Screen Shot 2018-12-16 at 12.31.37 PM
Your host, PM 'Papa' Carpenter
Biden

***

  • ***

********


« Another able person gets Trump's boot | Main | An unanticipated change-up in Trump's racism »

July 29, 2019

Comments

Step Two is undoing the damage Trump has done.

I want the moment to come when the grownups take over and we get to work. Until then the kids will make a lot of noise and show off for their cliques. I just hope they don't break anything to give us something else to deal with when the time comes to get really serious.

That day will come right?

It is reflexive. Literally months into Obama's first term the progressives were progressive 'splaining that Obama didn't get what he was up against. And that continued pretty much until his last day in office. Where he did succeed in horse trading essential stuff this was characterized as caving. Now I think Obama did notice what was going on for eight years.

Do any of the other current candidates believe they have the proverbial snowflake's chance in hell of implementing their proposed policies? Well they certainly say they do. They have to don't they? When asked how they plan to do it they basically model the Warren plan which is to "fight,fight,fight". What this means in practical terms is they have no idea. Yet somehow it is not them being disingenuous. It is Biden for following a plan that got Obama elected twice.

Bingo. Thank you.

"Fight, fight, fight" not only means they have no clue, but if they do fight as promised, that doesn't necessarily mean they'll win.

Here is this morning's NYT on Biden...

“As aides and allies watched Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s first debate performance last month, their initial optimism about his abilities turned to alarm as Senator Kamala Harris laced into him over race and busing.

“It wasn’t just Mr. Biden’s halting answers that worried some of them. They thought he was showing his age — that, at 76, he appeared slow off the mark, uncertain about how to counterpunch as he allowed Ms. Harris to land clean hits without interruption."

You can avert your eyes if you want to, and you can label me "progressive" or whatever you please, but I'm hardly the only person seeing this.

And, remember....the pressure of the campaign has barely started.

Ed, reading your anti-Biden screeds is getting kind of old. I would rather you clarify a charge that you made a day or two ago. To wit:

"I sympathize with Sullivan about Hillary.

Unlike Sullivan, I only started to hate her in 2016, when she ran what had to be the stupidest presidential campaign in history. I swallowed the hit job she and the Rendells contracted against Joe Sestak in my home state, and voted for her against Bernie in our primary. I came to regret my vote almost immediately."

I asked you to support with evidence your charge that Clinton was responsible for derailing Sestak's campaign, rather than Chuck Schumer, who clearly was.

You did not reply to my request. Rather than think that you willy-nilly throw around charges that have no basis in evidence, I ask again.

The only problem with the Clinton campaign is she was basically the only target for a long time. And the Republicans had the time and the money and the control of congress to turn the single most popular woman in the whole blessed world into a fiend from hell. Then once Bernie entered the fray and started attacking not just Clinton but the whole Democratic party, in the same way they constantly attacked Obama, the race narrowed and put it into Trump's Russian enabled reach.

I was constantly amazed by how quickly the far left adopted right wing talking points and attacks (and echoed them) on Clinton. I am watching exactly the same process now with Biden.

Tony, if you'll notice, I only write my anti-Biden screeds when PM writes one of his "Inevitable Joe" pieces. I'm a life-long Democrat, and have paid close attention to Biden his whole career. In that time, and in my opinion, he has shown very little beyond a deeply held desire to get his picture in the papers.


Joe has been running for POTUS since the '80s, and the fact that almost no one, other than the big Delaware banks and credit card companie who bankroll him, ever has wanted him does not deter him in the least. He is a career, unwanted presidential aspirant, sort of like that other sure-fire winner beloved by the Carpentariat... President Hillary Clinton.

Also, please note that most comments I make here are supported by evidence, or at least logic. Among all commenters here, I am hardly the one most vulnerable to criticism on those scoreboards.

Also, please re-read my comment here, and explain to me how it qualifies as an "anti-Biden screed." In fact, it is a quote from the New York f-'n Times, which quotes Biden's own campaign team!

It seems that those closest to Joe are worried about exactly the concern which I have been expressing here these past few months, and for which I have been derided more or less routinely, by you and others.

Hey...if his own campaign already has noticed, and the NYT already has noticed...sorry, but I'm going to keep thinking I'm on to something, no matter what blind Biden enthusiasts say, until I see Joe up his game considerably.

Beyond that, for you to require "evidence" to buttress my claim about the Sestak/McGinty 2016 primary race I must say strikes me as presumptuous. I have posted my thoughts on that topic in this space many times, albeit, probably before you started commenting here, so I'll let you off the hook this time.

I will give you a brief outline of why it was Clinton, and not Schumer (which I think was how you phrased you question) who sandbagged Sestak.

1.)The Clintons are very close personal friends with the Rendells, PA Dems first family. Bill made Marjorie Rendell a Federal Judge. Ed Rendell was active in both Hillary runs for POTUS.

2.) The Clintons are not very close personally with Chuck Schumer. Rather, their relationship has been described as "transactional." You can look this up for yourself.

3.) Katie McGinty, as close to a cypher as ever has run for Senate in PA, was pulled up the political ladder by the Rendells and the Clintons via a series of appointed positions. At one time, briefly, (her jobs always were briefly held and always obtained via connection) she worked for both Bill and Ed. They ran her for Senate because she had proven that she would be a reliable lapdog for President Hillary. Alas, both women befouled the bed badly in their campaigns, in truly alarming displays of professional incompetence, setting the cause of Dems in PA back by four years, and the cause of women in the state back by decades.

4.) As for the rest of the story, might I direct you to that excellent research tool, Google? Or look perhaps in the archives of this blog, where I have covered this contretemps more times than once.

Hope this helps.

Well, Ed, it does help me to discount much of what you have to say. So, your evidence is that Clinton was a close friend of Rendell. That is far from incriminating evidence. I am interested in this matter, but your "evidence" is a big fat zero.

Clinton ran a decent campaign. Not without some errors ("basket of deplorables"), but what candidate does not make errors. She won by 2% of the popular vote in a year that Republicans had an advantage because Dems had the Presidency for eight years, AND James Comey.

When I click on your name, up comes a document praising Bernie. Now THERE is a candidate who wrecked Clinton's chances. But I'm not even sure you are a Bernie Bro, or a "lifelong Democrat". People can say a lot of things on the intertubes which can easily be lies.

Tony:

Give it up, man. You're way out of bounds here. If you don't believe "people" then why bother engaging them?

In any event, feel free to cease engaging me or to read anything I might post.

Your friend,
Ed

In my history of posting on various websites (rather extensive by this time), I have run across quite a few people who were not who they said they were. You? Who knows? But your inconsistencies have my guard up.

Here's hoping there is more to you than just uniformly negative dumping on completely reasonable Democratic candidates.

Like I said, going forward, feel free to ignore me.

Ed, I really don't believe that you deserve what has been served up to you here...but my support is probably a liability. I agree with you that Biden is too old. As for you pretending to be someone that you're not, I've seen your commentary as always consistent and informative and I've not noticed you ever make any claims to be anything in particular except for your claim to be a Democrat. Which is entirely believable.

Both you and Ed are entitled to believe Biden is too old to undertake the very demanding role of president. And I agree that it would be a challenge for him. But then I don’t care if he drops dead after his first week in office as long as he beats Trump and picks a sound running mate. He remains the candidate best able to beat Trump at this time. His overall strategy seems sound to me. And he has solid support among the Democrats most reliable voters. Essentially his pitch is just simple decency without offering completely unrealistic policy proposals as many of the other candidates are doing. Worse still many are offering policies that are not well thought out and offend many Democratic Party factions.

Keep an eye on the MFA bunfight that is erupting between Harris and Sanders. Neither of their policies stand a chance of becoming law as they deeply offend the interests of key Democratic voting blocks. So what is the point of the battle?

​While it's still probably way too early, I have beat this subject to death in my own mind and my latest evolution of thinking on Dem political candidates is that maybe this is the time for our last oldest President, Joe Biden. An honest, old school man to lead us out of the depths of the insanity of Trump. Someone our allies can know and trust. Someone to transition the country to new more respectable place in the world and pave the way to a younger, perhaps more progressive leadership in the future. ​​Joe will be in his 80s at the end of four years and could gracefully pass the torch at that time.

In my opinion, The country is not ready for the jolt ​from where we are now ​to ​many of the policies be advocated by the current crop of leading progressive Dems. We desperately need a smoother glide path to a new place. ​Transition to the future -- DON'T JUMP!! Jumping scares people.​ ​

BTW, I'm sure that Joe will have a respectable VP who could step in if needed. Keep in mind that wining is everything. Policies come and go; but Democracy must be forever. As I have said before, Does ANYTHING matter if Democracy fails?

While the Republican Party has obviously given up on Democracy​ in favor of Party​, I hope the Democrats have not. God forbid if Dems reach the point where they would vote for Trump or not vote if they don't get their favorite candidate.

Great post with some great points:

"Joe Biden. An honest, old school man to lead us out of the depths of the insanity of Trump."

"Joe will be in his 80s at the end of four years and could gracefully pass the torch at that time."

"BTW, I'm sure that Joe will have a respectable VP who could step in if needed."

Yes, I think Democracy is on the line. And to keep it, we need to be on guard against those who have repeatedly demonstrated that lying is just another routine tool in their attempts to end it.

I had originally thought that Joe Biden was too old, but my new latest vision says maybe not. I was really inspired by his eulogy for McCain back in August 2018, and it hit me that he is one of the few people that could make sense out of the Democratic Party and bring the various factions of the Party together. It really is about gravitas, character, experience, and ability to communicate. The key to the negative age factor is to bring on a powerful and dynamic VP that can be there if things go bad. My pick for that spot would be Mitch Landrieu or Sally Yates.

If you want to get inspired by Joe Biden watch the video at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfjYggdO8q4

Or, read the full transcript at: https://tinyurl.com/yyrvuj2b

Thanks, Mary. I'm glad you weighed in. But, really, I'm experienced in weathering anonymous, personal internet attacks. When I don't know who someone is, I don't care whether or not he likes what I say.

The comments I leave here sometimes are pointed, and some folks won't like what I say. That's a given With the voice I write in here. I'm not at all bothered by a guy like Tony.

Please note, however, that I did not respond in a personal way to anything he said. Tony doesn't like that I don't follow the herd re: Biden, and he struck out at me to the extent thathe knows how to. The End.

In fact, I will go on the record as saying that, IMO, I never have been the one to bring any intellectual disagreement to the personal level, and only go there after I have been (personally) attacked.

See my response to Tony's query about the Sestak/McGinty race, for a close-at-hand example. Straightforward. Logical. Factual. But he didn't like what I told him, so he took a personal shot at me. Didn't even specifically address anything I said.

That's the way those things usually go. Whaddaya gonna do?!

Your "honest, old school man" is my "lifelong, finger-to-the wind politician who has been a slave of the big banks and credit card companies incorporated in Delaware." Where people get this image of Joe the Honorable just absolutely mystifies me.

I will say this, though. If Peter or PM could produce one good reason to think that Joe would be our best choice against Trump (polls taken 18 months before the election don't count), I would be proud to display his bumper sticker on the back of my 16-year old car.

I will grant you, Joe Biden is King of the Eulogy.

"(polls taken 18 months before the election don't count)"

Playing by Doerr rules, I see. They include lying and the opponent tying one arm behind his back.

You lied. You said you had evidence that Clinton was responsible for McGinty's candidacy.

You did not. Unlike the MSM, I use the word "lie" when someone deserves it. You lied.

This guy Ed Doerr has never lied and as he has pointed out he doesn't get personal. Unlike you. As for me, I own it, because I do.

Apart from the above being a weak argument may I remind you that you once described me as "a bitter old woman". It really didn't bother me at all..really, but I do recall. And I take it that you delivered three insults (one being a woman) in one burst. Bitter, old and female. I assume that when you described me as an "old" woman that you weren't referencing my huge wisdom and experience?

Yes, and it's beautifully and sincerely delivered. But rehearsed and maybe not written by himself.

https://www.pmcarpenter.com/2018/02/it-seems-there-was-a-false-bottom-in-hannitys-bottomless-malice.html#comment-6a00d83451bc2169e201b7c94fb3cc970b

Funny, someone seems to have thanked him for
That monicker.

Yes indeed. You make my point for me, Doc. I didn't care, I don't care but I recognise the intent behind the moniker. You've obviously been reading for a while. You remind me very much of someone.

Sounds ominous.

The comments to this entry are closed.