. Trump does it deliberately.

Biden does not do it deliberately but it is damaging.