Semi Finals Bracket 2: Biden vs Edwards

[itsrobert]

Winner will face off against winner of Kucinich/Gravel at 8 am Eastern Monday.
Bracket 1 here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3685045

[debbierlus]

1. A word of note to the Biden voters - he voted for the bankruptcy bill

You know, the one that made it harder for middle-class Americans declare bankruptcy. Yeah, that one.
The one that allows millionaires exclusion to the new Chapter 7 clauses but not people with less money.
Sound familiary? Oh, & the one that allows the credit card companies to change the rate they charge you, at
any time, for any reason.

He voted for that....

Just thought I would remind you.

[maximusveritas]

3. And a note for Edwards voters - he also voted for similar bankruptcy bills in 2000, 2001

While Biden may have voted for the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, at least he had the excuse of serving his state. Not sure what Edwards' excuse was. He now says it was a mistake. One of many.

[Alexander]

6. Biden's a Drug Warrior, a gaffe machine and has plagiarism in his past...

His plan for dividing Iraq is not at all popular with Iraqis. I wonder why that is?

I'm not a big Edwards fan but it's no contest here - Edwards.

[maximusveritas]

9. I think the gaffes and plagiarism are as relevant as Edwards' haircuts and mansion

I'm really on the opposite side of you here since I'm not a big Biden fan, but I think he has the clear advantage in this matchup when you compare the records of the two. He wins not only on experience (which I don't place a whole lot of emphasis on), but on consistency and judgement as well. His plan for Iraq isn't perfect, but it's probably the best of a bad set of options at this point.

[ginchinchili]

15. Biden would like to end drug abuse, he speaks more honestly and is more informative

than any other candidate, and his "plagiarism" was a quote that he often used and gave credit for except for one particular time when he forgot. He excepted responsibility for it and graciously bowed out of a run for president back in, I believe it was, 1988. After 35 years as one of our most productive senators, there's little doubt that everyone can find at least one bill he voted in favor of, or against, that they disagree with him on.

There's nothing like stacking the deck when trying to take a poll, eh Alexander? Doesn't exactly reflect maturity. The truth is that Biden has nothing to be ashamed of, is exceptionally intelligent, a genuinely ethical family man, and there's not one other candidate running for president who has a better understanding of international politics which would certainly come in handy since our country is at war and that the entire Middle East could easily break out into a regional conflict.

Gaffe machine? I'd gladly trade a government full of deceptionists for a government run by people who told the truth, made a serious effort to keep us informed, and occasionally stuck their foot in their mouth.

[Alexander]

24. "Would like to end drug abuse" = Drug Czar, RAVE Act, etc. Gimme a break.

End drug abuse my ass. Didn't you learn the Drug War was a crock of shit after grade school? You dare insult my intelligence by whitewashing the imprisonment of hundreds of thousands of people with this tripe?

"There's nothing like stacking the deck when trying to take a poll, eh Alexander?"

How, exactly, am I stacking the deck, apart from comparing Biden to Edwards and making my opinion known? (Which, by the way, is what everyone else is doing).

"Doesn't exactly reflect maturity."

Well, your posts do reflect a lot of hypocrisy, so I will take them for what they are worth - nothing.

"Gaffe machine? I'd gladly trade a government full of deceptionists for a government run by people who told the truth, made a serious effort to keep us informed, and occasionally stuck their foot in their mouth."

Here's a newsflash for you, Bidenbot #12: You're not going to get the government you want when the right-wing noise machine milks your candidate's gaffes for endless amounts of news cycles.

[ginchinchili]

28. You have to have intelligence for it to be insulted

Yes, the drug war doesn't work. We all know that now. So this means our politicians should embrace drug abuse? Just look what it's done to you. You exemplify why it's getting easier and easier for our politicians to play us for fools.

Yes, I'll state it again: "Gaffe machine? I'd gladly trade a government full of deceptionists for a government run by people who told the truth, made a serious effort to keep us informed, and occasionally stuck their foot in their mouth."

SENATOR JOE BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT! The Logical Choice!

[jillan]

48. ginchinchilli - just ignore him. He's always like that.

[ginchinchili]

60. Yeah, I'm fixing to put him on ignore. I just had to get in a few more swipes.

[Alexander]

64. Ignore is for people who can't handle rational debate.

Go on, cower behind the Ignore button when you find people with opinions different from your own.

I don't care if you live in a sheltered bubble - in fact I get a good laugh out of it.

[Alexander]

63. Always what? Sniping, like you?

[Froward69]

69. Alexander, I notice you do not respond to me anymore...

Don't bother this time either.

[Alexander]

105. I respond to people who have something worthwhile to say.

You never do. Now go away.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[murbley40]

77. yes, put him on ignore ,he likes to report people.......

and he is a "Biden Hater"

[Alexander]

107. Great, more Bidenbots at work.

Must be real fun trying to keep all those DU accounts in order.

Of course, when you accuse me of being a "Biden Hater" you neglect to point out that I would vote for him if he were the nominee.

More dishonesty from the Bidenbots. They must pay you well over in Wilmington.

[youthere]

118. Oh come on..

certainly we deserve a more original moniker than "Bidenbots"...that's just a rip-off from the Clinton supporters, and just plain lazy to boot.
A little more effort please. How about something catchy like "Bidenistas"? I could live with that.

[Alexander]

134. You'll get a different moniker when you put some effort into your arguments.

"certainly we deserve a more original moniker than "Bidenbots"...that's just a rip-off from the Clinton supporters, and just plain lazy to boot."

Since your arguments are just plain lazy, or better yet nonexistent, why should I bother wasting time coming up with a different name?

I provided ample evidence of these main 5 reasons as to why Biden does not sit well with me, and not one of them was refuted.

1) Biden is a Drug Warrior.
2) Biden supported MBNA, a giveaway to credit card industries in his own state.
3) Biden's plan for Iraq is not supported by most who actually live in Iraq.
4) Biden flunked a law school class for plagiarism and was caught "borrowing" Neil Kinnock's speech and "forgetting" to credit him in his 1988 race.
5) Biden has a history of gaffes, and would provide the GOP with endless ammunition if he became the nominee.

"A little more effort please. How about something catchy like "Bidenistas"? I could live with that."

I'll make you a deal - I'll put in the effort to call you something different when you make the effort to actually refute the above five points instead of jumping right to the whining and name-calling.

[youthere]

142. Dude...lighten up...it was an attempt at a joke.

I have been nothing but respectful to you, and I don't appreciate the hostility. If you have vitriol for Biden, that's fine..but don't keep throwing out half-truths and distortions.
In viewing your posting history when it comes to any issue about Biden it's pretty clear you're out to disrupt, so I'll just wish you and your candidate good luck in the primaries...I will be campaigning and caucusing for Biden. Cheers.

[Alexander]

143. Still nothing factual from you. Disappointing, but not unexpected.

[polichick]

117. I'd rather see Biden as Sec'y of State than Prez...

That "drug war" stuff leaves me cold ~ don't believe in having "wars" on problems; I believe in solving them.

[Alexander]

135. I agree completely. Biden would make a good Sec. of State.

This is what the Biden fans don't understand - I don't hate Biden, I just don't feel entirely comfortable with the idea of him being the nominee or the president.

[Froward69]

47. Hear Hear!!!

[Think82]

22. IRAQ, IRAN, PAKISTAN.... no contest. BIDEN.

No contest, Alexander. Get your priorites straight.

[Alexander]

26. Iraq: Biden voted for IWR and his plan isn't supported by Iraqis.

Pakistan: Obama saw that one coming too.
Iran: Chris Dodd would deal with Iran just as well.

[ginchinchili]

46. Perhaps, but only Biden called on us to refocuse our attention on Pakistan

and less so on Iran because Pakistan posed more of a potential threat. He was right on the money and that was underscored just days after he made the statement in the debate. I know you'll hate this indisputable fact, but it was Joe Biden who said this, not any of the other candidates. All he was really doing was stating the obvious. Unfortunately, the obvious wasn't occurring to the other candidates. I think a president who can pinpoint the obvious in critical situations when no one else is seeming to see the forest for the trees is not only a good thing, but could easily end up preventing large numbers of American casualties, despite the fact that he doesn't spend time fighting for the decriminalization of pot. Hmmm...avoiding mass casualties or fighting for you to be able to burn some red bud without the threat of being arrested...hmmm...which is the higher priority?

Sen. Biden is a very smart, talented guy and you don't like him. That's fine. But at least demonstrate a wee bit of class by sticking to facts and avoiding exaggerations, unsupportable extrapolations, and presenting indefensible opinion as fact. If you're not impressed with, say, his foresight and recommendations on dealing with the Middle East, why not counter with your candidate's alternative position. By the way, who are you supporting and what is their position on how to handle the mercurial situation in the Middle East?

[Froward69]

50. Alexander, you need to read up a bit other than

White house spinning memos...
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2007/10/22/071022taco_talk_wright
Although Biden is not mentioned that article describes Bidens plan.

[Alexander]

108. I read a lot more than you do already.

Enough to know that despite your spin and Biden shilling, his plan still isn't supported by most Iraqis.

[Think82]

70. Actually most Iraqi leaders are coming around ot the plan. It is called for in their constitution

Bush spun the plan and mischaracterized it, which caused the backlash from the Iraqis. It is not imposition. It is suggesting a federal model that the PResident, and many sunni and shiite leaders are for.
In fact , the only success stories in Iraq have come when we've LOCALIZED control. Moreover 75 Senators voted for it. They're not all stupid.

Biden's plan is the only one that can work. Alexander, I dont know why you are so anti-biden. I think you might have a closet crush on him and don't know how to handle it. Just come out of the closet already.

[Alexander]

110. Then why do most Iraqis still oppose it?

Obviously there is something about it they don't like.

"Biden's plan is the only one that can work."

Not really.

"Alexander, I dont know why you are so anti-biden."

I'm opposed to anyone who supports throwing kids in prison for pot, Biden included. Not even Hillary is this bad on that issue.

"I think you might have a closet crush on him and don't know how to handle it. Just come out of the closet already."

No, I don't like hair plugs.

Funny how the Biden supporters who say they have a "man-crush" on Biden are telling me this. Just classic projection as usual from the candidate shills. :eyes:

Come back when you have something worthwhile to contribute.

[lyonn]

103. Who knows what the Iraqis like and don't like?

The media has been ignoring Iraq for weeks now. Reports about a month ago said that Iraq was dividing into sectarian areas due to ethnic cleansing in towns, villages and cities. The Shiites are probably not welcome in the Anbar Province! The Kurds are staking out territory up North, so what is that called? Apparently that is what it will take to stop Iraqis killing each other. So Biden's idea makes sense, a Central government to disburse the oil revenue and protect borders, etc., while the provinces take care of local issues, protection, utilities, businesses, etc..

I am very comfy with my support for Biden.

[Debi]

35. Think, why keep wasting space on the internets?

Sometimes it's best to just walk away from the barking dogs. :hi:

[Think82]

71. Sorry he pisses me off like no other. I think he has a closet crush on Joe and doesn't know how2deal

[murbley40]

78. But Think::

That's why he does it, Just put him on ignore, he's only doing this because Biden has picked up support here. He will keep digging until you say something he can report and get you KICKED OFF>
Just ingore him, Biden and we need you.

[cascadiance]

23. Yes, I guess it's just that we all Democrat and Reppub like to tell other countries what to do...

... with their governments, instead of respecting their democratic rights to decide for themselves how to do it.

[ginchinchili]

49. I tend to agree, but the statement is weightless without some specific examples.

And I doubt you'll find anyone on this board who disagrees with you on our blood bathed tampering in Iraq. But, for example, should we avoid "tampering" with Darfur? Should we not have gone into Afghanistan? These are a little less clear.

[Wayward Episcopalian]

57. The plagiarism stories were untrue

The plagiarism story is proof that the Swift Boat Veterans for Lies were nothing new. Biden always quoted Kinnock on the stump, but forgot to make the citation during an Iowa State Fair debate because he'd spent the previous few days working on the Bork hearings instead of properly preparing for the debate. Just once, he forgot to say "As Kinnock said," and readily admits that he made a mistake in not gathering the reporters afterwards to say, "Hey guys, I messed up." It only became a scandal when Dukakis aide John Sasso leaked a tape of the slip-up: reporter after reporter refused to print the rubbish, until Maureen Dowd took the bait and ran a hack job. The result? Dukakis *fired* Sasso, but most folks had already bought the MSM bull hook line and sinker. A similar “scandal” relating to RFK quotes in a stump speech were the fault of a speech writer who was dealt with, and a law school paper some people have called plagiarism was cleared by the school ethics board – it only used one source, but always quoted that source, never ripping it off. I also want to point out that these “scandals” date back almost 20 years, to before Biden’s life-altering brain aneurysms and “long slog back to credibility.” Given the challenges we face in today’s world and the fact that people change with time, a non-scandal from a different era should not be an issue.

[gateley]

66. Hi Wayward Episcopalian - welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Wayward Episcopalian]

101. Hello again

Hey Gately... you've seen me elsewhere, I go by the names Transplanted Texan and Texas Musician as well. :)

[gateley]

111. Yep, I know you well!

And you're one of my faves!

All the best from
A Wayward Catholic

[Alexander]

114. He flunked a law school class for plagiarism - and that IS true.

[iverglas]

115. will you provide your proof,

please?

I dunno. The earth is flat -- and that IS true.

[Alexander]

136. Here you go. Took me 5 seconds. You couldn't find this yourself?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE5DD173BF934A2575AC0A961948260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Biden,%20Joseph%20R.%20Jr

"Biden Was Accused of Plagiarism in Law School

By E. J. DIONNE JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: September 17, 1987

LEAD: Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic Presidential candidate, was accused of plagiarism while in his first year at Syracuse University Law School, academic officials familiar with Mr. Biden's record said today.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic Presidential candidate, was accused of plagiarism while in his first year at Syracuse University Law School, academic officials familiar with Mr. Biden's record said today.

Mr. Biden, who as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is presiding over the hearings on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork, has called a news conference for 9 A.M. Thursday to discuss this charge and reports that he has lifted material from speeches by other politicians to use in his public addresses.

A Biden aide, who asked not to be identified, declined to comment on the plagiarism charge, saying Mr. Biden wanted to discuss it himself. ''It's his life,'' the aide said.

According to the people familiar with the record of the 44-year-old Senator from Delaware, he was called before the disciplinary body at the law school during his first year because of charges that he had committed plagiarism on a paper. Mr. Biden entered the school in 1965 and graduated in 1968."

[iverglas]

139. read much?

From your source:

... he was called before the disciplinary body at the law school during his first year because of charges that he had committed plagiarism on a paper.

I know, OJ really did do it. But that there actually isn't proof that Biden plagiarized. And I simply do not believe that you don't know it.

Failing to use multiple footnotes for multiple passages from a single footnoted source identified as quotations is not plagiarism, and it was not found to be such by the disciplinary body.

Now if you want to haul out the smelly Neil Kinnock fish, you can do that.

And you can keep on doing all of it no matter how many times your statements are proved false.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE3DB143FF93BA2575AC0A961948260

Professional Board Clears Biden In Two Allegations of Plagiarism
AP
Published: May 29, 1989

LEAD: Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. was cleared of allegations that he committed plagiarism in law school by a panel under the authority of the Delaware Supreme Court, The News Journal reported today.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. was cleared of allegations that he committed plagiarism in law school by a panel under the authority of the Delaware Supreme Court, The News Journal reported today.

... L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

I never went to class and got crap marks in law school too. And I'd feel about the same way as Biden said he did when faced with the allegation of plagiarizing pages from a law review article: indignant that anyone would think I was so stupid that I would do something that would so inevitably be found out.

I'm sure there are good grounds for opposing Biden's candidacy, or preferring someone else. You'd think that someone who wanted to persuade others to agree with that opposition would come up with something a little more worthy of consideration. Or at least something true.

[youthere]

131. Link please.

[Alexander]

137. It's in post #136, above.

[youthere]

141. Thank you for providing the link...where does it say he flunked?

I'm not seeing it.

[Wayward Episcopalian]

146. It wasn't plagiarism, and he sort of flunked

He used one source, so it was lazy academics, but he ALWAYS cited that one source, never ripping it off. The ethics board cleared him of any wrongdoing and said it was not plagiarism. When he retook the class, he passed with flying colors.

[Wayward Episcopalian]

145. It was not plagiarism

He used one source, so it was lazy academics, but he ALWAYS cited that one source, never ripping it off. The ethics board cleared him of any wrongdoing and said it was not plagiarism, so, actually, NO, that's NOT true. And when he retook the class, he passed with flying colors.

[debbierlus]

8. Edwards isn't my candidate - but he has been pretty vocal about the poverty issue

And, the discrepancy of wealth, in this nation.

He has been speaking out about it for a few years, now.

If I had to trust one of the two, I would put it in Edwards. It has been much more recent. And,
at least Edwards it was a mistake, Biden refuses to talk about it.

[gateley]

17. Biden talks about it a lot - because he's asked about it a lot. He's not

hiding anything. Several DUers have said it was a vote that was best for their state economy. That's what a representative is supposed to do - represent his constituency. Also, he fought to ensure child care payment obligations weren't automatically lumped in with debts to be erased.

Edwards is a STRONG champion of the poor, so we do agree on that! :7

[cascadiance]

25. The poor should just not be able to declare bankruptcy...

Oh... I guess that's good and supportive of him. Sorry.

[Froward69]

54. The poor can still file for bankruptcy

ALL filers now have to disclose all of their assets. if not they go to jail. under the old rules the wealthy did not have to disclose assets out of country or out of state. and never risked jail at all.

[ginchinchili]

59. Is it the government's job to bail out someone who is too stupid to run their own affairs?

What about someone who intentionally runs up bills knowing they can file bankruptcy to avoid ever having to pay? Should those of us who make an effort to live within our means be forced to pay for those who don't? I for one don't think it should be the government's job to bail us out when we don't feel like being responsible. Are there times when being able to declare bankruptcy is a positive tool in our society. Yes, I believe so. But there has to be a careful distinction made between when it's appropriate and when it's not. Like many other Democrats, Biden knew a Republican bill would have problems, but he also realized that bankruptcy was being abused and the abuse had to stop. Then go back and clean it up, as he and several other Democrats did. It happens all the time in Washington. But as I've said before, to get hung up on this issue in the face of the broader issues shows poor judgment in your prioritizing.

[cascadiance]

67. No, but MOST of these people weren't in this category!

Most people that file for this sort of bankruptcy do so due to a loss of job, a significant medical condition or death in a family, or a divorce, NOT running up their gambling bills in Vegas as those selling this bill try to make it out to be.

I'm guessing you are also for privatizing social security so that it is an "investment" instead of insurance. The bankruptcy bill as written threatened to screw a lot of victims of Katrina after it was passed unless something was changed. And those people didn't "carelessly" live to get injured or their lives messed up by that hurricane.

The bottom line is that the number one beneficiary of that bill was the credit card companies, NOT the people. You can say that you don't need it or I don't need it, but if an emergency hit us, then we suddenly "might need it"! That's what bankruptcy is for. Now if you can tighten up the rules so that it only focuses on people that abuse the system like running up gambling debts in Vegas, etc. then I'm for that. But that's really not a significant portion of those that declare bankruptcy, and that is not what the bill was only trying to go after.

[youthere]

82. If you read the bankruptcy bill that Biden and SEVENTEEN other Democrats voted for....

you'd find that there are concessions for medical conditions and other true hardships (like loss of job and divorce) AND also concession to protect child support payments...those concessions are there because JOE BIDEN fought for them. Those concessions were not in the first bankruptcy bill that JOHN EDWARDS VOTED FOR (the first bankruptcy bill Biden voted against BTW).

[cascadiance]

88. The bottom line is that Biden voted the REPUBLICAN position on this bill...

to help his MBNA constituency (not the people of Delaware).

Many others would take issue with what you say here as his "fight for the good concessions" of this bill.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0312-03.htm

http://www.pacificviews.org/weblog/archives/000966.html

So, how many people saw their credit card bills jump to 30% interest rates before this legislation passed if they missed one or two monthly payments timing wise? Along with the *assault* of credit card solicitations in our mail each day with all of these "free" interest rate solicitations, when they know full well that now they are allowed to play the bait and switch game much more easily than in the past, and find ways to quickly switch people off of "no-interest" rates that they roped them in on.

It is disengenuous to say that those who voted for this bill are on the side of lower class and middle class Americans and not for corporate America.

I don't care what "compromises" that Biden pushed for. If the ultimate bill still destroys many rights middle and lower class Americans had before, he shouldn't have voted yes on it.

According to the above article links the following Democrats are the one that voted with Biden on the yes side of this bill. A REAL progressive bunch of Democrats, hey? So if you like these other Dems, I guess you should vote for Biden then! For me? NOT!

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Stabenow (D-MI)

[iverglas]

89. interest rates

So, how many people saw their credit card bills jump to 30% interest rates before this legislation passed if they missed one or two monthly payments timing wise?

Are consumer interest rates under federal jurisdiction in the US?

We had the same problem recently in Canada -- the feds tried to pass legislation limiting interest rates on "payday loans", a growing problem here. Criminal law, which is federal here, governs usury, and the criminal interest rate is anything over 60%. The payday lenders are careful not to breach that barrier, although their fees and charges are questionable in that regard.

The provinces have jurisdiction over consumer protection, and they set maximum interest rates on consumer loans. The feds simply did not have the jurisdiction to regulate consumer lending in this way.

Does the federal government in the US have that jurisdiction?

If not, would it be wise to enact federal legislation that will probably ultimately be found by the courts to be ultra vires -- outside the powers of the federal government?

And if not, can failure to regulate consumer loan interest rates be laid at the doorstep of federal legislators, let alone one of them who was in a minority and unable to stop the bill from being passed or amend it to his liking?


http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/ocptmpl.asp?url=/content/ocp/index.asp
http://media.www.districtchronicles.com/media/storage/paper263/news/2007/01/29/Neighborhood/Montgomery.County.Maryland.Watches.Interest.Rates.On.OutOfState.Loans-2683253.shtml

Maryland's Department of Labor Licensing and Regulation is warning residents about illegal internet consumer or installment loans. Out-of-state companies loaning money to Maryland residents must be licensed to do business in Maryland and therefore fall under the jurisdiction of state laws and interest rates which protect consumers.

A joint investigation by the Financial Regulation Enforcement Unit of DLLR and the Montgomery County Office of Consumer Protection found an unlicensed California company loaning money to a Montgomery County resident at interest rates over 73 percent far exceeding the Maryland cap of 24 percent. ...

http://www.ncsl.org/statefed/financialsc.htm#statesovern

State Sovereignty in Financial Services

One of the unique attributes of the American system of federalism is the ability of states to regulate financial services. For most of our history, this bifurcation of regulatory authority has well served our nation’s economic well being. The ability of states to regulate banking, insurance, securities and credit unions has allowed state legislatures and governments to meet the needs of local economies and respond to the values and concerns of local citizens.

The role of states in financial services regulation is in jeopardy. With the enactment of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which brought down the firewalls between banking and other financial services and commercial interests, the continuing consolidation and merger of financial services institutions, technological advances such as the Internet and online financial services and the competition from foreign markets, some of America’s largest financial institutions are advocating a uniform national system of regulation and the preemption of some state laws and regulation which seek to protect the financial well-being of the consumer. NCSL is concerned that Congress, which has heralded the benefits of devolution in social services and health care, has sought to further federal control of financial services in Washington, D.C.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has consistently and strongly advocated for state sovereignty in financial service regulation. NCSL opposes any federal preemption of state legislative or regulatory authority in financial services. A high burden of proof that federal action is necessary, such as a national financial crisis, should be met before any preemption of state financial services laws and regulations.

Sounds to me like the federal government would have a hard time regulating consumer interest rates in the US.

[cascadiance]

90. We USED to have regulations preventing these rate hikes. These bills "deregulated" this!

That is why we have so many predatory credit card "offers" now. They know that they can rope people in thinking they get no interest for a while, but can quickly change the rules now (without government regulations preventing them from doing so in place any more) and get people trapped in big debts at very high interest rates.

We've basically just sent loan sharking mainstream in effect.

[iverglas]

97. didn't really answer the question,

did it?

[cascadiance]

112. It looks like our Rethug packed courts allowed the state regulations to be "overridden"...

... when the card issuer is in a state where the rate caps have been removed. It looks like a recent court ruling doesn't allow states where the credit card owners own their cards to specify rate increase caps, so if a state like Delaware where a lot of these loan shark credit card companies are based listens to corporate lobbyists instead of consumers and removes the caps, then it nullifies state sovereignty in consumer protections (kinda like the effect that NAFTA has on us globally). The race to the bottom, which Delaware lawmakers have allowed to happen, allow the corporate vipers to locate there and strangle the consumer from there from reduced regulation, in exchange for the old so-called "trickle down" theory of more Delaware residents getting more jobs and therefore "doing better".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7600124/

The credit card industry is an industry that really is CRYING for regulation from the consumer's point of view now, and is something that needs to be part of any newer "Democratic FDR-style revolution" in 2008. Someone like Joe Biden hasn't been trying to fight "city hall" in his state on this issue, but has more enabled it. I don't want someone like that leading our country. If he truly wanted to protect *voters* and not corporations with that bankruptcy bill, as these articles note, he should also pressured for rate hike limits, etc. in it before getting his vote.

The credit card industry itself is probably a large part of the global warming problem, with all of the paper (cut down timber), that it uses for the VOLUMES of junk mail ads that make up the majority of most people's junk mail these days (not to mention the carbon costs of transporting that mail all around the country). All to rope people in on their "no interest fee" scams.

[iverglas]

119. okay, that's interesting

So if states don't occupy their own field, the feds can do it? Not questioning your answer, just making sure I've understood it.

I found a bit of info here, and just taking a snippet:


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7600124

COLORADO, the legal rate of interest is 8%; the general usury limit
is 45%. The maximum rates to consumers is 12% per annum.

CONNECTICUT, the legal rate of interest is 8%; the general usury rate
is 12%. In civil suits where interest is allowed, it is allowed at
10%.

DELAWARE, the legal rate of interest is 5% over the Federal Reserve
rate.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, the legal rate of interest is 6%; the general
usury limit is in excess of 24%.


-- I'm not sure whether that means that Delaware doesn't have a usury rate law.

The "legal rate" is kind of meaningless; it's what applies if the borrower and lender don't specify a rate. Ah, and the usury rate applies only to unlicensed lenders ... so all in all I haven't learned much there ...

And as you were saying:


http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/cc/20020320a.asp

Most major credit card issuers are based in states without usury laws
and without interest rate caps on credit cards. Banks and credit card
issuers based in these states can charge any interest rate they wish
-- as long as the rate is listed in the cardholder agreement and the
borrower agrees.

And thanks to a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court decision, these the-sky's-the-limit
rate policies dominate the credit card business.

State of interest rates
In Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp., the Supreme Court ruled
that a national bank could charge the highest interest rate allowed
in their home state to customers living anywhere in the United States,
including states with restrictive interest caps.

"It's whatever is agreed to in the contract," says Michael Donovan,
a consumer attorney and partner at Donovan Searles in Philadelphia.

"They can export rates to other states and override state law limits."

When it comes to credit card interest rates, the law in a lender's home
state rules. It doesn't matter what kind of rate cap exists in a customer's state.


So I see the problem. Delaware keeps the climate comfortable for lenders who do most of their business out of state. That's a state issue, fundamentally.

I do understand that there were constitutional objections to setting an interest rate cap in the federal bill in question -- I presume that just because a state doesn't occupy a field under its jurisdiction, the feds necessarily can.

It would probably be useful to find out exactly what the objections raised to that amendment were.

[youthere]

91. So you believe that Biden should have alienated his constituency..

for a principled "No" vote? You seem to want to place the blame for this bill passing at Biden's feet, and that is disingenuous. Republican controlled congress means republican sponsored bills are going to pass. In fact, given his constituency, I can forgive Biden for his vote on that bill much more readily than I can any of the other Dems.
I not thrilled with bankruptcy bill either..but it is NOT Biden's fault it passed.

[cascadiance]

92. Alienated the Credit Card companies? Yup! Alienated the people? NO!

Who are you defining as his constituency? The PEOPLE of Delaware, or the corporations headquartered there and the credit card companies there? He SHOULD be representing the people, not these corporations.

Now you may claim that he couldn't afford to alienate his "constituency" if those were these credit card companies with a principled stand that may have served the citizens' interests over theirs. But if he's truly spiritually behind public campaign financing, he should have found a way to do that. Other pols like Russell Feingold have found ways to stay more true to their interests in gathering grass roots financing from those who support him instead of corporate money.

It IS his fault that he voted for this bill. Whether it passed or not is not TOTALLY his responsibility, but he shares in it. And if he truly puts public campaign financing as a priority for him and not something that's just "posturing", then he'd have voted against this bill and worked to get more PEOPLE of Delaware supporting him than CC companies.

[youthere]

94. How many folks in Delaware do you think are...

employed by the banking and CC industry? Opposing legislation that could potentially damage those industries is how he represents the PEOPLE of Delaware who have voted to keep him in the Senate for 33 years.

Iowa is farm country...'how many Iowans do you think would vote for a legislator that did not support agricultural interests?

How many Wisconsinites would vote for a representative that did not consistantly support tourism or dairy interests?

[cascadiance]

102. So I guess you'd support Strip Mining in West Virginia and those voting for it...

... because the people "depend" on that industry for their jobs in that area. Never mind that the mercury in their water supply is poisoning their next generation, etc.

Yes, we've also been engineered to vote for Dianne Feinstein here in California too. If we had more control over our political process, I'd like to think she'd be out the door too. I certainly wouldn't support her for president.

[youthere]

106. Oh please...

The strip mining issue, or ANY issue is not as cut and dried as that, and that includes bankruptcy.
Officials are elected to vote in the interests of the people they represent...and Biden did just that. The people of Delaware seem fairly pleased with his voting record...they keep sending him back to the Senate every election.

[cascadiance]

113. India's pleased to be getting all of our jobs too. That doesn't mean the rest of us...

shouldn't protect ourselves from them doing it at our expense. The people of Delaware profit from the credit card companies taking advantage of the rest of us. Indian outsourcing companies profit from our country outsourcing to them. The strip mining issue is also about people not wanting to fight hard enough against companies that are abusing their environment when it could cost them their health quality too so that they can get cheap energy.

Glad to hear that you like that we are "pleased" with Dianne Feinstein and continue to vote for her each election too (as if we have complete choice in that matter too). Do you like that she's giving you Mukasey?

[youthere]

116. So we should vote for representatives that DON'T represent our best interests?

Interesting logic.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. John Kerry, Dick Durbin, Byron Dorgan, Pat Leahy, Patty Murray, and Ron Wyden

also voted for the 2000 bankruptcy bill. In 2001, Hillary Clinton, Murray, Leahy, Wyden, and Dorgan also voted for the bankruptcy bill. In both cases, many of the more conservative Democrats also voted to support the bankruptcy bill.

So while it was a mistake for Senator Edwards to have voted for it, and he acknowledged that, he wasn't alone in making that mistake, and I don't remember John Kerry getting flack for having voted for it in 2000 last time around.

[karynnj]

44. Very few people voted against the 2000 bill

which was different than the 2001 and 2005 bill.

[youthere]

80. AND the bill was going to pass with or without Bidens vote.

Even if Biden and the other 17 Democratic senators who voted Yes, had voted NO.

[gateley]

5. Yeah, there have been about 1,000 posts here on that subject. Guess you missed them. nt

[1monster]

10. Of course he did. Delaware is the state that started really high interest on

credit cards...

[Froward69]

56. And Utah, and New Hampshire and Virginia...

As those states have no laws against loan sharking.

[liberalnurse]

12. Oh, thats just one little issue.

Biden is the one for me!

[iverglas]

29. the bemused bystander

notes that in the few days that Biden has been getting positive notice in the media (and a rather obvious campaign on his behalf in this forum has been mounted), the disingenuous attacks on him in this place have risen. Same song each time, from a couple of what are becoming reliable posters.

I have a better idea of how partisans of the front-runners have felt to date.

Brawk, bankruptcy bill. (Never mind the truth of the matter, which has been discussed in some detail in this forum.) Brawk, racist gaffes. (Never mind the credible voices saying that's nonsense.) Brawk, US imperialism. (Never mind that the Iraqi people are quite free to tell Biden to stuff his proposal, as the victims of any fresh real imperialistic adventure by the US ... Iran ... will not be.) Brawk, drug warrior. (Never mind that he advocates refocusing resources away from minor offenders to deal with the serious criminals, major dealers, and that he supported revising the sentencing rules to eliminate the racially biased crack/cocaine disparity.) Never mind that he's no more problematic on most of these counts than any of the other candidates, and infinitely better than them on others not mentioned.

I think Biden should have kept his mouth shut on the driver's licence issue, because it is not within his jurisdiction as either a senator or president, and I consider the position he has taken to be unjustifiable, apart from just stupid because it's unnecessary.

I think Biden is a stumbling block to women's exercise of reproductive rights, with his vote for the despicable and dishonest "partial-birth abortion" bill and his vote against funding abortions for low-income women.

I'm sure that if I put my mind to it I can think of other things on which I disagree with what Biden has said or done.

I also know that I wouldn't have any problem stating my disagreement without misrepresenting reality, or resorting to sounding like a trained parrot.

[Debi]

36. Heh

[Froward69]

61. uhhh what?

"I consider the position he has taken to be unjustifiable, apart from just stupid because it's unnecessary. "No" was his position. how is that stupid?

[iverglas]

74. uhhh

You did quote what I said, so you read it?

I said that driver's licence eligibility is under state jurisdiction, in the US, and it is therefore stupid for Biden (or any candidate for any federal office, or the nomination for any federal office) to take a position on it, because it's unnecessary.

Bad enough there are "wedge issues" on which people's unexamined knee-jerk "beliefs" are appealed to; just no need to go dragging one in that is entirely irrelevant to the proceedings.

The nomination candidates' opinions about driver's licence eligibility (let alone in someone else's state!) are no more relevant than their opinions about parking limits on city streets.

Yes, I know it would be hard not to sound evasive in making this point. But it can very well be made as a statement of principle -- that states know best how to handle their own affairs.

[Froward69]

81. well now thats

republican esque... I do agree that it is up to the individual state to issue drivers licenses. ANY state issuing to Illegal immigrants inherently jeopardizes other states' safety and national security. so not supporting it in NY or California or any where in between is not stupid.

[iverglas]

87. well I'll just respond to the argument

and avoid responding to the truly icky characterization of myself. But just for your info: I have worked for the New Democratic Party of Canada (social democrats - not equivalent to modern Social Democrats in Europe) since 1969, as a door-knocker, ballot counting observer ... and candidate. I've actually experienced attempts to draw me into talking about issues that have nothing to do with the office I was running for, made for the purpose of wedging votes away from my party.

It's easy to do in most instances -- in Canada, for example, abortion is unregulated by federal criminal law, which is the level where jurisdiction lies, but it is provincial health plans that pay for the procedure, so the pro/anti-choice question can be levered in by that door. The driver's licence issue seems similar.

So I do see your point about possible inter-state / national aspects to the issue. However, your assertion that a state that issues driver's licences to illegal immigrants thereby jeopardizes either other states' safety or national security is just a bald statement. I frankly fail to see how adopting a mechanism to regulate a practice is worse than allowing the practice to go on unchecked. Do illegal immigrants in one state never drive in other states now? I don't know what other ways issuing licences could jeopardize other states' safety or national security ... since you haven't named any.

The plain fact is, and I think we both know it perfectly well, that the swelling opposition to issuing licences isn't based on worries about safety or security. It's based on the grand old USAmerican tradition of making sure that nobody gets anything they don't "deserve" -- at least when it's the poor or disadvantaged getting it; they're undeserving by definition. And it's based on racism / bigotry / I got mine and you ain't getting any.

I don't express an opinion on what the US should do about the illegal immigration problem, and the presence of such large numbers of illegal immigrants within its borders. It's a unique problem, arising out of centuries-old policies and practices unique to the geopolitical history of the US, and I am too far removed from the reality to have an informed opinion. I do know the value of problem-solving vs. blaming, though, and the further problems that blaming generally leads to.

I assume that at some point the candidates in the primaries, or the eventual candidate for the presidency, is going to have to articulate an immigration policy as part of a campaign platform -- rather than these vague statements about how the US needs immigration reform / a plan to address the problem of illegal immigration and the illegal immigrants currently in the country. It's a minefield, no doubt about it. But trying to go around it by pandering to anti-immigrant sentiment isn't what I would expect of any candidate of mine.

And Biden's answer to this is unfortunately what I see in a couple of his other positions: a failure to really try to problem-solve. This is odd, because in other areas that seems to be his strength -- the Iraq proposal, for instance, and his entire history of collegiality in policy-making. I think he falls down in this aspect on drug policy as well. Of couse, that's another minefield, where any stand that is both principled and truly likely to have positive effects runs counter to popular wisdom and popular sentiment. The same is true of "partial-birth abortion" and funding abortions for low-income women.

The easy way out in all these cases is to do something that looks principled on the face of it, and looks like it will produce effects that everybody will applaud. The problem is that it likely won't have those effects; its adverse effects, even if unintended/unexpected, will be worse. And these are very difficult concepts to explain in sound bytes.

These are very, very hard rows for a candidate to hoe. Adopting anything other than the public's knee-jerk position exposes him/her to vilification for taking unpopular positions that are easily characterized as all sorts of evil things. Attempting to take a nuanced position, let alone say that it is improper to take a position because to do so interferes in another jurisdiction, exposes a candidate to charges of evasion.

I understand the problems, and I don't expect any candidate to have a perfect response to them. I'd just like to see a little more of Biden's skill at grasping and explaining issues being put to use in this instance -- even if it ultimately results in him not answering the question right away.

[Froward69]

93. Aside from writing books,

flat out, I under stand the European argument of "If America is going to elect an idiot for president, give us a vote." the same applies to Canadians. insofar as credentials I work for the Colorado Democratic party. Unlike Canada, here control of just about everything is largely locally dominated.

ok to the point. issuing drivers licenses to illegals completely undermines the fragile state of national security. insofar as the chief form of ID is a drivers license or ID card. Illegals already have a means of obtaining Identification. it is called a green card. if the Illegal obtains a Green card they are no longer Illegal. handing out drivers licenses wily nilly, 1)negates the privilege of a license. 2) one may as well utilize their mickey mouse club card to get on an airplane. 3) still does not truly document the immigrant. in fact it would confuse the line between who is and who is not an immigrant.

Having been to Canada numerous times I can honestly say that the identity of Canada is exceptionally Different then that of the US. especially in an Americans Criticism of Canadian policy, whom to elect etc... The feeling is mutual.

[iverglas]

98. wow, that was original

A complaint about too many words (hmm, who else is accused of that? could it be Biden?) and an insinuation that I should shut the fuck up because I'm not a 'Murikan.

Maybe you've missed that I have been doing most of the work of actually REFUTING FALSE CLAIMS made about Biden hereabouts ...


Having been to Canada numerous times I can honestly say that the identity of Canada is exceptionally Different then that of the US. especially in an Americans Criticism of Canadian policy, whom to elect etc...

You having been paying so much attention to my posts, I assume you've noticed that I have stated no opinion about what immigration policy the US should adopt.

Maybe you even noticed that that was not the subject of my post.

issuing drivers licenses to illegals completely undermines the fragile state of national security. insofar as the chief form of ID is a drivers license or ID card.

A driver's licence serves as proof of residence and qualification for driving, and if someone wants to accept it as something else, that's up to them. It is not accepted as anything else where I'm at, for official purposes.

handing out drivers licenses wily nilly,
1)negates the privilege of a license.
2) one may as well utilize their mickey mouse club card to get on an airplane.
3) still does not truly document the immigrant.

(1) Idiotic right-wing yammering about "rights" and "privileges". Anyone who says that a driver's licence is a privilege needs to go to law school before spouting nonsense.

(2) Yup. A driver's licence is not identification, it is a licence to drive.

(3) And nobody said it did, for pity's sake.

I'm sure you are perfectly aware that there are arguments in favour of issuing some form of driver's licence to illegal immigrants, and that the straw ones you've chosen to knock down instead ain't them.

I also don't know how you could still be missing the fact that my initial comments on this issue had to do with how to treat it as a campaign "issue", and not the substance of the question.

[Froward69]

120. then thank you for standing up for Joe

however you obviously did not watch, or at least pay attention to this past debate.

"privilege" to drive is specifically stated in Colorado statute... as well as Dodd pointed it out, Edwards & Obama, concurred. Biden concurred in his post debate interview.

I am done here.

[iverglas]

123. sigh

I watched the debate.

And Colorado statutes do not reality, any more than politicians do.

Let's see how you react if the state of Colorado decides to revoke your driver's licence despite the fact that you have passed all the tests, paid all the fees and not violated any of the terms to which it is subject.

You will be crying "due process!", I believe. And there is no due process where there is no right.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=2006_app/235050MAJ&invol=4

... There is a substantial private interest in a state license to drive. So the State must meet certain minimum requirements of constitutional due process to suspend a driver's license. ...

... The State must afford due process of law before suspending a driver's license. Id. at 670; City of Redmond v. Bagby, 155 Wn.2d 59, 62, 117 P.3d 1126 (2005). The specific facts of the case dictate the level of due process required. City of Bremerton v. Hawkins, 155 Wn.2d 107, 110, 117 P.3d 1132 (2005). Mathews v. Eldridge2 sets out a three-part balancing test to determine the appropriate requirements. Bagby, 155 Wn.2d at 63; Moore, 151 Wn.2d at 670. That test requires consideration of 'the private interest involved, the likelihood of erroneous deprivation, and the government interest involved.' Hawkins, 155 Wn.2d at 110.

Our Supreme Court recently applied this test to the mandatory suspension of a driver's license without an administrative hearing in Moore. Moore, 151 Wn.2d at 670. And it held two procedural license suspension statutes unconstitutional -- 'former RCW 46.20.289 (2002) (mandatory suspension of a driver's license) and former RCW 46.20.324(1) (1965) (no formal hearing for a mandatory suspension of a driver's license).' State v. Potter, 129 Wn. App. 494, 496, 119 P.3d 877 (2005), review granted (Wash. Jan. 10, 2006) (No. 77822-1); Moore, 151 Wn.2d at 668-69.

The state is entirely entitled to set the criteria for licence eligibility. That does not make the licence a privilege. It is a licence. And people who meet the criteria do very definitely have a right to be issued a licence.

So this is a complete and utter red herring. No one is claiming that there is a blanket right to be issued a driver's licence. It is still completely false to say that a licence is a privilege, and it merely ratchets up the us/them rhetoric in this instance: they don't deserve the things that real 'Murikans get by virtue of being real 'Murikans.

It's probably good that you're done. You wouldn't really want to keep it up without learning what you need to know in order not to keep speaking nonsense.

[Froward69]

124. You Really think the

more words you use makes you look smarter? you are flat out wrong about most everything you are bloviating about. You really have no clue. and I refuse to try to educate you. you have no vote, only an opinion, like everyone else, but yours is like flatulence,

[iverglas]

125. well

that was impressive. Nothing quite so much fun as acting like a stereotype, I guess. Please don't bother reading my posts. It's a waste of your time, although not as much of a waste as your replies.

[Froward69]

126. ..!.

[w4rma]

68. Biden cosposored it and worked hard to get Congressional votes for it. (nt)

[iverglas]

75. how come nobody parroting this meme can provide proof of it?

My post 52 was already in this thread responding to one instance of this claim when you wrote this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3685055&mesg_id=3685515

Perhaps that info is out of date, or incomplete, or in some other way flawed. That's the second time I've posted it in this forum, though, and no one has refuted it.

Biden did not cosponsor the bankruptcy bill, as far as I can tell, and no one saying he did has produced anything to sustantiate that claim. Will you?

[murbley40]

85. NOT! You should do some reading on this.

Again, Senator Tom Carper , from Delaware co-sponsored the bill.

[youthere]

86. WRONG. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) Wrote and sponsored that bill.

It was not co-sponsored in any way shape or form by Biden.

[Clark2008]

96. Another note for Edwards voters...

You can't change an entire Senate record by yelling "Oops. I'm sorry!"

Edwards voted for the war, the PATRIOT Act, the destruction of Yucca Mountain, No Child Left Behind and the 2000 bankruptcy bill.

[gateley]

2. Biden. Foreign Policy experience (years) and understanding of the ME - CRUCIAL. nt

[woodsprite]

4. Biden - yes, he's the Senator to the number 1 credit card state in the US

If a Senator from a dairy state signed a bill that allowed $5/gal milk prices, would you hold it against him also, when that Senator has experience out the whazoo in Foreign Policy matters, supports and defends the people of the United States in many other ways, and knows the ME in/out?

Just askin....

Yeah, I'm from Delaware. I'm sure if I looked, there would be something questionable in Edwards voting record too, but I'm not going to - I like both of them. I just like my guy better for this situation. I think Biden can hit the ground running.

[Alexander]

7. Credit card companies are screwing their customers more than ever...

Thanks to certain interests in the US Congress.

I'm sure if you're from Delaware, Biden has brought jobs galore to your state. Good for you. I'm sure a vote for Biden will best serve your interests. But to those who are dealing with mountains of credit card debt, and those who despise credit cards altogether and don't use them, those words fall on deaf ears.

[MADem]

20. I solved that credit card problem with no trouble at all. I just don't use the things. NT

[youthere]

127. I found the same solution!

[MADem]

133. It sure works, doesn't it? Solves that pesky high interest rate problem toute suite!!!!!!

Amazing how many people live off their plastic. The Consumer Society...gotta have the latest, greatest newest...and now, because that is winding down, the folks are stuck with a load of shit that is outta fashion, and huge interest payments.

If I want something, I save up and pay for it. Fiscal discipline is a concept not many can wrap their heads and lives around, though--you often do have to defer gratification or just not get that latest 'new plastic' smelling thing.

Right now, our family is helping out a sick pal, so we're really on a budget, limiting what we spend to essentials. We manage, though--I'm amazed at what we don't "really" need. About the only thing we haven't cut back on is cable tv! That's our entertainment, because movies are out for the time being!

[BenV]

76. Typical

Lets make sure we blame someone else for our own bad decisions. Credit cards are a valuable tool if you are responsible and financially sound. If you're not, it is YOUR responsibility to realize this and stay away from them. This is the same as people blaming fast food companies for "making" them fat.

[youthere]

128. I notice that you did not get a reply BenV...

but just lettting you know I agree with you 100%.

[1monster]

11. Actually, $5.00 a gallon milk would lower the price we pay for it in

Northeast Florida. It is $5.85 a gallon here.

[debbierlus]

13. There is something seriously wrong with us when we consider candidates who stab us in the back

As viable Presidents....

I am writing in Gore. I think we all should - he would be President, if we rose up. But, why bother when we are
content to vote for people who allow the credit card companies to put people into perpetual debt with no way out.
People are now paying their mortgages with credit cards. It is a disaster.

Color me crazy, but no corporate credit card lobbyist supporters for President. Especially ones that won't even discuss the
implications of the issues.

Edwards pissed me off because he joined in on the rheoteric of Iran & he voted for the Iraq resolution.
Obama pissed me off when he stabbed the advocates of the filibuster of Alito as 'partisan' & not allowing the President
to appoint his choice.
Hilliary pissed me off when she voted for the Iraq resolution & padded her war chest with corporate donations up the yin yang.
Dodd won't support impeachment. In fact, none of them will except Kucinich.

There comes a time when you have got to stop playing the game, & that is what this is....a big game. If we can't vote for the people who will best represent us because they won't win, you are doomed from the start.

Kucinich in round 1 unless Gore steps in (a possibility before Dec 4th - see my journal). If not, Gore as a write in for the national election.

I am not playing anymore.

[youthere]

129. Credit Card companies do not "put" people into debt.

"...But, why bother when we are
content to vote for people who allow the credit card companies to put people into perpetual debt with no way out."

Credit Card Companies do not put people into debt. People use credit cards and put themselves into debt. NO ONE IS FORCED TO USE A CREDIT CARD.

[bigwillq]

14. Biden (nt)

[itsrobert]

16. Please "rec" so it get's on the Greatest Page

So more voters will be aware.

[nevergiveup]

18. Tough decision as they both voted for the war

but if I was forced to choose between the two it would be Edwards.

[cascadiance]

19. Can't believe you all are swallowing MBNA Joe's crap...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11496051/the_low_post_democrat_joe_biden_makes_even_rumsfeld_look_good

[CTD]

30. Everybody has their issues. You gotta pick what you can overlook.

I'll take MBNA Biden over "Bomb Iran", corporatist Hillary any day of the week.

[iverglas]

32. yeah, there's some honest reporting

Not. Maybe you actually swallowed it, so I won't comment on your linking to it, although really, am I the only one capable of checking primary sources?

The article you link to starts out (all emphases in this post mine):

"He is an impediment in this effort."
--Sen. Joe Biden, on Donald Rumsfeld's Iraq war legacy

An impediment. That's kind of a funny way to describe the architect of the Iraq war, isn't it?

Put a mythical six chimpanzees to work on a mythical six typewriters and one of them might eventually type out Hamlet, but I feel fairly confident that a billion years could pass before any healthy primate would make it even halfway through the unlikely sentence Donald Rumsfeld impeded the Iraq war effort. Yet there was Joe Biden, saying it on live television last week.

And now ... drum roll ... what was actually said:

http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=262427&&

September 3, 2006
Transcript

Senator Biden on ABC This Week

... GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) Will you support Senator Boxer's resolution of no confidence?

SENATOR JOE BIDEN (DEMOCRAT

Oh, I'll probably support it, but, you know, as you know, I'm the first guy to call for the Secretary's resignation. I think on your show, a couple years ago. And it's not to be - because I want to be vindictive. He is an impediment in this effort. He is not someone who is offering answers. And the rest of the world looks at what he has to say and continues to lose confidence in our ability - excuse me, to act with some dispatch and success.

And here's some context from earlier in the interview:

SENATOR JOE BIDEN (DEMOCRAT

I think we should look at this war. Let's take - only similarity I find, the defining similarity is this war is shortly going to have lasted as long as World War II, as long as World War II. Now, look, Secretary Rumsfeld asked the right questions a couple years ago. He, in one of his, you know, they're call snowflakes, one of the memorandum he sends to his key people in the Pentagon. He said "are we creating more Jihadists or more terrorists than the Madrasses are training?" I mean...

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)

(Off-camera) What's the answer?

SENATOR JOE BIDEN (DEMOCRAT

Are we eliminating more? And the answer is no, we are not. And he said, do we need a comprehensive plan how to keep future generations from becoming Jihadists? The answer is yes. And the answer to both of those is that the military is not sufficient to do that. We need to use the totality of our power, George. We have to compete and we have to think ahead. I mean, look what's going on right now in - both Hamas and with Hezbollah. Everybody knew as soon as we pulled out of - the Syrians pulled out of Lebanon, the vacuum would be filled by Hezbollah. What did we do? We did nothing. Now Hezbollah looks like it's going to be the guardian angel and rebuild the homes with Iranian money of the people who got bombed out. What are we doing? We should be uniting the world so Hezbollah doesn't become the hero. We should have been supporting Abu Mazen so he has some reason to be able to win elections and have a - given them, as the President says, hope is the answer not fear. I mean, this Administration is very flat-footed. It's almost dysfunctional right now.

So ... what is this "effort" to which Biden saw Romsfeld as an impediment?

Was it "the Iraq war effort", as the dim and/or dishonest author of that piece claimed?

I don't think so.

So what is it about that article that you wanted everybody to see, hm?

[jillan]

53. I can't believe how many people swallow Edwards hypocrisy

Making big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from Fortress, a hedgefund that is a tax shelter (home office in the Cayman Isles) and makes it's money off of real estate to the underprivledged.

When Edwards talks about 2 Americas, he doesn't talk about how he doesn't invest in either.

That's a bit more concerning than the bankruptcy bill vote to me.

[skipos]

21. They both have qualities I like

Biden has bumped Richardson out of my top tier. I think Richardson has great experience, but lacks the personality that is unfortunately needed to get elected, imo.

[Adelante]

27. No contest

Biden

[JI7]

31. wow, Biden is kicking ass

[cascadiance]

33. Hmm... I'm surprised at this vote, and yet I'm not...

For me, Joe Biden, as a member of the DLC and supporter of the bankruptcy bill, and other similar issues in the past, isn't much of an attraction to me, especially when he isn't a front runner that I feel I need to "sacrifice my viewpoints" to support anyway. In an earlier debate he seemed to be for keeping up the troop surge too. I guess I'm not sure I understand the attraction for him.

Two possibilities enter my mind here:

1) the way this poll is going, where people can vote in each "playoff", I'm wondering how many Kucinich supporters are voting for Biden here, so that it would be more likely that Kucinich would win the final. I'd like to think that we vote honestly rather than strategically, but that crosses my mind.

2) Secondly, and speaks more for the voting populace in general, I have to admit that I was a bit surprised when Biden supported public campaign financing vocally and unsolicited in one of the earlier debates. Hadn't expected that from him. Which makes me wonder... If he were ahead in the polls instead of Hillary, I wonder if he'd have the same positions he does now in certain areas (like public campaign financing) as a DLC member that he has now. In other words, part of me wonders if he's taking these positions now to try and "split" the vote a bit more to take away votes from folks like Edwards and Kucinich. If the DLC knows he won't win, perhaps taking away votes is their way to help Hillary win in the big election.

Anyway, just my speculation. I've not trusted the DLC and won't at all down the road. I always suspect them of such strategies. I might be completely wrong too, and if I am, my apologies. But somehow I keep getting suspicious, when I constantly see the progressive candidates being sabotaged one way or the other.

[gateley]

34. Hi - FYI Biden's not a member of the DLC. And...

Edit to add that Biden has proposed legislation - long before this campaign - in support of public financing. It's something he philosophically believes in.

[skipos]

37. This is DU, where we claim everyone except Kucinich is a member of the DLC

whether it is true or not. Oh yeah, and when someone we like, like Gore or Dean, was a member of the DLC, we don't talk about it.

[KittyWampus]

39. OR- this is DU, where we use the term "DLC'er" in lieu of "poopiehead".

[gateley]

41. Ahhh. I get it - thanks! :-)

[cascadiance]

42. Barak Obama also has his "support" for public campaign financing cosponsoring a bill he doesn't ...

... talk about much in the Senate too. The question is how serious are they.

I think I need to see a clear document link that says that Biden is NOT a part of the DLC. I see many references that say he is. I think you can't claim that he isn't DLC any more than others can say that he is. Certainly this post has a question mark next to his name in this regard (indicating that they suspect he is):

http://www.blogforamerica.com/tag/Senate

This one claims he's DLC:

http://www.greenmountaindaily.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1608

Whether or not he's a member of the DLC, he certainly seems well regarded by them as indicated here, when he won an award from them and spoke to them:

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=126&subid=189&contentid=253244

Of course, it is hard to establish pols are now DLC members, since many of them try to keep those facts secret now, since they realize that the DLC is now a bad word they don't want associated with them.

Biden DID vote for the bankruptcy bill. He DID cosponsor it and push it through the Senate. Whether or not he is a member of the DLC, he certainly worked in "corporate style" with that bill and against the interests of the people and more in the interests of the credit card companies. Either he is a member of the DLC, or he's a member in spirit with the way he's voting.

[iverglas]

52. innuendo, insinuation ... and untruth

First, the untruth -- or so it seems to me, from researching
the point:

"Biden DID vote for the bankruptcy bill. He DID cosponsor
it and push it through the Senate."

The facts:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-256

identifies the sponsor as 

Sen. Charles Grassley [R-IA]

and the cosponsors as: 

Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
Sen. Jim DeMint [R-SC]
Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]
Sen. Charles Hagel [R-NE]
Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
Sen. Ben Nelson [D-NE]
Sen. Jefferson Sessions [R-AL]
Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]
Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]

Not seeing Biden's name there, but I may be doing something
wrong.


For the rest:

"I think I need to see a clear document link that says
that Biden is NOT a part of the DLC."

I think that, since you're the one making the claim, you're
the one needing to provide the proof of it.

Really. You really just don't get to make a claim that taints
someone's reputation and then demand that someone else
disprove it if they don't like it. Really. Not in civilized
society you don't.

 

[gateley]

65. Thank you for that info! nt

[youthere]

95. LOL!

When did you stop beating your wife?

[gateley]

55. I don't know if there's a document proving he's NOT a member -

but here's a membership roster from, of all sources, DU!

http://illinois062006.mydd.com/story/2006/5/27/55951/1586

[murbley40]

83. Senator Tom Carper of Delaware is a member.not Biden!

Edited for,spelling.

[Think82]

72. Addressing your concerns:

Biden introduced the FIRST public financing bill in 1972... That's right. 1972. The first piece of legislation he introduced. Again, that's 1972.

He is not "for" the surge. Jsut because he won't cut off funding does not mean he's for the surge. He is the ONLY candidate that has offered a political solution for Iraq beyond " cutting or surging" based on a loosely based federal system, which the Iraqi Constitution actuually lays out. It IS an exit strategy, a way to leave without leaving chaos behind, and his plan got 75 votes in the senate, including Hillary and Dodd (Obama didn't vote), all the dems except Feingold, and 26 republicans.Read more at planforiraq.com

As far as the bankruptcy bill... I heard that it was going ot pas anyway and he worked in an amendment that protected women from losing child support to deadbeat dads. Since it was going ot pass anyway, this provision at least guarded these single-mothers' interests.

[Bluebear]

40. Is someone not referred to as "Senator" once they leave office?

[Nutmegger]

51. I wondered the same thing too.

What's with that? :shrug:

[Debi]

79. The title is for life, just as Congressman (or woman) and President

Why people don't use the title on past members of the Congress is a mystery to me - either out of ignorance or lack of respect. :hi:

[gateley]

43. Hi - what time does this poll close? Thanks. nt

[itsrobert]

45. 8 AM Eastern Time

Or when I wake up.

[gateley]

58. Ha! Thanks! nt

[itsrobert]

73. Poll is closed

Biden wins this round. Not a good voter turnout, but the primaries seldom do. Next up the finals.

[bpeale]

84. these polls are stupid & meaningless

[itsrobert]

99. Just a lesson for us Edwards supporters. It's all about the Turnout!

If we turnout during the primaries, we win. I know the poll was short notice and not well advertised, but to be fair the Biden supporters organized and turn out to get the win. They did a great job. We need to work harder. Edwards is doing his part, we need to follow through and make sure we turn out when it actually counts.

[Tom Rinaldo]

100. Ah I remember the days on DU when...

...Clark supporters were accused of doing something evil and undemocratic when we won polls supposedly because we were better organized, lol. These polls don't mean much but it isn't a bad thing to be organized in politics.

On a seperate note, DU is a much calmer experience for me nowadays without a candidate who I strongly support. Best wishs to all of you folks who are caught up in the thick of it.

[bread_and_roses]

104. i can't believe so many here support Mr. Credit Card Biden (n/t)

[surfermaw]

109. I support Biden, however only in the VP...Spot

Biden has one of the bad habits that Gore has, he lets his mouth get the best of him sometime and stickes his foot in his mouth, however with his experience I think he would be the second best man for Edwards V.P with the first being Gore. I do know that one time Biden was trying a run for President and was shut out early because of something that happened when he was in college, maybe copying some one work. If there is any one with the knowledge of this , pleas post,

[Froward69]

121. It was Bidens failure to

cite a quote ONE time in a stump speech. He was hammered for being a plagiarist. His accusers later apologized for their overreaction.

[Froward69]

122. I thought this poll was closed

however edwards is still getting votes 5 hours late???

[youthere]

130. Doesn't matter...Biden won when the poll closed.

[jillan]

132. Wow - that was close. I am pleasantly surprised that Biden got that many votes against Edwards!

Go Joe!!!

[conservdem]

138. I am surprised by these results.

[Ninga]

144. Well, with only 2 candidates, and rabid supporters of the candidates NOT in this poll....hmmmmmm..

what do you think happened?


Anti Edwards vote.

[Bluebear]

140. Count ALL the votes!

:hi: