Joseph Biden- great piece from The Nation. Oh, anyone remember the Biden-Lugar Amendment?

[KittyWampus]

you know that Amendment to the Iraq War Resolution that Howard Dean said he supported? The one Gephardt and Lieberman killed off?


Joseph Biden
JOHN NICHOLS

I'm not in the habit of making campaign endorsements, and if I was, I'd probably urge a write-in vote for Russ Feingold, Joe Biden's colleague on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who combines Biden's political smarts with a record on military adventurism and civil liberties that's far more to my liking. But I do endorse realism, and as such I can't buy the argument that Biden is significantly less acceptable than the Democratic front-runners. Biden maintains 100 percent ratings from Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Children's Defense Fund and the NAACP; and 93 percent from the AFL-CIO--these numbers are every bit as liberal as his competitors'.

I don't forgive Biden's wrong vote to authorize George W. Bush's attack on Iraq, but neither do I forgive those of Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. Unlike either of them, Biden tried to constrain the Administration when he and Senator Richard Lugar fought in 2002 to require diplomatic efforts before military options could be considered. As Foreign Relations Committee chair, Biden remains far more engaged than his opponents in the debate about how to address the Iraq crisis. That does not mean his "solutions" are better, but it does mean he is more agile than most Democrats when it comes to debating policy.

It is, to be sure, a hard-won agility. Biden has more bruises than his fellow Democrats because he has gotten in the ring more often than most of them. His bruises are the marks of experience and determination, which ought not to be underestimated. At a time when too many Democrats are prone to pulling punches, he knows how to throw them. No Democrat with an eye on the 2008 prize failed to thrill when Biden used an otherwise forgettable October debate to kneecap the GOP front-runner. While the other Democrats poked one another to uninspired effect, Biden ridiculed Rudy Giuliani for waging a campaign based on "a noun, a verb and 9/11." This was Biden at his best: fast on his feet, muscularly partisan, devastatingly effective at tossing barbs. These strengths have kept the Delaware senator on the national scene for thirty-five years, and they make him the most quick-witted of this season's Democratic contenders.

Of course, Biden is not always at his best, as a failed 1988 presidential quest and several false starts since then can attest. He's a big talker, and he's made some big gaffes. But no Democratic contender has been so steadily "on" during this campaign. And even if Biden's poll numbers remain soft, that October debate confirmed his ability to stir things up.

In the blood-sport competition for the presidency, Biden's flair for finding the GOP jugular ought to count for something among Democrats who grumble about their last two nominees' failure to play offense. Of an old breed of Democrats who fought their way out of the back rooms of urban East Coast politics, Biden beat an entrenched Republican to enter the Senate, held his seat during GOP landslide years, used his Judiciary Committee chairmanship in the 1980s to block some of Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominees and corporate-sponsored tort "reform," and not only wrote the Violence Against Women Act but got it reauthorized by two Republican-led Congresses. Biden is best understood as a relatively rare political archetype: a Democrat who pays less attention to internal party politics than to winning elections and governing. This skill makes him the one Democrat Republicans feel compelled not merely to attack but to answer. That's because Biden has so far been the one Democrat who has consistently understood the importance of taking the fight to the other guys.

[K Gardner]

1. Wonderful piece.. thanks for posting. I'm really surprised The Nation

isn't considering supporting Biden, but rather limiting their choices to two in the "top tier". God, I hate those freakin words ! Those words alone rob us of people like Biden and Kucinich... it's a shame.

[1corona4u]

2. Thanks cryingshame...

I believe I had read this?, or maybe it just sounds familiar, but he is dead on.

[gateley]

3. K&R - Thanks!

[mzmolly]

4. "...anyone remember the Biden-Lugar Amendment?"

I do, it would have changed the course of the war. I respect supporting Joe Biden. :hi:

[ginchinchili]

5. Great article. Democrats had better wake up.

[1corona4u]

11. Punt...

[youthere]

6. Amen amen and amen!

[Steely_Dan]

7. Great Piece

This should be read by everyone on this board.

-Paige

[1corona4u]

8. Punt..

[frogcycle]

9. proud to k/r

[jillan]

10. Another great piece by Joe Nichols.

He has been writing about Biden for months....

and this is by far one of his best!

[Adelante]

12. Everything I like about Joe Biden

I would point out, though, that Clinton did vote for Byrd 2, which would have limited the authorization to one year and, in retrospect, wouldn't that have been a good thing. Edwards, unlike Biden and Clinton, did nothing but nothing except hawk for Bush.

[gateley]

13. Thanks for pointing that out about Clinton - she deserves credit for her vote. nt

[Adelante]

14. You're welcome

I have to admit I didn't think much of it at the time, but in terms of "what might have beens" I sure do wish Congress had taken that cautionary step. Generally, though, I try to point out stuff if I know it, just to keep the record straigt(er).

[ginchinchili]

15. I think it's also relevent to mention that there was risk in doing that at the time.

Anything that stood in Bush's way was being called anti-American, unpatriotic, or supporting the terrorists. I despised Bush and the Republicans at that point in time, and was angry that the Democrats allowed themselves to be intimidated that way. So any act of defiance should be given credit. Obviously, even some Republicans had reservations about the invasion. Bush is insane.

[sandnsea]

19. Clinton was the chief hawk

None of that should have been voted for, in retrospect. At the very least, they should have been speaking very loudly for continuing the inspections and against the invasion. I didn't hear that from Clinton, Edwards or Biden.

[HomerRamone]

16. Anyone remember the BANKRUPTCY BILL? nt

[KittyWampus]

20. yes, it's been brought up by a stream of DU'ers in almost every thread about Biden

what about the Bankruptcy Bill?

Do you have more to add?

There's certainly more to Biden's record than that.

And I can handily list votes every other candidate running has caste that is just as heinous.

[PatSeg]

29. Not in the last five minutes

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[benddem]

17. I can never forgive him

for the bankruptcy vote and for voting against the reservists and guard members and people who become bankrupt due to medical bills. This was a serious problem for me.

[KittyWampus]

21. Sorry to hear that. However, single issue voters don't often have, by definition, a broad viewa

of political reality.

Very few (or any) Biden supporters are happy about that vote. I am not.

But I can list votes and issues that piss me off when it comes to Edwards, Clinton, Obama AND Kucinich.

[joeybee12]

27. You know, I like Joe, probably won't vote for him...but your response

to this last post I find very irritating and condescending...calling that person a single issue voter. I will probably not vote for Joe because of the Thomas Clarence hearings, not because it is a single issue, but because it revealed his character, as far as I'm concerned. Slam me as not having a broad view of reality as well, but you ain't winning any friends with that attitude.

[KittyWampus]

32. Well, you might consider the many Reagan appointees he DID block. Since we're talking about

how ONE incident defines a candiate's character (your mention of Thomas).

[1corona4u]

22. You might want to read this then...

Submitted for your perusal, the reason he didn't vote "for" the amendment, is because they were already covered;

March 1, 2005
Statement

Floor Statement: Shielding Service Members From Bankruptcy

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the sentiment behind Senator Durbin's amendment, but the fact of the matter is that it is not needed. In the first instance, it is simply not the case that the means test in this bill will prevent our men and women in uniform from receiving the full protection of our bankruptcy laws.

The means test will not apply to any one in military service under the median income in their State. The median income in Delaware for a family of four is $72,680. If a staff sergeant at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware had to file for bankruptcy, he would automatically be exempt, at his pay scale of $34,319. So there is no way, under the means test in this bill today, that he would be denied the full protection of chapter 7. That is precisely why I insisted on that safe harbor in the means test two Congresses ago.

So the very assumption behind the amendment, that we need to exempt service men and women from the means test, is wrong. And if a pilot at Dover, who might well fall above the median income, were to file, he would only be subject to movement to chapter 13 if, and only if, he had enough income after deducting all of his normal expenses, to continue to pay some of his bills. And under chapter 13, he could keep his house and other assets, something filers under chapter 7 cannot do.

As Senator Hatch pointed out earlier, and Senator Sessions, too, special protections exist in current law – the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act – that prevent foreclosure on a house, that cap interest payments. The extra protections sought by the Durbin amendment are already in place.

On the point of the payday loans, I agree that is an abuse that should be halted. Truly unscrupulous lenders that take advantage of anyone, in uniform or not, should be put out of business. But that is in fact a matter for banking regulations, not bankruptcy law. This amendment is closing the barn door after the horse is already gone.

Under the bankruptcy reform bill before us, the test to determine a filer's ability to pay specifically allows for the “special circumstances” that could reduce their ability to pay. The Sessions amendment, that we just passed, makes it crystal clear that those special circumstances include service in the armed forces--if that service puts you into a situation where you are unable to pay your legal debts. That can happen to someone called up in the reserves, and it is precisely why that category of special circumstances was put into the bill in the first place.

I could not support this bill if I did not believe that it is already fundamentally fair. This is a bill that received 82 votes the last time the Senate voted on it. I would never call those Senators callous or indifferent to the difficult circumstances our servicemen and women face. They are not. The Durbin amendment assumes all 82 of us got it wrong last time. I do not agree.

With the additional clarification of the Sessions amendment, I am convinced that the concerns raised by Senator Durbin are fully addressed.

[ginchinchili]

24. Thank you, 1corona4u, for shedding, and yet, more light on this favorite red herring

so relished by Sen. Biden's detractors.

[1corona4u]

25. See, that's their problem...

all of these people who come here to slam, do so because they "read it on Daily KOS", which, by the way, I think is a step above National Enquirer, and they believe it all, because it's left wing woe-is-me spin. No one goes out and actually seeks the truth, they just follow what those people tell them to think, like a bunch of sheep....bahhh, bahhh, bahhh...

I, on the other hand, like to do my own research, get the FACTS, and form my own opinion, but that's just me.

[PatSeg]

31. Me too

Anything too negative or even too positive, I need to dig deeper.

[PatSeg]

30. Now there you go

making sense! What the hell is wrong with you?

Thanks for posting this. Most issues are far more complex than people realize.

[KittyWampus]

33. So according to what is written here- Biden didn't support the further amendments because

the "Special Circumstances", such as being in the armed forces, was ALREAY included?

Because the further amendments were redundant?

Because by defining very specific cases in the amendments offered meant other UNNAMED situations might not be considered special circumstances?

Does that mean the further Amendments were mainly offered as Democratic attempts to paint the Bill as extreme?

[ginchinchili]

23. Bankruptcy is not a very efficient way to pay medical costs.

And if you can't forgive a Democrat who has served his Party so well for 35 years, you must certainly be livid over the fact that none of the candidates are even mentioning bankruptcy law during this primary. How can that be if it's so unforgiving? Are you not planning to vote? Now wait a minute...don't the Democrats hold a majority in Congress? Certainly an issue so pressing would be on the front burners, don't you think? The candidates aren't talking about it. Congress isn't addressing it. Hmmm...mustn't be the unforgivable issue you're trying to make it out to be. I think you're just throwing out a red herring to try and distract people from seeing what a stellar human being Sen. Biden is, and that he's clearly the candidate most qualified to be president. You deal with medical costs by making health care affordable and free for those who can't afford to pay. You don't do it through bankruptcy. It ends up costing twice as much that way.

[HomerRamone]

28. Oh yeah.

My mission is "distract people from seeing what a stellar human being Sen. Biden is". And when I don't like something Bush does, I'm just saying that because I'm a Bush-hater. And issues unaddressed by candidates and Congress, like election fraud, aren't important.
And people think Kucinich supporters are nuts?

[momto3]

18. Thanks for posting this.

k & r

[Think82]

26. Kick!