what would the GOP use against Biden if he were the nominee?

[grasswire]

What do they have in opposition research on Biden? I believe it's important for us to plot these things in advance.

[eleny]

1. He plagarized a piece of work some time ago

And he had a serious health problem - I think it was an aneurysm.

[KittyWampus]

4. yes, though that's easily debunked. It's still there.

[jillan]

5. He didn't quote Kinnock one time. Biden could beat it.

The person who started the smear campaign was a Dukakis advisor, and has since publicly apologized to Biden.

You are right about the anuerysm. He had 2 brain anuerysms and wasn't expected to live.

All that was going on while he successfully brought down Bork.

[Alexander]

15. Biden flunked a law school class for plagiarism, too, and admitted it.

The fact that John Sasso apologized doesn't change the fact that it's true.

And then there's his seemingly endless list of gaffes. The Republicans will have a field day if he is the nominee. A centrist who will lose? If I wanted that, I'd vote Hillary.

[KittyWampus]

17. Actually, he put the citation at the END of paper. Rules require it appear on the bottom of the page

too.

So it wasn't plagarism. NOT EVEN CLOSE.

But you knew that because I KNOW you've been told that.

Why you need to repeat somthing that is a LIE when you've been told the truth is beyond me.

[Think82]

19. Who did he plagiarize his Iraq plan from? His pakistan policy? The violence against women act?

[Alexander]

25. And yet they flunked him and made him repeat the course.

Whitewash that all you want - it's a rather unsightly black mark on someone who has been in trouble for plagiarizing before.

You have not shown a single shred of evidence to back up your claims.

So maybe you should stop repeating LIE after LIE after LIE (see, I can type in ALL CAPS too!) to preserve the reputation of your hero.

[KittyWampus]

28. Actually, the facts back me up. You've had them presented to you often enough.

Oh, and now we know you haven't got a clue what the word 'plagarism' means.

[Alexander]

30. Biden's a plagiarist. Funny how you have NO FACTS and NO SOURCES...

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

"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.

...

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.

CBS News tonight quoted an aide to Mr. Biden as saying he had been exonerated. However, an academic official said Mr. Biden had been found guilty, ''threw himself on the mercy of the board'' and promised not to repeat the offense. This, according to the official, persuaded the board to drop the matter and allow Mr. Biden to remain in law school. Mr. Biden's office declined to clarify the circumstances surrounding the case, saying the Senator had insisted on handling the matter himself at the news conference."

Here are more incidents of plagiarism by Biden.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965648-2,00.html

Page 2:

"...At any rate, the Kinnock tape opened the floodgates. Students of Robert Kennedy's rhetoric began pointing out that some of Kennedy's words -- and Hubert Humphrey's too -- had been coming out of Biden's mouth, without attribution. Mark Johnson, a Gephardt staffer, passed copies of a story containing Kennedy-Biden quotes to CBS News, which dug up tapes to confirm the point. Thus the Gephardt campaign did help marginally to keep the furor going but, despite many rumors, did not originate it."

Spin that one, Bidenbot.

[jillan]

33. At least he voted for Schip.

[Alexander]

34. So did Obama and Dodd. And they don't plagiarize.

Since I haven't made up my mind as to whom I will support, how is this relevant?

[Think82]

46. Karl Rove, is that you? See my post 19 for relevant issues. You are so f-ing negative it disturbs me

Especially since you don't even SUPPORT anyone. I think you have issues, dude.

[Alexander]

48. Because I provide facts and sources, I must be a freeper. Got it.

Nice litmus test you have there. Do you need to be reminded of the DU rules?

"Especially since you don't even SUPPORT anyone."

I support Obama, Dodd and Kucinich. I will make up my mind between the three of them when I get my ballot in the mail.

"I think you have issues, dude."

Your cognitive dissonance is way more of an issue.

[1corona4u]

49. Uhh...

no, Obama didn't even show up for the vote on SCHIP....you need to check the facts....and I will say this....you and a few others are really reaching with the plagiarism thing....20 some odd years ago...come on. And we all know the truth. you can spin it all you want, it's just not enough to make him a bad person in my mind....I have more top say,. but have something to do right now.

[1corona4u]

60. Ok, I'll spin it....

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.
The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.
The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.
Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.
The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'
The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.
The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.
Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.
But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''
L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

Oops...forgot the link;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[1corona4u]

74. Ok,...

I gave you facts and sources....have you nothing to say now?

[demommom]

57. crying shame:

a word of advice, it would be best to ignore Alexander. He is a real Biden hater and nothing you say will register with him. He will bait you until you say something he can alert on you and get you kicked off.

[1corona4u]

64. Ok, here ya go...

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.
The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.
The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.
Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.
The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'
The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.
The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.
Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.
But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''
L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

Oops...forgot the link;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[1corona4u]

65. You should stop repeating lies...

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.
The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.
The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.
Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.
The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'
The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.
The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.
Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.
But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''
L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

Oops...forgot the link;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[gateley]

70. Kind of OT - but wasn't Ted Kennedy charged with something similar - having

someone write a paper for him or something? Not that it has anything to do with Biden, but this discussion just triggered something in my memory, but it's fuzzy!

[ginchinchili]

113. As always, you're lying.

"Biden flunked a law school class for plagiarism, too, and admitted it." Where do you get this crap from, FOX Comics? There was a charge during a presidential election--kind of like you're doing except they were a little more clever about it--and Biden was completely cleared of the charge. Story over. Sorry. You'll have to go back the story about the starving grandmother who ran up medical bills while taking care of...was it 8 grandchildren?--but couldn't file for bankruptcy because Joe Biden had her duct taped to the back of his gas guzzling limo.

[ginchinchili]

41. That doesn't pass the stink test. Any proof?

I should remind you that he has taught Constitutional law. He's not exactly a law school failure. One instant where he forgot to give a writer credit, as if it was all preplanned in order to win the presidency with one clever line. It won't have legs in this general election. The country is looking for a strong, honest, reliable leader who can start repairing the damage we're suffering from abroad and at home. Please. You can go through anyone's life and find some little incident to yank out and wave like a red flag, but in Joe Biden's case it's unusually slim pickins. That's the truth. So take your pick. The case where he forgot an attribution or...or...the case where he forgot an attribution. If you look deep enough you might find a case where he got drunk in college and acted crazy. I can see that.

You don't want a centrist so you must be for Kucinich. You must already be planning for the Democrats to lose in the general election. Not me. That's why I'm such a passionate supporter of Sen. Biden.

[Alexander]

45. Post #30 is chock full of credible sources.

The Bidenbots promptly shut their collective mouths after reading post #30.

Maybe before you post again you should read everything in the relevant thread.

[1corona4u]

62. Oh yeah...

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.
The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.
The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.
Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.
The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'
The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.
The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.
Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.
But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''
L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

Oops...forgot the link;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[ginchinchili]

84. Thank you so much. I was looking for this.

You da man...or da woman! lol thanks.

[ginchinchili]

112. Silly rabbit. Tricks are for kids.

[demommom]

59. he is for Gore!

[1corona4u]

72. I just read comments from his teachers....he was not a failure...

from a NY Times article;
"Travis Lewin, the interim dean of the law school, also declined comment. Recollections of Professors

But two of Mr. Biden's law school professors, reached tonight, said they had no recollection of any such charges. Asked about Mr. Biden's record as a student, one of the professors, Robert M. Anderson, said, ''He wasn't setting the law school on fire, but he was a competent student and a nice young man.''

The other professor, Samuel J. Donnelly, said Mr. Biden had been one of his ''more favorite students'' because he was ''bright'' and ''broad intellectually.''


He finished with a grade of 80.

[1corona4u]

63. Uhm...

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.
The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.
The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.
Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.
The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'
The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.
The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.
Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.
But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''
L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

Oops...forgot the link;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. It doesn't matter. If they can't find any dirt, they'll just make shit up.

Same is true with respect to all of the Dems. If Jesus was running as a Democrat the Reps would make nasty shit up about him, too.

[Sparkly]

3. Exactly. They decide how they're going to "define" our candidate

and off they go, with a little help from their friends in the MSM.

[jillan]

9. They better not - or else they're going to have the Bidenites to deal with

:P

[KittyWampus]

6. Biden does have an advantage in that he's not running away from his Senate record.

And while his record is Center/Left, he comes across as more Centrist.

Very, very useful.

[dugggy]

7. Not much against Biden compared to Hillary, Obama & Edwards

n/t

[slick8790]

8. A quick perusal of Wikipedia shows some possible things.

Nothing substantiative, but when has that ever stopped the GOP?

"Biden favors diverting drug offenders out of the nation's prison system. He is against making stricter laws for drug offenses but helped in the creation of a Drug Czar."

"Biden was given an F by the National Rifle Association (NRA) showing a pro-gun control voting record. He supports reinstating a Federal ban on semi-automatic firearms and voted no against prohibition of lawsuits against gun manufacturers."

"Biden supported President George W. Bush's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill. He supports guest-worker visas, and the building of a wall along the border. He voted to provide Social Security to illegal immigrants and supports a path to citizenship."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Joe_Biden

That and that stupid plaigiarism thing make up their (weak) case against Joe Biden.

[jillan]

10. Guns will be a huge issue against Biden, especially after that Youtube debate

[Think82]

13. Of course, he owns a shotgun. That may help. Repubs respect him on Nat. Security issues.

[Alexander]

16. So did Kerry, That didn't help him.

Most gun owners own handguns and don't care about policy towards rifles and shotguns.

Biden's "F" from the NRA will not sit well with this crowd.

[Think82]

18. there are already Repubs writing to the Biden blog expressing their support, and many veterans

Nat. security is THE issue Repubs will run on. Biden is best-equipped to deal with that. He will win red states.

[jillan]

26. It is amazing. Everyday another republican joins his campaign.

[grasswire]

21. but they HATED Kerry for past actions

They HATED him from the get-go. They wanted payback for many things.

Do they hate Biden?

[Alexander]

27. So? Democrats with better records on gun rights have lost before.

Biden's "F" rating and support for the AWB will provide lots of ammunition to the right-wing media consortium.

Maybe they don't hate Biden yet, but they can sure learn.

[benEzra]

43. See post #42. (n/t)

[benEzra]

42. Owning a 19th-century-style shotgun is irrelevant...

owning a handgun and an AR-15 would make a difference, except he's already endorsed banning AR-15's (the most popular centerfire target rifle in America), plus all guns holding over 10 rounds, shotguns holding over 5 shells, autoloading rifles with handgrips that stick out, adjustable rifle stocks, etc., ad nauseaum. Jim Webb, Jon Tester, Ted Strickland, Bob Casey, etc. have shown how to neutralize the gun issue in heavily gun-owning jurisdictions, which was a vital part of the '06 recapture of the Senate; the Gore '00 and Kerry '04 campaigns showed how not to do it.

The gun issue in the U.S. is not about traditionally styled hunting guns and never has been; 4 out of 5 U.S. gun owners are nonhunters, and even the Bradyites have always claimed to support hunting guns as long as they have 19th century styling and pre-1861 magazine capacities.

Background on the gun issue that may help understand the dynamics of it a bit more:

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

Alienated Rural Democrat

[PatSeg]

50. Those are good ones

and they may appeal to their base, a base which is shrinking by the day.

The republicans don't want to run against Biden and they certainly don't want any of their candidates to debate him.

[John Q. Citizen]

82. He voted for the wall? That's a bummer.

[jillan]

11. I'm sure it will be no worse than what some of the DUers have brought up.

And that my friend is nothing much.

[Lucinda]

14. I think we're going about this all wrong. Look for his strengths.

That's what they twist to attack with.

[grasswire]

20. good point

that's the Rovian way. But I think if there is low hanging negative fruit, they'll pluck that first.

[KittyWampus]

22. You are damned smart! That'd be Biden's strength in Foreign Policy. Though since

congress voted on his measure regarding Iraq and approved it (GOP'ers voted for it too).

[bluestateguy]

12. He's been a senator since 1973

Tens of thousands of votes there.

You have to vote for final passage of bills as packages, meaning that sometimes you will have to vote in contradiction to your public positions concerning minor provisions of the bills.

But that all gets lost in a 30 second ad-bite.

[KittyWampus]

23. true, IMO the way to counter that is highlight Biden's many, many legislative successes

Fact is, he gets stuff done.

[TheFarseer]

32. he voted to raise taxes 9,846,372,185,294 times!

I can just see that ad

[Froward69]

94. This issue stands out to me most

How to counter act it?

[monmouth]

24. Plus....he's handsome....sigh.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. They'd have all kinds of stuff, but it wouldn't stick because he is likable

Petty scandals only stick to unlikeable people.

Look at Reagan... there was so much stuff on him, but he was "The Teflon President" because he smiled a lot and sounded folksy.

Biden has some of that today. (He didn't in 1988)

[PatSeg]

51. This is true

And look at Bill Clinton - all those scandals and he still polled very high, even during the impeachment hearings. They can't diminish the likability factor.

[jillan]

31. And Biden will fight back.

[hvn_nbr_2]

119. Bingo.

And when all is said and done, that may be the most important characteristic of a Dem candidate.

The question, "What do they have in opposition research?" hardly matters. We can't even guess what they'll "use" against him, because they'll make it up. What we need is someone who won't take shit from swiftboaters.

[ginchinchili]

35. As has often been stated, Biden would be the GOPs worst nightmare.

If all goes well and Joe Biden starts gaining some serious traction, as many in Iowa are beginning to predict, then you'll start hearing a lot of disturbing rumors about Joe Biden, because the Republicans will be getting real nervous. You'll hear a lot made about his vote on the bankruptcy bill, but it won't be presented as criticism from the GOP, because they sponsored the bill. They're more clever than that. They would do what they have to to plant seeds in the Democrats garden about the bill and how that makes Biden unacceptable to Democrats, a kind of wedge issue. The thing to look for there is to see which candidates are advocating bankruptcy reform as a campaign issue. As far as I know, none are. But the simple fact is that if it isn't important enough for Democratic candidates to use as an issue to run on, then it's not important enough to disqualify Biden over. Besides, to improve on the existing bill all the Democratic Congress would have to do is pass a bill and President Biden will most certainly sign it into law. Problem solved.

Once Sen. Biden wins the primary, the GOP will try to paint him as a North Eastern liberal, but he's gotten too many bills passed that have been co-sponsored by Republicans. Ironically, the bankruptcy bill then becomes an asset. Biden would have a easy time demonstrating that he's not a leftwing ideologue, because he's not.

They will fall back on their usual chant of "9/11" and "national security," but--and this is why the GOP will do everything they can to keep Biden from winning the nomination--the Senator is more knowledgeable about issues involving national security than any of the Republicans, and it wouldn't be hard for him to prove it and to demonstrate it. This is the main area that would cause the GOP collective heartburn should Biden win the nomination. This is why Biden is the Democrats best bet, and we'd better wake up to that fact because no other Democrat has this weapon in their arsenal, and it's a bute.

The only other issue I'll mention is the character issue; which the Republicans always try to find a way of using. Good luck with Joe, because he's squeaky clean, and has a pretty impressive life story to boot. He's a true family man and has the life history to back it up. Yes, the Repubs will create issues, but Joe is tough and he's smart, not to mention quick on his feet. He'd be able to handle the fabricated crap better than any other candidate.

[PatSeg]

52. Very well said

:toast:

[harun]

58. He has been in the Senate longer than I have been alive

He has more experience than any of the Repug candidates and I think he would eat any of them for dinner running against them.

[Froward69]

96. "collective heartburn"

thats great!!! they (gop) deserve it. now how to convince other Dems.

[beaconess]

36. It doesn't have to be anything particularly damning - they are geniuses at turning ANYTHING

into a liability.

Who would have thought that they would have even had the nerve to use Kerry's military service AGAINST him, much less do it successfully?

No matter who the nominee is, they will pull out all of the stops and use SOMETHING against them, regardless how minor or harmless it may seem to us now.

[ginchinchili]

39. That's true, although that doesn't start all the candidates on the same footing.

So you weigh their strengths and weaknesses in the general election and look at who would be best at defusing their swiftboat attacks, defending themselves, and hitting back. I think Biden gave us a glimpse of how he'd handle himself when him and Giuliani traded licks after Biden's "a noun, a verb and 9/11" remark, which, I believe, is why he did it. Pretty clever, I thought.

[beaconess]

40. That was a very clever remark - but also obviously a scripted one

I liked it, but it doesn't tell me whether Biden will be able to diffuse direct attacks.

[ginchinchili]

44. What? Scripted remark? Nothing I post is scripted.

In fact, I don't even know what remark you're referring to since I don't script anything. Interesting. Are you referring to the statement that not all the candidates start on the same footing? Clever? You're easily impressed, but thank you. It's just a statement that happens to be true. Yes, the GOP will play dirty tricks on the Democratic nominee regardless of who it is, but each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses, and not all are created equal in that respect, especially if you factor in the current political landscape in our country, which should be taken into consideration.

For example, one of the top issues, probably the top issue, will be Iraq and national security in general. This puts Obama at a serious disadvantage because he has zero foreign policy experience. Hillary is vulnerable on the character issue, mostly because there's a palpable sense in this country that her character isn't exactly oder free, even though most of it is based on bs. But she's not totally responsibility free. If she wins the nomination, this will be her greatest obstacle. I'm not saying she can't overcome it, but it will be difficult.

[beaconess]

47. Wow! Take a breath and reread my post

Maybe you'll figure out what "scripted remark" I was talking about.

Jeez.

[ginchinchili]

55. How can I do that when none are scripted?

It leaves me swatting flies that don't exist. I thought I did address why I thought Biden would be able to deflect Repubs' attacks. Me thinks you're seeing what is convenient and not seeing that is inconvenient.

[PatSeg]

101. Poster is referring to Biden's remarks about Rudy

not yours.

Look a Kitty!!!

[ginchinchili]

110. Oops. I didn't think I was being very clever.

Now I know I wasn't. Nice cat. Yours?

[1corona4u]

67. He can difuse one of them with this;

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.
The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.
The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.
Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.
The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'
The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.
The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.
Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.
But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''
L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

Oops...forgot the link;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[PatSeg]

53. Yep, they focus on an opponents strengths

not their weaknesses, but Biden will quickly fire back, just like he's done with Rudy. Then he'll say more with a "look" than with words.

[mmonk]

37. Hard to say. My opinion is they are not prepared to face him.

[PatSeg]

54. They've been too busy focusing on running against Hillary

They never planned on a candidate like Biden.

[mmonk]

68. You're right. If he can pull an early

win or strong showing, I can get behind him. I think they will run into some trouble when trying to smear him (though they will try if he gains momentum).

[PatSeg]

75. And Biden has been down that road before, so I'm quite sure

he is prepared for the slings and arrows.

No republican could be any worse than some of the crap that is thrown at him on some of the left-wing blogs.

[mmonk]

85. I'm not worried about whether he is up to it (because I know he is).

[PatSeg]

104. Yeah, he is

He seems to be very centered and focused. At the last debate I noticed he was far more relaxed than the others, like he knows exactly what he's doing and where he's headed.

[jillan]

38. Here you go - right from Fox

http://gretawire.foxnews.com/2007/11/18/joe-biden-read-and-post-your-answer-and-read-what-others-are-saying/

Greta wants to know:

We are approaching the Iowa caucus….and here are two questions for you to answer: (I hope to ask the same question for all the other candidates over the next few days…. I have asked about Gov Mitt Romney, Gov Bill Richardson, Mayor Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Rep Paul, Senator Edwards, Senator McCain…. and you can scroll down to see what people posted about each candidate)…. I bet you can answer these questions regardless of your party or your candidate ….

1/ What is the single BEST reason for you to vote for Joe Biden for President?

and

2/ What is the single BEST reason for you NOT to vote for Joe Biden for President?


The answers are not that bad.

[gateley]

78. This is a great resource -- and the question was asked about ALL the Dem

candidates so it'll be somewhat useful regardless of who gets the nom. I loved the 'con' on this one:

Comment by David M.
November 18th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Pro - Clearly the most qualified, most honest, most electable of all the Dems (also, the only candidate who has the tools to effectively work on a bipartisan basis)

Con - It’ll make winning in 08 too easy for the Dems :rofl:

[ecstatic]

56. Whatever they'd use, it would have nothing to do with facts or reality

Just a random slur to get their base laughing (i.e., McCain's black baby,or Harold Ford bringing white chix back to the mansion, etc.). Their attack strategy usually involves playing on bigotry related fears and/or attacking someone's "manhood"/"womanhood."

[inthebrain]

73. They wouldn't use anything directly mentioning race in a national election

Primaries, yeah.

National election?

Nope.

Biden wouldn't get slammed on the Bankruptsy Bill.

Perhaps his "I didn't know" stance for a lot of votes will get him in hot water. Particularly the Iraq War and a few other issues of note.

[smalll]

61. The plugs. /nt

[gateley]

69. Even the RW isn't that petty. nt

[PatSeg]

79. Oh, I wouldn't count on that

Petty, sordid, devious, deceptive, nasty, mean............well, you get the picture. I really hate it when I hear that sort of thing from Dems. We're supposed to be better than that.

[PatSeg]

76. Plugs and a latte!!!

You know, I was thinking today about the petty "plugs" smear I've heard many times. I was reading about Biden's brain surgery and I realized that it must have left some nasty scars that he may have chosen to cover up with hair plugs. Just a thought.

[gateley]

81. And I have to ask -- has he had like plug re-constructive surgery or something?

I just don't SEE the plugs!

[1corona4u]

86. Actually...

I read the other day that he had originally gotten a bad plug job, and then had to have it corrected. Anyway, I think it's hilarious when people talk about plugs, as opposed to the "toupee" days, LOL...but people are OK with fake boobs, calves, tummy tucks, etc. Men are getting lots of implants these days...pectorals, calves....and others. Personally, I hate a guys with big calves...but I am not into incredible hulk-type men. :-)

[gateley]

88. Well that might explain why I don't see those "old style" plugs when I look - which

makes me wonder if the references are to his OLD plugs? Am I the only one who thinks he looks fine? Am I missing something?

[PatSeg]

93. I don't see anything out of the ordinary either

Of course, that is hardly what I care about in a presidential candidate.

[gateley]

95. Agree, of course, but people bring it up so often I was thinking everybody else

could see them except me. I guess it's just another cheap (stupid) thing they like to toss into the mix.

[PatSeg]

102. You're not alone

I would have never noticed anything out of the ordinary and quite frankly I still don't.

[1corona4u]

103. No...

He does look finnnneeeee....LOL...here's a clip on Leno;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3eo57pBQwc

[murbley40]

124. Nope,you are definetly not the only one!

[PatSeg]

92. Women dye their hair and no one makes a big deal

out of that. The plug thing is just petty.

[rucky]

146. Have you seen the GOP candidates?

They're the "before" poster boys for the hair-plug industry.

[1corona4u]

66. What do they have?

Nada.Zip. Zilch.

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.
The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.
The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.
Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.
The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'
The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.
The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.
Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.
But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''
L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.

Oops...forgot the link;

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[inthebrain]

71. I think the palsiarism thing is weak as well

In that case he just fucked up.

He did cite his source in all previous speeched and just messed up the time they caught him.

[mark414]

77. Biden authored the original Assault Weapons Ban bill, if i remember correctly

the NRA would have a field day

[Kat45]

105. Yes, the NRA and its followers would not vote for him.

I mentioned my recent interest in Biden to my gun-nut friend, and he immediately said he hates him, and it's because of the AWB. My friend is an intelligent person who is no wingnut, but he's such a gun nut that he will not vote for folks who are for gun control, never mind someone involved with the AWB. Now, I like Biden a lot, but I'd say that he'd lose the votes of the folks with guns, especially with the NRA encouraging them.

[1corona4u]

108. See my other post...

People who defend their "right" to own an assault weapon, are selfishly refusing to see the harm it causes to everyone else. I hope they renew it, and I don't care who loses votes over it. It should have never been allowed to expire. Never. There is NO logical reason an average person needs an assault weapon. Them forcing their "right" on the rest of us is taking lives of the very people who try to protect us from the criminals, and gangs that buy these guns illegally. That, I am not OK with. Just because you have the "right" to do something, doesn't make it "right" for everyone else.

[benEzra]

123. Oh, good grief...

People who defend their "right" to own an assault weapon, are selfishly refusing to see the harm it causes to everyone else. I hope they renew it, and I don't care who loses votes over it. It should have never been allowed to expire. Never. There is NO logical reason an average person needs an assault weapon. Them forcing their "right" on the rest of us is taking lives of the very people who try to protect us from the criminals, and gangs that buy these guns illegally. That, I am not OK with. Just because you have the "right" to do something, doesn't make it "right" for everyone else.

Oh, good grief...you've been spun by the repubs at the Brady Campaign, and badly.

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

All rifles combined kill less than half as many people as shoes and bare hands. Tell me again how small-caliber rifles are such a crime problem in this country...

BTW, the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch would outlaw the most popular civilian target rifles in America. It's not about military automatic weapons, contrary to MSM spin, as those have been tightly controlled by Federal law since 1934.

[1corona4u]

134. Like I said...

There is NO logical reason-at all, why an ordinary citizen needs an assault weapon. I could care less what the brady foundation says, I'm stating my opinion. And don't even try to tell me what's going on in my state has nothing to do with assault weapons. It does. They're killing cops. Get it?

And, by the way, have you seen the news today? There's a man in Texas, who decided to take the law into his OWN hands, with a rifle, because hie NEIGHBORS house was being robbed. He was on the phone with 911, and told them he was going to shoot them, they told him NO, and he did it anyway. He killed both of the burglars. This is what happens when idiots with guns think they ARE the law.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-US&brand=msnbc&vid=1d3f6817-d7b7-4da9-b2ea-f693d0921238

Stupid ass....

[benEzra]

137. Thoughts...

There is NO logical reason-at all, why an ordinary citizen needs an assault weapon.

"Assault weapon" is a PR buzzword used to refer to any popular civilian self-loading rifle that the Bradyites want to ban.

This is an "assault weapon":



"Assault weapons" are the most popular target rifles in America, and more people own them than hunt. My wife and I own several "assault weapons" between us, and we'll keep them, thanks. (That's my rifle in the photo above, BTW.)

I could care less what the brady foundation says, I'm stating my opinion. And don't even try to tell me what's going on in my state has nothing to do with assault weapons. It does. They're killing cops. Get it?

Police-officer line of duty deaths are near an all-time low, despite a slight uptick this year that has nothing to do with rifle availability.





Since "assault weapons" have never been illegal in this country, you can't blame the recent Florida shooting on the "legalization" of anything. FWIW, the high-profile rifle killing a few weeks ago involved a rifle that was made in the late '80s/early '90s.

The fact remains that rifles of ANY type are way underrepresented in both homicides in general, and police-officer shootings in particular, compared to their ownership rates viz. handguns.

(BTW, I just moved to NC from Florida in 2003, and am well versed in Florida firearms law, thanks.)

[1corona4u]

136. What?!

You said;
It's not about military automatic weapons, contrary to MSM spin, as those have been tightly controlled by Federal law since 1934.

They are not tightly controlled. What part of the articles that I posted didn't you understand? Military style assault weapons ARE being bought illegally, by gang members. They are using them to kill cops. You also said something about "small-caliber rifles". I didn't say anything about those, I specifically said; "assault weapons". That, for me anyway, would include ANY weapon designated as a fully automatic weapon. I don't think anyone is complaining about target rifles....but when you have whack jobs, like the trashy nutbag who asked about his "protecting his baby", on youtube, holding an assault rifle, there's a flaw in the system. That idiot should have NEVER been able to purchase that assault rifle. Who ever sold it to him, made a serious lapse in judgment.

I also think people should have to go through some kind of psychology test before they can own a gun.

[benEzra]

138. You're confusing restricted automatic assault rifles with civilian "assault weapons"...

(benEzra)
It's not about military automatic weapons, contrary to MSM spin, as those have been tightly controlled by Federal law since 1934.

(1corona4u)
They are not tightly controlled. What part of the articles that I posted didn't you understand? Military style assault weapons ARE being bought illegally, by gang members. They are using them to kill cops.

Possession of ANY automatic weapon outside of police/military/government duty is a 10-year felony violation of the Title 2/Class III provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 as amended by the McClure-Volkmer Act of 1986. To legally possess one, you have to first obtain Federal authorization (BATFE Form 4), and the price for an actual civilian-transferable AK-47 or M16 is between $15,000 and $20,000, due to their extraordinary scarcity and collectibility; only those registered with the Federal government prior to the closure of the NFA automatic weapon registry in 1986 can be transferred to non-LEO civilians, even with a Form 4.

Learn about the National Firearms Act here:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

The current "assault weapon" bait-and-switch is about NON-automatic, functionally ordinary civilian rifles (mostly small-caliber), usually those with modern styling cues like protruding handgrips. It has nothing whatsoever to do with NFA Title 2 automatic weapons, only NFA Title 1 civilian guns.

You also said something about "small-caliber rifles". I didn't say anything about those, I specifically said; "assault weapons". That, for me anyway, would include ANY weapon designated as a fully automatic weapon.

Then get informed about Federal firearms law; any weapon designated as an automatic weapon by the Title 2/Class III provisions of the NFA (even if not actually capable of full auto) is ALREADY more tightly controlled than a 155mm howitzer under Federal law.

The video the YouTube guy posted was a non-automatic, small-caliber civilian rifle that happens to be the most popular target rifle in America. Here's one being used in target competition by someone who looks less like a dweeb.



I shoot competitively with my SAR-1 (IPSC/USPSA), FWIW. It is also entirely suitable for deer hunting with a 5-round hunting magazine, and makes a fine defensive carbine as well. AR-15's are also popular as less-powerful alternatives to the traditional 12-gauge shotgun in the HD role, but aren't quite powerful enough to hunt deer with.

I don't think anyone is complaining about target rifles....but when you have whack jobs, like the trashy nutbag who asked about his "protecting his baby", on youtube, holding an assault rifle, there's a flaw in the system. That idiot should have NEVER been able to purchase that assault rifle. Who ever sold it to him, made a serious lapse in judgment.

YOU are complaining about target rifles, since you are advocating banning them...

YouTube Guy didn't have an actual M16/M4 assault rifle. His gun was a small-caliber, NON-automatic civilian gun (civilian AR-15), that works just like any other civilian non-automatic self-loader, or the pistol your local police officer carries on her hip. Caliber is .223 Remington, the least powerful centerfire rifle caliber in common use in the United States.

[1corona4u]

142. Whatever...

I am entitled to my opinion. I don't think any of them should be legal, and I think the ban should be renewed. Right now, people are entitled to have them. Going forward, maybe not. I guess it depends on how many more people will have to kill, or be killed with them before there is enough public outcry for them to ban them again.

[benEzra]

149. I respect that. But I'm pretty confident they will not be banned, IMO.

I am entitled to my opinion.

Definitely, and I respect that. But I don't think an actual ban will ever pass in this country; as of 2007, significantly more voters own "assault weapons" than hunt, taking H.R.1022 as the operative definition, so I don't think a ban will ever happen. Even a renewal of the 1994 Feinstein law (which didn't ban any guns at all) is highly unlikely, I think.

I don't think any of them should be legal, and I think the ban should be renewed. Right now, people are entitled to have them. Going forward, maybe not. I guess it depends on how many more people will have to kill, or be killed with them before there is enough public outcry for them to ban them again.

They are so rarely used in homicides that I don't see such a scenario holding up, but maybe I'm naive. Right now, shoes and bare hands account for more than twice as many murders as all rifles put together.

to ban them again

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but civilian AK's, AR's, and whatnot were never banned; the 1994 Feinstein law merely prohibited marketing of civilian guns under 19 scary-sounding names, required that rifles with protruding handgrips could not have certain other features (adjustable stock, threaded muzzle), and raised prices on full-capacity handgun magazines. My SAR-1 (civilian AK) is a 2002 model, manufactured and imported under the Feinstein law, and my wife's SKS was imported around 1995. S.1431/H.R.2038 and H.R.1022 would have been actual bans, though, had they passed.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

What the 1994 Feinstein ban actually did

[1corona4u]

107. Well...

I think the assault ban should be renewed. In Florida, we've had 5 law enforcement officers killed recently, by assault weapons, and now the county sheriff's are carrying their own assault rifles, just to be able to protect themselves. It was a bad idea to let that go, and here are some facts to back up what I am saying, and this is my area, so I know what I'm talking about here;

"Across the country, at least 62 police officers have been gunned down this year -- a record pace, said Robert Tessaro, the associate director for law enforcement relations for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

As a result, the Brady organization supports police officers arming themselves with high-powered weapons "to protect themselves and their communities," he said.

"We're having more than one officer shot and killed a week. It's just outrageous that officers are being targeted," he said. "It's something I think all Americans should be outraged about."

Although the gun lobby disagrees, Tessaro lays the blame squarely on lawmakers who allowed the assault weapons ban to expire in 2004."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/05/cops.guns/
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking_dade/story/299275.html

I can't think of a single logical reason an ordinary citizen would need ANY assault weapon.

[derby378]

139. Let me refresh your memory...

"I can't think of a single logical reason an ordinary citizen would need ANY assault weapon."

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Could you also define for the class what an "assault weapon" is?

[1corona4u]

151. I already did...

It's in one of my post. Go look it up smart ass.

[derby378]

153. Oh, come on...

Your definition only covers full-automatic weapons. We're taking semi-automatic here. In other words, firearms that have legally been in civilian hands for over 100 years.

[beevul]

154. Whats is an "assault weapon"? N/T

[rucky]

147. We already know he can handle that one...

from a great response he gave to a gun nut a few debates ago.

[creeksneakers2]

80. They'd call him a closet racist because of the Obama gaffe

Not that there's a word of truth to it.

[1corona4u]

87. Nope...

Don't think that would fly.....he has an excellent voting record with NAACP....they would come to his defense, big time.

[PatSeg]

97. White republicans might buy it

but then they probably wouldn't care anyway.

[jillan]

116. I know - Republicans would think that was a positive trait!

[PatSeg]

117. Sadly, they would!

[Hieronymus]

83. I don't think we have to worry about what will happen if Biden's nominated..

he won't be.

[1corona4u]

90. Uhm...

You don't raise chickens, do you? ;-)

[murbley40]

125. That is a good one.

[PatSeg]

130. That's what the republicans believe

and that could be their downfall.

[zulchzulu]

89. Joe has some enemies in Delaware with dirt on a few things

I could tell you one story, but will not divulge it here. The story could sink him pretty quickly. I have immediate family who live in Delaware and I've heard a few stories...

[1corona4u]

91. Well....

why even bother to say it then? I mean, really. Besides, "stories" don't equal "facts". If he has enemies, of course there will be "stories". Doesn't mean they are true either.

[PatSeg]

98. I think they all have enemies who will sell out a candidate

especially if the price is right.

[RufusTFirefly]

99. Your post is like push-polling

Unless you planned to divulge what you know, you probably shouldn't have posted. Your post only serves to toss out phantom allegations that can't be refuted. A nasty technique. If you know something, out with it. Otherwise, I'll take your post as push-polling bullshit.

[PatSeg]

100. I think he was only commenting on the sort of thing

the republicans would use against Biden, but I respect the fact that he chose not to go into detail about it.

[murbley40]

127. Joe has some enemies in Delaware,after 35 years

it would make sense. But I sure would't worry about it, they haven't been able to defeat him. A Senator who is as outspoken as Joe is will surely make some folks unhappy. I like that about him, he tells it like it is, clear and simply no "BS". Some don't like it. The Delaware republicans hate him because they have been unable to get their seat back.

[Basileus Basileon]

111. So tell us already. You got the dirt, better spill it.

[murbley40]

126. I live in Delaware.

As desperately as the Delaware Republicans have tried to defeat him, I'm sure they would have used anything and every thing they could if there were something. I do not believe there is.

[zulchzulu]

141. I'll PM you...

[conservdem]

145. Do you support him?

[Basileus Basileon]

106. Plagiarism, blowhard, rambles on, left-wing liberal leftist on the left, plugs, guns, and any one of

his numerous, numerous verbal gaffes. Not so bad, I don't think.

[ginchinchili]

109. LOL

[jlake]

114. That's the list.

The GOP will obviously have dirt, whether real or imagined on any candidate.
Biden's problems are relatively small. Regardless, The key is to FIGHT attacks - and Biden will.
I thought that Hillary would be the toughest, but she seems to wilt under mild criticism from fellow Democrats.
I think Edwards, Obama and Richardson would fare much worse still.

[jillan]

115. jlake - welcome to DU!

I love seeing all these new Bidenites :pals:

Come visit us at the Biden group. We are a lively group that loves to talk....just like our candidate!

The link is on the bottom of the HOME page at DU.

[rhett o rick]

118. If they don't have some thing legitimate they will make some thing up. Maybe he had

an illegitimate black child. Worked on McCain.

[Byronic]

120. Sadly it is immaterial

The Republicans will find or concoct dirt on ANY Democratic nominee. In fact, following the Rovian playbook, they will probably actually focus on an opponents STRENGTH (Kerry's Vietnam War service for example) and will tarnish that.

The question should be: will the Democrat fight back strongly, and will other Democrats unite behind the nominee and defend them vigorously enough?

I think Biden will fight back ferociously.

[murbley40]

128. I agree!

[Perry Logan]

121. ALL RIGHT--LISTEN UP! The GOP will say three (3) things about Biden if he is the nominee...

1) He is the most dangerously, flagrantly liberal person in the world.
2) He is the biggest flip-flopper in the universe (contradicting #1, but never mind).
3) He did something REALLY bad many years ago. But it's only coming out now...

That's the game plan. That will be the game plan against whomever gets nominated and elected.

[mmonk]

122. Yeah, they try those things like clockwork.

It's going to be harder against Joe though.

[PatSeg]

129. By the looks of the current republican lineup,

it appears that they haven't come up with any new playbooks and their tactics only appeal to a small base of supporters. The rest of the world is wise to their cheap tricks.

[blondeatlast]

143. That's exactly it. I doubt it will be as effective as it had been in the past, either. nt

[KansDem]

131. Ummmm....He's not the candidate Americans would most want to have a beer with?

It worked for Bush in 2000.

[PatSeg]

132. And the irony being, that Bush was an obnoxious

drunk with a reputation for being crude and profane when he drank??? The stories were not a secret and yet he still won the nomination. :puke:

[KansDem]

133. I remember Cokie Roberts on NPR telling us of Bush's potential "charm offensive."

She told the nation that Bush would use his "charm offensive" if elected to the White House. This is how he would get things done in DC, according to Cokie. He would "charm" his critics and detractors over to his side. His penchant for giving nicknames was singled out as part of his "charm."

:banghead:

"He's charming; oh, so charming," she would gush...:puke:

This was reported during the 2000 campaign. I knew then that NPR had "jumped the shark."

[PatSeg]

140. Charm???

I never would have believed that Bush would have been as bad as he turned out, but I never found anything about him that was "charming".

Cokie should have talked to Judy Woodruff. She would have told her how charming GW was when he went on a profane tirade against her husband in a restaurant in front of their seven year old child.

[ginchinchili]

152. Cokie also gushed about Laura Bush, calling her "brilliant."

I think somewhere along the line Cokie took a sip of the KoolAid.

[kad7777]

135. the GOP would be SCARED TO DEATH if Joe Biden

was the nominee. The mud that they would sling would not stick. Joe Biden is not one to take anyone's crap. Look what Joe did to Rudy in one sentence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Y8AFctpjo

The GOP would be terrified because Joe Biden is no way polarizing, AND he would pull down Republican votes. More so than any other Democratic candidate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtGCaqOdIJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUC8LeZ1hM4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HcXkLbRIWw

[surfermaw]

144. Plagarized a Speech

Biden could ably fulfill that function but he has a disqualifying black mark by his name when it comes to running in the General Election. He withdrew a former run for President over a plagarized speech, and did not fight it out. He also has a history of making some inappropriate statements. Even so I think he would do a fine job if elected.

[1corona4u]

150. Professional Board Clears Biden

Professional Board Clears Biden In Two Allegations of Plagiarism
Print Save Share
Del.icio.usDiggFacebookNewsvinePermalinkAP
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.

The Wilmington newspaper also said Mr. Biden has received a clean bill of health from his doctor after two life-threatening brain aneurysms in 1988.

The Delaware Democrat withdrew from the 1988 Presidential campaign after accusations that he had quoted the British Labor Party leader, Neil Kinnock, without attribution and had plagiarized an article while attending Syracuse University's law school.

Mr. Biden called his failure to attribute the quotes to Mr. Kinnock an oversight.

The alleged law school plagiarism involved an essay Mr. Biden wrote in 1965 for an introductory class on legal methodology. 'A Personal Vindication'

The Senator ended his Presidential campaign Sept. 23, 1987, and, because the allegations involved his standing as a lawyer, he notified the state Supreme Court about them later that year.

The court's Board on Professional Responsibility, consisting of lawyers and non-lawyers, ruled on Dec. 21, 1987, that Mr. Biden had not violated any rules.

Mr. Biden said he decided not to publicize the ruling, which was confidential. ''I guess I had in the back of my mind . . . this was more of a personal vindication than a political one,'' he said.

But he added that he had decided to divulge the ruling because he expected ''somebody would go back someday and check. And I knew there was a hard record there.''

L. Susan Faw, independent disciplinary counsel for the board, confirmed that the ruling had cleared Mr. Biden.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DD1230F93AA15756C0A96F948260

[rucky]

148. It doesn't matter what they say, as much as how the candidate responds. n/t