Opinions on Joe Biden for VP...

[shoopnyc123]

just like to know what peoples thoughts were on this...personally, I would like Wes Clark, but it doesn't seem like it's gonna happen...so, what about Biden?

[Chicago Democrat]

Excuse me while I puke

[ibegurpard]

75. Wait for me.

:puke:

[lastknowngood]

1. dino

n/t

[punpirate]

2. Ugh. n/t

[greatauntoftriplets]

3. Honestly?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

[MoonRiver]

4. It's obvious he's campaigning for the job.

But I can't really go for him. He has been just too much pro-* through the last 3 years. I'll vote for Kerry regardless of who he chooses, but I think he can do a whole lot better than Biden.

[Zen Democrat]

5. Vote for VP Candidate at MSNBC

Currently, Edwards in 1st place, Clark in 2nd.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4565073

[powergirl]

7. I like him actually

The key is to find someone that looks nice, is courteous, photogenic, etc. It's one of those image things. I think Edwards is the best for the job because he is attractive, well mannered, smart, and from the south. Biden isn't as good a choice as Edwards. But I think he would be a lot better than Gephart (good man but boring). Kerry is a great man and he's got my vote. But we need to jazz up the ticket. I think Biden is a good 2nd choice.

[Cocoa]

6. nah

he's annoying, and I think everyone's pretty much sick of him. Same with McCain.

[Failure]

8. No Way

He's a democrat only when it's convenient for him.

n/t

[shoopnyc123]

9. Okey Dokey! (smile)

[LittleApple81]

10. No. Thanks to C-Span I have seen him in action. DINO.

[jobycom]

11. No, too similar to Kerry

Two longterm senators, same region. Biden doesn't bring anything to the ticket.

Devil's advocate, though: As when Clinton picked Gore, Biden would reinforce Kerry's strengths, and Biden is a national figure, so it follows the Clinton/Gore pattern, rather than the Tip O'Neil model (politics is local).

But Clinton and Gore were southerners, which reinforced a region Democrats are weak in. Gore and Biden would solidify a region the Democrats should win anyway.

And I don't trust Biden, for what that's worth. Too pro-invasion. Might drive more people to Nader.

[koopie57]

12. Of all the good strong

democrats out there we can certainly do better than Biden (and Gebhardt). I really hope Kerry picks Edwards cuz I think he would do great against old snarky. He comes across as a very decent type of person, at least IMHO. And I think in eight years he would do very well as the presidential candidate.

[ezee]

13. YOu said all ..very well N/T

[creeksneakers2]

14. Biden is smooth

But, I'll never forgive him for helping Clarence Thomas.

[shoopnyc123]

17. OOOOOOOO, I forgot about Thomas......

[LiberalFighter]

42. That is one of many reasons that I wouldn't support him

The repugs would probably bring up the plagiarism incident when he was a candidate for President.

[BattyDem]

15. NOT Biden!

The man is a DINO. We need a real Dem as VP.

[elfin]

16. He's a jerk eom

[GreenArrow]

18. a big fat yuck

:puke:

Why don't you just give me a nice paper cut and pour lemon juice in it.

[OneBlueSky]

19. Biden's always been a bit of a flake . . .

you never know which way he's going to turn, or what will come out of his mouth . . . way too much of a loose cannon to be vp . . .

[mobuto]

20. Biden is terrific

liberal, smart as hell, tough as nails. He's a great guy.

I don't think he would be a great choice for Veep. Too much political baggage, too little gain. He is, however, a good friend of Kerry's.

[Renew Deal]

21. No way

He is unstable and full of crap half the time. He is not full of crap the other half the time. Like I said, unstable.

[Zinfandel]

22. Too much bagage, he wouldn't help, kisses Bush's ass too much...

Must have something on him, is he from a red state?

[fujiyama]

23. He looks

like he's full of himself. Him and Orrin Hatch love being in front of the camera. He's a decent senator, too much of a kiss ass to Bush IMO.
He's from the same region as Kerry though, and from a safe state. He brings little, if anything to the ticket. I think we can do much better.

[CTLawGuy]

24. hes a warwongering republican,

we should pick a democrat for VP.

[mobuto]

30. Republican? ROFLMAO

In 2003, Americans for Democratic Action gave Joe Biden a rating fully TEN POINTS higher than what they gave John Edwards. Not only is Joe Biden a Democrat, but he's an exceedingly partisan Democrat.

[CTLawGuy]

53. is that why hes on all the networks

defending Bush's war crime of a war all the time?

[jsw_81]

25. No way

The plagiarism thing will come back to haunt us, and there are tapes of him yelling at a voter back in 1988. Plus Delaware is tiny and Biden won't deliver any key states.

[IndianaGreen]

26. Biden is a Scoop Jackson clone

and equally abhorrent to the antiwar left as Scoop was during Vietnam.

Then there is that plagiarism issue...

[mobuto]

27. What nonsense

Scoop Jackson was a tireless proponent of the Vietnam War, of what would become Star Wars, of massively increased defense spending in general, etc. who sat on Joe McCarthy's committee. He opposed all dearmament talks with the Soviets, he lay the groundwork for Reagan's disastrous policies in Central America -- I can go on for pages.

Joe Biden is a liberal.

The two have virtually nothing in common.

[IndianaGreen]

28. Biden supports the war and occupation of Iraq

His views are not that different from Scoop.

I'll take a Wayne Morse over Scoop and Biden any day!

[mobuto]

29. No, Biden supported the war, but he does not support

the occupation.

Look, Indiana, if you want to view the world through a single-issue prism of Manichaean proportions: that support for the Iraq War is a sign of absolute evil and opposition to it a sign of absolute good, then sure, Joe Biden, John Edwards and half of the rest of the Democratic Party is in league with the Devil. But I think politics is more complicated than that. And I think if you look at the issues, you'll find that more often than not, Biden's the one leading liberal crusades, not fighting them.

And he's certainly not sitting on Joe McCarthy's committee.

[arcos]

46. is fucking up music events a liberal crusade?

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/04/16/rave/index_np.html

April 16, 2003 | Last Thursday, the House and Senate almost unanimously passed the National AMBER Alert Network Act of 2003, a popular bill that will soon create a nationwide kidnapping alert system. Coming in the wake of a year of high-profile child abductions -- from Elizabeth Smart (whose parents supported the bill) to Samantha Runnion -- the bill was a no-brainer, destined to pass quickly and smoothly through Congress.

Surely Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., knew this, which explains why he cannily sneaked his own, completely unrelated legislation into the AMBER Act just two days before the vote. Piggybacked onto the act was the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act, a thinly veiled rewrite of legislation that was controversial in 2002 and failed to make it to a vote on the Senate floor. Now, club owners and partyers alike are being subjected to a loosely worded and heavy-handed law that authorities will be able to indiscriminately use to shut down music events at any time they please, assuming they find evidence of drug use. Thanks to Biden's surreptitious efforts, a few glow sticks and a customer or two on Ecstasy could be all it takes to throw a party promoter in jail for 20 years.

The passing of the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act was sudden but not entirely out of the blue. Last year, the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act was known as the RAVE Act (the leadenly acronymed "Reducing Americans' Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act"), a piece of legislation designed by Biden in early 2002 to put rave promoters out of business. An expansion of the crack-house statute of 1986 -- which made crack-den proprietors liable for what took place in their homes, even if they didn't deal drugs themselves -- the RAVE Act threatened those who "knowingly and intentionally rent, lease, profit from, or make available for use, with or without compensation, place for the purpose of unlawfully manufacturing, storing, distributing, or using a controlled substance" with 20 years in jail and $250,000 in fines

there's more with a suscription or one day pass.

[mobuto]

62. What's wrong with that?

If you knowingly and intentionally allow people to take drugs in a music venue of yours, why shouldn't you be criminally liable? Rather than targeting individual street dealers, this shifts the focus of the law to those who really profit from illegal drug sales.

[arcos]

67. first of all, because drugs should be legalized...

but since that is not going to happen any time soon, the real problem is that innocent people are targeted. Even if they make the effort to control no one is entering the venue with any drugs they can still be prosecuted if someone takes a pill or smokes a joint. They don't really have to know others are doing it.

Read this:
"The Drug Enforcement Administration is prosecuting nightclub owners and promoters that organize electronic dance music events and the military is using drugs as a pre-text to close down gay nightclubs. In Wisconsin, local officials recently raided a popular nightclub and fined every customer - simply for being in proximity to a drug arrest on the premises. "

http://www.drugpolicy.org/communities/raveact/

[mobuto]

68. No they can't

Because the law says they must knowingly and intentionally allow drugs to be used on the premises. If they make the effort to keep drugs out, and somebody still sneaks a pill in, then they shouldn't be prosecuted under the RAVE act. For once, it seems, the DEA is actually targeting the right people - not the poor, disproportionately black and Hispanic kids just trying to get by that it usually goes after.

[arcos]

69. they are targeting political activities too...

DEA Uses RAVE Act to Shut Down Fundraiser

By Drug Policy Alliance
June 10, 2003

Only two months after the RAVE Act was passed by Congress it has been used by the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to intimidate the owners of a Billings, Montana, venue into canceling a combined benefit for the Montana chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP). One of the biggest reasons activists waged a national campaign to stop the RAVE Act was the fear that it would be used to shut down political events like this.


On the day the fundraiser was set to take place a Billings-based DEA agent presented the venue owners with a copy of the RAVE Act warning them that they could face a fine of $250,000 if illicit drugs were found in the premises. The bands – most of which regularly played at the venue – were also approached and warned that their participation in the event could result in a fine.


Rather than risk the possibility of enormous fines, the venue decided to cancel the event. This blatant intimidation by the DEA was obviously designed to shut down the marijuana reform fundraiser. Unless the American people speak out against this attack on free speech, the DEA will be emboldened to use the law against other events they do not like, such as all-night dance parties, hip hop concerts, hemp festivals, and circuit parties.

Sponsored by Senator Biden (D-DE), the RAVE Act (also known as the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act) was first introduced last year. It proved so controversial then that two of its original co-sponsors withdrew their support because they feared it would send innocent business owners to jail. Business owners collected over 20,000 signatures in opposition to the bill. Protests against it were held around the country and tens of thousands of voters urged their elected official to oppose it. Controversy over the bill stalled it last year, but Senator Biden attached it to the popular "Amber Alert" bill without public debate or a vote of Congress earlier this year and sneaked it into law.


http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16134


Yeah, I guess the DEA is targeting "the right people".... activists!

[mobuto]

70. That's a problem with the DEA

If the DEA can't get a warrant, they have no right to search.

[arcos]

71. You don't get it...

the problem with the RAVE Act is the same problem with the PATRIOT Act. Theoretically, they are to be used against terrorists and drug dealers. In practice, it can be used to persecute anyone. They are too general and anything can be made to fit the definitions the law requires.

[mobuto]

72. The difference is huge

The RAVE Act doesn't give the police any powers they didn't already have. It gives prosecutors power - because it extends the definition of what constitutes a crime. The Patriot Act, on the other hand, gives police vast new powers that they did not have before.

But if the police (in this case the DEA) couldn't get a warrant to search people arbitrarily at NORML gatherings before the RAVE act, they still can't get them afterwards.

[arcos]

73. It can discourage people to lend their venues...

for NORML meetings and fundraisers, and that is bad enough in my opinion.

[mobuto]

74. You have a point

But couldn't NORML take steps to prevent such a problem? How often are people toking up at NORML meetings anyway? They just articulate a policy prohibiting drugs at their meetings, and they protect those who would lend their venues. If someone does violate the policy, the owner is still protected since he or she had no knowledge that such behavior would take place.

Moreover, the burden remains on the police to obtain a warrant in the first place.

If I were Joe Biden, would I have authored the RAVE act? Probably not. But I don't think its anywhere near as problematic as many people make it out to be.

[arcos]

76. The problem was not whether they intented to smoke or not...

the fact is the OWNER of the venue backed down, just because it was a pro-legalization organization.

In the case of electronic music parties, some party-goers are subject to tougher searches than in an airport. Just because the organizers have to be absolutely sure nothing is coming in. Do you think this is right? I don't.

on edit:
Read the next post too :hi:

[arcos]

77. another interesting link...

"The Ecstasy Prevention Act, which passed through Congress last December, gives states financial incentives for passing ordinances restricting rave clubs and seizing land used for raves via nuisance laws.

<snip>

The crackhouse laws have been used in the past in attempts to shut down licensed parties, the most famous case being the federal government's investigation of the State Palace Theatre in New Orleans, site of a monthly rave that was infiltrated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in January of 2000. Undercover agents observed the use of glowsticks, pacifiers, massage tables, bottled water and an air conditioned "chill room." The DEA decided that these accessories were tantamount to drug paraphernalia, and the party's promoters were arrested. :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

The trial ended in a plea bargain. Barbecue of New Orleans, Inc., the company that had leased the theater for the party, was fined $100,000, and the judge ordered that "rave toys" be banned from the building. Also, any room kept 15 degrees cooler than the rest of the theatre was prohibited. U.S. Attorney Jim Letten called the plea "an immediate, tangible and long-lasting benefit to the welfare of local youth and the community as a whole."

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14259

Can you believe this?!?!

It is fucking ridiculous!

Thank you Biden :eyes: :puke:

[dansolo]

80. That does sound like Ecstasy was being used

If the promoters have a room set aside specifically for cooling down (Ecstacy causes the body to overheat), then it sounds like the promoters knew of illegal drug use going on and were basically condoning it. In this instance, the shutdown was probably warranted.

[dolstein]

31. The phrase "unmitigated disaster" immediately comes to mind

NT

[LividLiberal]

32. I like Biden, but used to like him a lot more. He's been too much of

a bush apologist lately for my taste.

[Nazgul35]

33. Sweet Mother of God NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Would he still be stealing his speeches from Labour Party leader Smith?

If so, maybe he could at least sound like he's from the left....

But I guess if we want to pick up that swing state of Delaware....

[mobuto]

34. Um, you mean Neil Kinnock

I'm glad that's the only issue you have with him. Biden had cited Kinnock in speech after speech after speech. He got either lazy or forgetful and forgot to cite him, and he paid a very heavy price.

Time to move on.

The man is a great guy.

[IndianaGreen]

36. Biden never cited Kinnock

He portrayed Kinnock's annecdote as his own. He got caught!

[Nazgul35]

44. That's not the only problem I have with him

I was being snarky....

He is far too moderate for my tastes....and brings nothing to the ticket...and remember, the VP will be the presumptive front runner in 2008 or 2012....and I don't want that to be Biden...sorry, but the future of this Party is not in the middle.....

[AntiCoup2K4]

35. Part of the problem, NOT part of the solution

Biden's another useless DINO who needs to be put out to pasture.

[dae]

37. No thank you.

[demodewd]

38. Edwards

It would be unfortunate if Kerry didn't choose Edwards. It would improve his chances in the South and I also believe Edwards would attract swing women voters.

[Hippo_Tron]

39. I agree that Edwards is a good choice but not electorally...

Kerry won almost all of the southern primaries. Edwards is a great speaker, is very good looking, has great ideas, has almost no baggage (except being a trial lawyer), and would bring a lot of energy to the Kerry campaign. But all in all Edwards is just too young and too liberal to take any southern states by his geography alone.

[mobuto]

41. Well

He's not so young - he's 50. And I don't think the primary argument really holds, because of the lemming mentality that takes over after Iowa and New Hampshire.

I also don't think Edwards' biggest strength would be in what we traditionally think of as the South. What I think he would do would be to cross the class bridge that divides Kerry from blue collar white voters in places like Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia and Arkansas.

I never supported Edwards' presidential campaign, but I have come to believe he'd be an awfully strong vice presidential candidate.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Well Clinton didn't win Iowa or NH...

And by young I meant more that he hasn't been in public service very long. He's not some DINO senator who's been there ages and has a chairmanship on a powerful committee and brings back huge amounts of money to the state in pork. Those are the only VP candidates who can really deliver Republican states.

[Cuban_Liberal]

40. Thank you, but no thank you.

:puke:

[Padraig18]

43. BARF alert!

Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww! :puke:

[kodi]

45. the smartest, most experienced foreign policy democrat available

anyone who thinks that a vp choice is going to matter in this election is an idiot.

biden brings 31 years of senate experience and he knows how to get things done.

it is a bad acid trip to think that anything more than small incremental gains will be made even if kerry wins. that is because whatever kerry wants, he still has to go thru congress to get it.

i assume we all want kerry to win and to be able to impliment his most liberal policies, but how that occurs with anyone without congressional experience and savy as vp is beyond me.

yeap he voted for clarence thomas, he lied about stealing a quote, and he loves himself in front of the camera. but biden is smart and i think he cares about america.

after watching him on c-span yesterday tear bush a new asshole about the latter's behavior towards iraq, i would relish biden going head to head with cheney.

but what do i know, i'm still gonna' write in al gore's name come november.

[IndianaGreen]

48. Biden's vision of America is an imperialist vision, not a progressive one

Kerry can pick whoever he wants for VP. His VP pick, however, will tell more about the sort of stuff we can expect from a Kerry Administration. A Biden pick will say that the war will go on unabated. A Clark pick will prove interesting with unpredictable results. An Edwards pick will show that Kerry will pay more attention to jobs than to bombs.

I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry were to pick Hillary, but I'll put my money on Gephardt.

[kodi]

51. like we're gonna' get a "progressive" anytime soon. right.

"A Biden pick will say that the war will go on unabated."

yes, it appears that it will, regardless. regardless of anything or what anybody can do right now. we have a tiger by the tail. but, as the busheviks realize that they can't do it alone, they will fold and ask the UN to take over. that is actually biden's policy. a guy like biden has more on the ball in foreign policy than anyone this side of bill clinton.

right about now, with the ways george bush has screwed things up, i don't think i care all that much about ideology, but i am looking for competence to get us out of these messes without a conflagration in the middle east or north korea.

sure i wish biden hadn't cribbed notes, or voted for clarence thomas, but those things don't matter much when i look at the obstacles america faces because of forrest gump in the white house.
one might recall and give biden credit for his stance in 2002-03 calling for higher levels of US troops in iraq than bush sent.

i don't think biden wanted to go to war but i do think that if bush was taking america to war, then biden's major policy was that we had better win the war and the peace and that meant large scale use of american troops in coordination and consent of the UN.

we have kicked over one helluva' an anthill in iraq and whatever we do now will reverberate world wide for decades, so we had better be real careful and use the best judgment of our best assets to do as little future damage as possible.

biden's smart, and had he been listened to in the run up to this awful war, the iraqis living and perhaps not dead would be far better off and less americans would be dead also.

and most certainly i do not believe that had biden been president, we would have troops in iraq.

i wonder if we realize that it makes about as much sense to decry the imperfections and compromises of our politicians as it is to admonish prostitutes for their lack of virginity.

said the madam: it goes with the territory.

[MAlibdem]

47. I like him

His foreign policy is smart and principled.

[KamaAina]

49. Is there a gap in the ticket that needs to be "plugged"?

Get it? Plugged? Hair plugs? :-)

Biden has been described as "a human Chia Pet".

[AngryAmish]

50. Beginning of my favorite Joe Biden speech

"Four score and seven years ago..."

[PROGRESSIVE1]

54. hahaha!

[Jane Austin]

52. Gag.

Sorry.

[mitchum]

56. A bad bad idea

[yorgatron]

57. Biden is a punk-ass dino

fuck him.where the hell did you get that idea,from Rove?

[mobuto]

59. Rove would be crapping his pants

because Joe Biden is just possibly the toughest politician alive today.

As for being a punk-ass DINO, his ADA voting record is a full ten points higher than John Edwards'.

[NewJerseyDem]

58. Probably not the best idea

He has been in the Senate for 31 years. This certainly makes him part of the Washington establishment. Kerry needs someone who is either newer to Washington or a governor. Biden may add gravitas but Kerry doesn't need that; he needs a fresh face.

[Auntie Bush]

60. CLARK is a fresh face with foreign policy experience!!

[NewJerseyDem]

79. Clark isn't going to be chosen

We should all accept that his campaign went nowhere. It was a failure of a campaign and therefore he isn't going to be chosen. If Clark didn't run then he may have had a serious chance of becoming the VP nominee, but after losing so badly his political career is probabaly, unfortunately, over.

[CabalBuster]

61. No way..... what a boring ticket n/t

[ramble2155]

63. What about Mccain?

I know this is going to piss some people off. I am strongly democratic and I know this is just wishful thinking but think of the ticket. Two vets that are decorated war heroes, foriegn policy expierience, the most liked republican in the nation, swing state, chemistry between the two, and they are both good friends. The republicans need Mccain and if he switched parties they would count that as a great loss. It would also be a great show of bipartisanship and would bring in countless independent voters. True we would lose the Nader and Kucinich leaning voters, but it would be a truly great event.
I know Mccain has some views that go against the democratic grain. But as vice president he would not have the power to enact policies that go against Kerrys. What do you think? Just throwing that out there. Mccain is probably the only rep that I actually respect.

[mobuto]

64. Agreed

As John Nance Garner said, "The Vice-Presidency isn't worth a bucket of warm piss." If Kerry can slap McCain onto the ticket, and that's what it would take to win, I'd be all in favor. I just don't think its going to happen. If it did, however, Kerry'd win in a landslide.

[Classical_Liberal]

65. Well since Lieberman won the primaries, we could always

use another Lieberman for Veep as well.

[mobuto]

66. I can't say I'm surprised

but your post makes no sense whatsoever.

[mzmolly]

78. "Dance little liberal dance!"

:P