Joe Biden

[sr71plt]

Are you referring to Garfield the Cat or James Garfield? Neither of them was ever a senator. Or, are you referring to Warding Harding, who was a seated senator when he was elected president?

James Garfield was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1880--but he was elected president of the United States on the same day, so he never took his Senate seat. (I hope whoever said on another thread that Hillary Clinton couldn't run for the Senate and president at the same time sees this example of it having been done).

It's Warren (repeat Warren) Harding, though.

Beyond being incorrect, DesertPirate's comment is still irrelevant. Both major party candidates for president this time are sitting U.S. senators.

 

[Boxlicker101]

James Garfield was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1880--but he was elected president of the United States on the same day, so he never took his Senate seat. (I hope whoever said on another thread that Hillary Clinton couldn't run for the Senate and president at the same time sees this example of it having been done).

It's Warren (repeat Warren) Harding, though.

Beyond being incorrect, DesertPirate's comment is still irrelevant. Both major party candidates for president this time are sitting U.S. senators.

This is interesting, because I was not aware of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield

Of course, at that time, senators die not run for office the way they do now. They were elected by the state legislatures.

 

[DesertPirate]

This is interesting, because I was not aware of this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_A._Garfield

Of course, at that time, senators die not run for office the way they do now. They were elected by the state legislatures.

I had a brain fart on Garfield, my apologies.
This is still going to be only the third time a sitting Senator will become President. I still hold that there is a very good reason for that. Governors are more qualified because of the similarity of the office.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I had a brain fart on Garfield, my apologies.
This is still going to be only the third time a sitting Senator will become President. I still hold that there is a very good reason for that. Governors are more qualified because of the similarity of the office.

I'm not sure I see the similarity as that great. While governors head a similarly structured administration, senators do at least get their feet wet in foreign policy, federal legislature, and D. C. horse-trading. Probably the ideal candidate would have some experience of both.

Of course, the electorate can see things in very different ways. It would seem that being the vice president might be a very good way of preparing to be president, but voters just don't seem to go for it. I credit us all with the sense to realize that it's not helpful for any close group of people to stay in power for too long.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm not sure I see the similarity as that great. While governors head a similarly structured administration, senators do at least get their feet wet in foreign policy, federal legislature, and D. C. horse-trading. Probably the ideal candidate would have some experience of both.

Of course, the electorate can see things in very different ways. It would seem that being the vice president might be a very good way of preparing to be president, but voters just don't seem to go for it. I credit us all with the sense to realize that it's not helpful for any close group of people to stay in power for too long.

Actually, seated or former VP's have been elected to the presidency at least five times (Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Nixon, Bush) VP's who have become president due to death or resignation of the pres. have been reelecred on their own at least four times. (T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ)

There may be more, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Actually, seated or former VP's have been elected to the presidency at least five times (Adams, Jefferson, Van Buren, Nixon, Bush) VP's who have become president due to death or resignation of the pres. have been reelecred on their own at least four times. (T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman, LBJ)

There may be more, but I'm too lazy to look them up right now.

Yes, I know that some have been elected. However, with 43 presidencies, their numbers don't seem to hold up all that well.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I take it you haven't followed Washington politics much in the past couple of decades. Joe Biden has never been the member of any "old boy's club" in Congress. He's considered a maverick in the Senate almost on par with McCain.

If he'd been more of "one of the boys," he'd have gotten a presidential nomination nod decades ago.

Running on assumptions here?

I think he's much more maverick, at heart, than McCain ever thought about being. I can't imagine Biden, in McCain's position, becoming anywhere near as power-hungry and led by those running his campaign as McCain has become.

And on a personal note, the story of his wife and little boys tugs at my heart. A man who stands up and says I'm not sure if I can do this job anymore, because you can get another senator, but these boys only have one father...

And he managed to do it, anyway. WTG, Joe.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not sure I see the similarity as that great. While governors head a similarly structured administration, senators do at least get their feet wet in foreign policy, federal legislature, and D. C. horse-trading. Probably the ideal candidate would have some experience of both.

Of course, the electorate can see things in very different ways. It would seem that being the vice president might be a very good way of preparing to be president, but voters just don't seem to go for it. I credit us all with the sense to realize that it's not helpful for any close group of people to stay in power for too long.

I agree with DesertPirate on a governorship (of a state of some size and complexity--I don't think Alaska counts for much on that) being better preparation for the presidency than the U.S. senate--and the nominating process certainly seems to have agreed. Governors have to run staffs that propose plans, forumulate legislation and get it passed--and then implement it. U.S. senators don't implement it--and thus tend to have a blind spot on what it means to implement what they are legislating. Also, governors of most states do, in fact, engage in foreign policy (most have extensive foreign trade ties), they are swamped with relationship with federal legislation, and they appear in D.C. in work-related activities about as often as U.S. senators do. (Also, U.S. senators tend to specialize. Most know squat about foreign policy and get their guidance from others.)

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Biden has been involved in crafting many federal crime laws over the last decade, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the Biden Crime Law, and the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence and provides billions of dollars in federal funds to address gender-based crimes.
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the section of VAWA allowing a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence exceeded Congress's authority and therefore was unconstitutional. Congress reauthorized VAWA in 2000 and 2005. Biden has said, "I consider the Violence Against Women Act the single most significant legislation that I’ve crafted during my 35-year tenure in the Senate.
In March 2004, Biden enlisted major American technology companies in diagnosing the problems of the Austin, Texas-based National Domestic Violence Hotline, and to donate equipment and expertise to it.

What's Sarah's stand on that?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Biden has been involved in crafting many federal crime laws over the last decade, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, also known as the Biden Crime Law, and the landmark Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which contains a broad array of measures to combat domestic violence and provides billions of dollars in federal funds to address gender-based crimes.
In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that the section of VAWA allowing a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence exceeded Congress's authority and therefore was unconstitutional. Congress reauthorized VAWA in 2000 and 2005. Biden has said, "I consider the Violence Against Women Act the single most significant legislation that I’ve crafted during my 35-year tenure in the Senate.
In March 2004, Biden enlisted major American technology companies in diagnosing the problems of the Austin, Texas-based National Domestic Violence Hotline, and to donate equipment and expertise to it.

What's Sarah's stand on that?

She charges rape victims for their rape kits.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

She charges rape victims for their rape kits.

I pray for her daughters.

 

[Boxlicker101]

She charges rape victims for their rape kits.

I thought we cleared that up a while ago. The city of Wasilla used to try to charge the insurance companies of the victims for the work done to use the rape kits to collect and analyze evidence. Otherwise, the city bore the expense. This was later changed, and individual cities always pay for the expenses involved.

Can you tell of one Alaskan woman who had to pay for a rape kit? Not necessarily a name, just an example. Can you say, with honesty, that Jane Doe complained of being raped and paid to have evidence gathered by the police to find a suspect?

The kits themselves are relatively inexpensive. The major costs come from the medical and scientific processes required to use them.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I agree with DesertPirate on a governorship (of a state of some size and complexity--I don't think Alaska counts for much on that) being better preparation for the presidency than the U.S. senate--and the nominating process certainly seems to have agreed. Governors have to run staffs that propose plans, forumulate legislation and get it passed--and then implement it. U.S. senators don't implement it--and thus tend to have a blind spot on what it means to implement what they are legislating. Also, governors of most states do, in fact, engage in foreign policy (most have extensive foreign trade ties), they are swamped with relationship with federal legislation, and they appear in D.C. in work-related activities about as often as U.S. senators do. (Also, U.S. senators tend to specialize. Most know squat about foreign policy and get their guidance from others.)

Good point on the business end of foreign experience, but I don't think that's the same as having a good grasp of the political picture in a country. If you're looking at import/export/attracting jobs issues, you don't need to know who's stepping on whom within that country, just what they're able to do commerce-wise.

I'm more persuaded by your ideas on implementation - certainly it's a good thing for anyone to have tried to implement the plans he's making. Hence my thought that a combination of the two roles - governor and Senator - would be an ideal background. I've certainly seen people on the implementation end who have spotted flaws in a plan that the creator couldn't see, but I've also seen creators who were aware of broader reasons for a plan than the implementors recognized. Someone who's been on both sides would have the practical experience to recognize potential implementation problems in the planning stage and to recognize which less-obvious concerns needed to be communicated to help the implementors buy into the plans completely.

Your last point - that senators tend to rely on guidance from others for foreign policy - seems to me to be as likely to be a point in their favor as to weigh against them. No single person has the ability to have a deep understanding of the history and key political issues in every country in the world all at once, while also performing all of the domestic duties of president. Knowing who the right experts are and learning to build and rely upon a strong information network is key to any president's ability to act in an informed fashion.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I thought we cleared that up a while ago.

Yes, we did. We determined Wasilla did, indeed, attempt to charge for rape kits, whether it was to "just" bill insurance companies or not. And Ms. Palin was mayor when it happened, and whether she was aware of it happening is irrelevant. The fact is there was ONE city in Alaska who attempted to charge victims for their rape kits - Wasilla.

And it was Joe Biden's legislation - legislation that your candidate, John McCain, voted against, I might add - that required that state & local governments provide the rape exams to victims free of charge as a condition of receiving federal funds under the Violence Against Women Act. That was the only reason they changed their tune - to get the federal cash.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I thought we cleared that up a while ago. The city of Wasilla used to try to charge the insurance companies of the victims for the work done to use the rape kits to collect and analyze evidence. Otherwise, the city bore the expense. This was later changed, and individual cities always pay for the expenses involved.

Can you tell of one Alaskan woman who had to pay for a rape kit? Not necessarily a name, just an example. Can you sasy, with honesty, that Jane Doe complained of being raped and paid to have evidence gathered to find a suspect?

The kits themselves are relatively inexpensive. The major costs come from the medical and scientific processes required to use them.

And the ugly reality is, absent any other funding source, they often go unprocessed. I remember the horror I felt when watching a true-life forensics show and seeing the massive refrigerated trailer in which one county stored its untested rape kits - by the thousands. It made your blood run cold.

Rape is characteristically a serial crime. No doubt dozens of those kits contained the DNA of the same person, over and over. No doubt dozens of them could have been matched to profiles already in the CODIS database and been used to put rapists away for life. But there was no funding to test them all, and so the police did the only thing they could do. They stored them, and they only tested rape kits for which they had a potential suspect for comparison.

I would love to see a nation-wide campaign to change this, both through public budgeting and through private contributions. Who wouldn't want to contribute money to taking rapists off the street? For anyone who was on the fence, I would glady supply the video of a lovely young lady explaining how she felt when she learned that the man who brutalized her had had his DNA sitting in the trailer and on CODIS, respectively, and had had for seven years. If anyone had ever tested the kit from his previous victim, he would have been in prison when instead he was in her home.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

And the ugly reality is, absent any other funding source, they often go unprocessed. I remember the horror I felt when watching a true-life forensics show and seeing the massive refrigerated trailer in which one county stored its untested rape kits - by the thousands. It made your blood run cold.

Rape is characteristically a serial crime. No doubt dozens of those kits contained the DNA of the same person, over and over. No doubt dozens of them could have been matched to profiles already in the CODIS database and been used to put rapists away for life. But there was no funding to test them all, and so the police did the only thing they could do. They stored them, and they only tested rape kits for which they had a potential suspect for comparison.

I would love to see a nation-wide campaign to change this, both through public budgeting and through private contributions. Who wouldn't want to contribute money to taking rapists off the street? For anyone who was on the fence, I would glady supply the video of a lovely young lady explaining how she felt when she learned that the man who brutalized her had had his DNA sitting in the trailer and on CODIS, respectively, and had had for seven years. If anyone had ever tested the kit from his previous victim, he would have been in prison when instead he was in her home.

The reality is that Wasilla might have been the only town in Alaska who attempted to do this, but it isn't the only place in the US that tries, or has tried, to do so.

But Wasilla's rape rate is 2.5 times the national average. And it has the highest rate per capita of men murdering women. I would think, given that she IS a woman, mayor Palin would have stood up for Alaskan women in her town, and later, the women in her state.

To me, it seems really ironic that it was Joe Biden's legislation that forced the little town of Wasilla to change its policy.

 

[epiphany65]

The reality is that Wasilla might have been the only town in Alaska who attempted to do this, but it isn't the only place in the US that tries, or has tried, to do so.

But Wasilla's rape rate is 2.5 times the national average. And it has the highest rate per capita of men murdering women. I would think, given that she IS a woman, mayor Palin would have stood up for Alaskan women in her town, and later, the women in her state.

To me, it seems really ironic that it was Joe Biden's legislation that forced the little town of Wasilla to change its policy.

Obama co-sponsored that legislation, along with 57 others. McCain did not.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-10-rape-exams_N.htm

 

[Boxlicker101]

The reality is that Wasilla might have been the only town in Alaska who attempted to do this, but it isn't the only place in the US that tries, or has tried, to do so.

But Wasilla's rape rate is 2.5 times the national average. And it has the highest rate per capita of men murdering women. I would think, given that she IS a woman, mayor Palin would have stood up for Alaskan women in her town, and later, the women in her state.

To me, it seems really ironic that it was Joe Biden's legislation that forced the little town of Wasilla to change its policy.

Actually, it's not a bad idea, if you can get the insurance companies to pay the bill. If you can't, for whatever reason, the local jurisdiction would have to pay for it.

Do you have any statistics to support your contentions about the crime ratres in Wasilla? Because it such a small place, I doubt that they would have much meaning.

BTW, don't get the idea that I am defending criminals, because I am not. However, I will always defend the truth against mud slinging.

 

[epiphany65]

Actually, it's not a bad idea, if you can get the insurance companies to pay the bill. If you can't, for whatever reason, the local jurisdiction would have to pay for it.

Do you have any statistics to support your contentions about the crime ratres in Wasilla? Because it such a small place, I doubt that they would have much meaning.

BTW, don't get the idea that I am defending criminals, because I am not. However, I will always defend the truth against mud slinging.

You'll find some numbers here on crime in Wasilla:
http://www.disastercenter.com/alaska/crime/35.htm

 

[sr71plt]

I'm more persuaded by your ideas on implementation - certainly it's a good thing for anyone to have tried to implement the plans he's making. Hence my thought that a combination of the two roles - governor and Senator - would be an ideal background.

So, any guesses on what job Hillary Clinton runs for next?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Actually, it's not a bad idea, if you can get the insurance companies to pay the bill. If you can't, for whatever reason, the local jurisdiction would have to pay for it.

Insurance companies are not a catch all. Charging them "just because you can" does nothing but increase already too-high premiums needlessly. Crime in any city is the CITY'S problem - not any insurance company's.

And yes, the local jurisdictions have to pay for it NOW - thanks to Biden's legislation. But before that Wasilla was happy to charge someone else and ignore their reprehensible numbers when it comes to violence against women.

As for Alaska's stats... this is from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

So, any guesses on what job Hillary Clinton runs for next?

She says she's "unlikely" to run for the white house again...

and if you believe that, I have a bridge in Alaska...

 

[Powertone]

my favorite Biden moment was when he revealed on Meet the Press a few years ago that "we're listening in on terrorists cell phones,pinpointing their location then taking them out..." Bravo,Joe! Strategy changed the next day when surveillance found that "chatter " ceased immediately after Biden's bonehead revelation made it to the Middle East.
Then,Joe had the balls to condemn the Bush administration for warrantless wiretaps he boasted of on national television.

But yeah, he'll make a phantastic phuckin vice president!

 

[BlackShanglan]

Insurance companies are not a catch all. Charging them "just because you can" does nothing but increase already too-high premiums needlessly. Crime in any city is the CITY'S problem - not any insurance company's.

I agree. However, if the voters refuse to fund the testing, I have a certain sympathy for someone willing to try any angle that would get more of those kits tested and used as evidence.

And yes, the local jurisdictions have to pay for it NOW - thanks to Biden's legislation.

As I read your previous post, they aren't being obliged to pay for the really crucial part - the testing of the kit and submission of the results to the CODIS database. You wrote that they are required to provide the kit and the exam, but I didn't see anything there about testing the kit once the evidence is collected. Boxlicker seemed to me to be saying that the actual testing of the material collected in the rape kit was part of what was being charged to insurance companies.

I agree that charging the insurance companies isn't the best option - although given that we'd charge them for medical procedures related to other crimes, like assault, I don't think it's completely without a logical excuse. I would much rather see the testing of the rape kits also mandated and funded. However, given that it currently seems not to be, I have a hard time objecting to any policy that makes it more likely that the kits will be tested and the results used to catch rapists.

I really can't see this as a heartless insult to rape victims. The purpose appears to be to give the police a much better chance of catching their attackers, and the measures don't place the financial burden directly on the victim. It's a cobbled-together answer to the problem, but it's far from the worst I've seen. I certainly prefer it to the solution of simply storing the untested kits.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This was your contention and my related query:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selena_Kitt
The reality is that Wasilla might have been the only town in Alaska who attempted to do this, but it isn't the only place in the US that tries, or has tried, to do so.

But Wasilla's rape rate is 2.5 times the national average. And it has the highest rate per capita of men murdering women. I would think, given that she IS a woman, mayor Palin would have stood up for Alaskan women in her town, and later, the women in her state.

To me, it seems really ironic that it was Joe Biden's legislation that forced the little town of Wasilla to change its policy.

Actually, it's not a bad idea, if you can get the insurance companies to pay the bill. If you can't, for whatever reason, the local jurisdiction would have to pay for it.

Do you have any statistics to support your contentions about the crime ratres in Wasilla? Because it such a small place, I doubt that they would have much meaning.

BTW, don't get the idea that I am defending criminals, because I am not. However, I will always defend the truth against mud slinging.

And this was your response:

Insurance companies are not a catch all. Charging them "just because you can" does nothing but increase already too-high premiums needlessly. Crime in any city is the CITY'S problem - not any insurance company's.

And yes, the local jurisdictions have to pay for it NOW - thanks to Biden's legislation. But before that Wasilla was happy to charge someone else and ignore their reprehensible numbers when it comes to violence against women.

As for Alaska's stats... this is from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I didn't ask about the state of Alaska, and you didn't mention them before. I just asked about one small town. This was the response by E65, which is probably reliable, being from the local police department:

http://www.disastercenter.com/alaska/crime/35.htm

According to them, murder is quite rare in Wasilla, as is rape. Even so, just one is too many,.