Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-16-2020, 11:26 AM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 27,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRDelirious View Post
Yeah, the "moderate" Democrats running away from ACA and Obama as if they'd never heard of his platform did not save their skins in 2010. Might as well have gone hard for a fullthroated ACA and would have lost just the same while accomplishing more.
Or Lieberman and Nelson wouldn't have bent at all and there would be no ACA, period.

Wishing doesn't always make it so.
  #102  
Old 03-16-2020, 11:49 AM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Because Bernie has a few narcissistic tendencies of his own.

Don't get me wrong - like you, I think Bernie's an important gadfly. In fact I think Bernie and Joe are in a position to complement each other. But what should be clear is that Sanders would be a terrible president. Sanders is a movement guy, but he's not an executive. People need to know the difference.

People attack Biden for his attempts to reinvent himself, and to be real, I think the criticism is accurate: Biden was, at one time, a more conservative democrat than he is now. But that's what I like about someone like Biden: he changes with the times. He understands that the party has shifted, particularly among younger voters.

And what Sanders doesn't get is that while the party has shifted, the party and indeed the country has a long way to go before it is ready to embrace the kinds of changes he seems committed to. I want the guy who can get shit done, not the guy who falls on his own sword and achieves nothing. The country, the world needs that.

Sanders supporters poo poo the ACA, but guess what? It's vastly better than what existed before and it made a real difference. Standing ground on a public option would have meant that absolutely nothing changed.

The Paris accords: again, not perfect and well short of what we'd ultimately like to have, but far better than what existed before, and more to the point, it was the first meaningful global attempt to address the problem in an ambitious way. Yet it's not clear what Sanders would propose other than ideas that would get his entire party thrown out of power within 2 years.
Well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim314 View Post
Nate Silver of 538 commented that Biden has been consistently around the median of the Democratic party over the years. So when the party shifted more conservative, so did he, and now that the party is shifting more liberal, so is he.

Which is kind of reassuring for me as a liberal, since it suggests he isn't going to revert to the politician he was in the '90s so long as the Democratic Party doesn't go back to what it was in the '90s.
Good politicians always do this. It's the only way to actually get things done. You have to work within the confines of the politics of the moment and make allowances for people who think in ways very different from you. Since Biden has been on the front lines of this for decades, his compromises are more obvious than any made by a Vermont senator who simply sits on the sidelines flinging spitballs, confident in the luxury of never needing to compromise on anything.
  #103  
Old 03-16-2020, 12:24 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 10,322
Right. George Washington was once a general...for the redcoats.
  #104  
Old 03-16-2020, 01:37 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Some people seem to think that any nuanced criticism regarding race is exactly the same as (and equivalent to) calling someone a racist.
Oh, nuanced. So he spoke at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What sort of "nuance" was there besides to call him a racist?
  #105  
Old 03-16-2020, 01:44 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Oh, nuanced. So he spoke at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What sort of "nuance" was there besides to call him a racist?
Bullshit. She didn't call him racist.
  #106  
Old 03-16-2020, 01:58 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Oh, nuanced. So he spoke at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What sort of "nuance" was there besides to call him a racist?
Look, I've been one of the biggest Biden bashers here, although at this point I've accepted that he's going to be our guy. Whatever happened at Strom Thurmond's funeral is for all intents and purposes irrelevant right at this moment. Biden has been able to make alliances with important black leaders and generate the support among that community that is crucial. Thurmond died in 2003. 2003 might as well be 1803, so much since then has changed.
  #107  
Old 03-16-2020, 02:06 PM
Lamoral's Avatar
Lamoral is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Fenario
Posts: 3,276
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Oh, nuanced. So he spoke at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What sort of "nuance" was there besides to call him a racist?
Look, I've been one of the biggest Biden bashers here, although at this point I've accepted that he's going to be our guy. Whatever happened at Strom Thurmond's funeral is for all intents and purposes irrelevant right at this moment. Biden has been able to make alliances with important black leaders and generate the support among that community that is crucial. Thurmond died in 2003. 2003 might as well be 1803, so much since then has changed.
  #108  
Old 03-16-2020, 02:07 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
It's Abrams or Harris. I doubt there is anyone else under serious consideration.
I'm equally certain it will be neither, and here's why: Biden made a specific point to state right at the point of his big reveal that he will appoint a black female to the SCOTUS if he gets the chance. He made this clear so when he picks a white female running mate, the black women in the Democratic caucus, who are the backbone of the party, understand he fully recognizes their importance -- but it won't be with a VP pick.

Smart.
  #109  
Old 03-16-2020, 02:15 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Oh, nuanced. So he spoke at Strom Thurmond's funeral. What sort of "nuance" was there besides to call him a racist?
That perhaps unreformed white supremacists shouldn't have been normalized and celebrated. Thurmond never fully renounced his earlier white supremacist views.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-16-2020 at 02:15 PM.
  #110  
Old 03-16-2020, 02:36 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,672
This is ridiculous. Not only did she not call him racist, she also went out of her way to explicitly say she didn't think he was racist so there could be no doubt about it.

Quote:
OK. So on the issue of race, I couldn't agree more that this is an issue that is still not being talked about truthfully and honestly. I -- there is not a black man I know, be he a relative, a friend or a coworker, who has not been the subject of some form of profiling or discrimination.Growing up, my sister and I had to deal with the neighbor who told us her parents couldn't play with us because she -- because we were black. And I will say also that -- that, in this campaign, we have also heard -- and I'm going to now direct this at Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist, and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground.

But I also believe, and it's personal -- and I was actually very -- it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing.
She said the exact opposite of what you are claiming. It's right there in the transcript.
  #111  
Old 03-16-2020, 02:36 PM
Folacin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North of the River
Posts: 3,810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aspenglow View Post
I'm equally certain it will be neither, and here's why: Biden made a specific point to state right at the point of his big reveal that he will appoint a black female to the SCOTUS if he gets the chance. He made this clear so when he picks a white female running mate, the black women in the Democratic caucus, who are the backbone of the party, understand he fully recognizes their importance -- but it won't be with a VP pick.

Smart.
And a SCOTUS appointment would be more significant/longer lasting effect.

Some might think the VP slot would potentially launch that person into the Presidency, but that really doesn't work any more - if it ever did. HW Bush got a single term, but otherwise the sitting Veep doesn't really move up (Ford, Humphrey, Nixon all lost - LBJ won an election, but special circumstances). I guess Biden would be a bit of an exception if/when he wins (except for sitting out the last election (and the Nixon precedent)), and that he'll likely only serve one term might help whoever is Veep to have a better shot at taking over.
  #112  
Old 03-16-2020, 02:58 PM
Aspenglow's Avatar
Aspenglow is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Oregon
Posts: 4,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
And a SCOTUS appointment would be more significant/longer lasting effect.

Some might think the VP slot would potentially launch that person into the Presidency, but that really doesn't work any more - if it ever did. HW Bush got a single term, but otherwise the sitting Veep doesn't really move up (Ford, Humphrey, Nixon all lost - LBJ won an election, but special circumstances). I guess Biden would be a bit of an exception if/when he wins (except for sitting out the last election (and the Nixon precedent)), and that he'll likely only serve one term might help whoever is Veep to have a better shot at taking over.
Exactly.

Harris's skills and experience would be wasted as a vice president, especially when we have so many other talented women who will do the job most ably.
  #113  
Old 03-16-2020, 03:16 PM
OttoDaFe's Avatar
OttoDaFe is offline
Sluice Gate Tender, FCD #3
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Soviet of Washington
Posts: 2,935
I think Harris might also be a fit for AG. Not only does she have the chops, but the epidemic of conservative heads assplodin' would be beneficial to the body politic.
  #114  
Old 03-16-2020, 05:37 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by OttoDaFe View Post
I think Harris might also be a fit for AG. Not only does she have the chops, but the epidemic of conservative heads assplodin' would be beneficial to the body politic.
Possible, but I will bet she wont be Veep.
  #115  
Old 03-16-2020, 07:37 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 518
If I'm Harris I'd rather be VP than AG.

Being VP would be historic for one. It also allows an expansion of your work since you'll be dealing on domestic policy agenda and foreign policy agenda. I don't see the point in deciding to become a legislator after two decades of law enforcement positions in California only to return to law enforcement before your first senate re-election. She could have been an AG option without seeking a Senate seat but seeking it means she wanted a change in direction.

And when the one guy who is higher up the totem pole to you is 77 years old then naturally the delegation of power will be even more greater.
  #116  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:43 AM
RioRico is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 2,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
Some might think the VP slot would potentially launch that person into the Presidency, but that really doesn't work any more - if it ever did. HW Bush got a single term, but otherwise the sitting Veep doesn't really move up (Ford, Humphrey, Nixon all lost - LBJ won an election, but special circumstances). I guess Biden would be a bit of an exception if/when he wins (except for sitting out the last election (and the Nixon precedent)), and that he'll likely only serve one term might help whoever is Veep to have a better shot at taking over.
I posted this list nearby. Of presidents' previous political jobs we have:

15 Veeps (9 successions)
11 Governors
6 Senators
4 Generals
3 Cabinet Secretaries
2 Representatives
2 Ambassadors
1 President
1 no office

The best way for a Veep to take office is for their predecessor to die or resign. I'll group Veeps like this:

Successors:
Tyler finished WH Harrison's one term.
Fillmore finished Taylor's one term.
A.Johnson finished Lincoln's second term.
Arthur finished Garfield's one term.
T.Roosevelt finished McKinley's second term and won on his own.
Coolidge finished Harding's first term and won on his own.
Truman finished FD Roosevelt's fourth term and won on his own.
LB Johnson finished Kennedy's one term and one on his own.
Ford finished Nixon's second term.

Followers:
One-term president John Adams was Washington's VP.
Two-termer Jefferson was Adams' VP.
One-termer Van Buren was Jackon's VP.
One-termer Taft was T.Roosevelt's VP.
One-termer GHW Bush was Reagan's VP.

Standalone:
Nixon was Eisenhower's VP and won two terms on his own.

When Biden wins, he'll be another Standalone.
  #117  
Old 03-17-2020, 03:22 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
So nobody is troubled with the idea that Biden has pledged to select a woman as his running mate and nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court? If any business in the country made a similar pledge (e.g. the next lawyer in this firm will be a black woman) it would be in violation of the law.

He should select the best person for the job. If that happens to be a black woman or a white man, then that is who he should select.
  #118  
Old 03-17-2020, 04:43 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So nobody is troubled with the idea that Biden has pledged to select a woman as his running mate and nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court? If any business in the country made a similar pledge (e.g. the next lawyer in this firm will be a black woman) it would be in violation of the law.

He should select the best person for the job. If that happens to be a black woman or a white man, then that is who he should select.
The best person for VP now is a woman (so is the best for prez for that matter, but that was OBE). It's ridiculous we haven't had a woman on either position yet. Optics and perception is part of these most public of positions, and it's entirely appropriate to pledge to try and rectify this. "The best person for the job", for stuff like this, is just an excuse to always pick a white man. If you want to go outside the box, you actually need to go outside the fucking box.

In other words, to get more diversity, you have to actually take positive action to get more diversity. It doesn't happen in its own, because everyone is just human and has their own biases, whether they recognize it or not.

And further, he might have already picked someone and he's just giving us a hint.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-17-2020 at 04:46 AM.
  #119  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:03 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So nobody is troubled with the idea that Biden has pledged to select a woman as his running mate and nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court?
It sounds positively reaganesque to me.
  #120  
Old 03-17-2020, 08:53 AM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So nobody is troubled with the idea that Biden has pledged to select a woman as his running mate and nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court? If any business in the country made a similar pledge (e.g. the next lawyer in this firm will be a black woman) it would be in violation of the law.

He should select the best person for the job. If that happens to be a black woman or a white man, then that is who he should select.
Are you troubled by it?
  #121  
Old 03-17-2020, 09:08 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So nobody is troubled with the idea that Biden has pledged to select a woman as his running mate and nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court? If any business in the country made a similar pledge (e.g. the next lawyer in this firm will be a black woman) it would be in violation of the law.

He should select the best person for the job. If that happens to be a black woman or a white man, then that is who he should select.
You have got to be kidding. You know perfectly well Supremes aren't selected because they are "the best person for the job". You are going to tell me Kavanaugh was the most respected legal scholar in all the land?

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-17-2020 at 09:09 AM.
  #122  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:07 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So nobody is troubled with the idea that Biden has pledged to select a woman as his running mate and nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court? ....
Not only am I not "troubled" i am happy- that's a great idea. Should have been done some time ago.
  #123  
Old 03-17-2020, 01:38 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Not only am I not "troubled" i am happy- that's a great idea. Should have been done some time ago.
It's outrageous. I thought we decided as a nation that choosing someone based on race or gender was a bad thing. As I said, if you did that at your business you would be breaking the law.

If Trump says that his next Supreme Court pick would be a white Protestant male, would you be okay with that?
  #124  
Old 03-17-2020, 02:44 PM
Nonsuch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,821
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's outrageous. I thought we decided as a nation that choosing someone based on race or gender was a bad thing. As I said, if you did that at your business you would be breaking the law.

If Trump says that his next Supreme Court pick would be a white Protestant male, would you be okay with that?
The idea that only one person in the entire United States would be best qualified for a vacant court seat is absurd. There is always bias in these situations, and not necessarily pernicious bias: people favor a certain temperament over others, certain types of achievements over other types, and so on. As someone noted above, Kavanaugh's appointment was hardly the result of an objective vetting process; he does not "just happen" to be a white dude from a privileged background.
  #125  
Old 03-17-2020, 03:08 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's outrageous. I thought we decided as a nation that choosing someone based on race or gender was a bad thing. As I said, if you did that at your business you would be breaking the law.

If Trump says that his next Supreme Court pick would be a white Protestant male, would you be okay with that?
As a rule, with very few exceptions, it's ALWAYS "white male", unless one specifically decides to go against the grain. That's why we need to go against the grain, so that we can demonstrate that non-white-males do things just as well as white males. But as long as white males are in charge almost everywhere, unless they specifically decide not to, they're generally going to pick white males as the next in line.
  #126  
Old 03-17-2020, 03:10 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's outrageous. I thought we decided as a nation that choosing someone based on race or gender was a bad thing. As I said, if you did that at your business you would be breaking the law.

If Trump says that his next Supreme Court pick would be a white Protestant male, would you be okay with that?
As a rule, with very few exceptions, it's ALWAYS "white male", unless one specifically decides to go against the grain. That's why we need to go against the grain, so that we can demonstrate that non-white-males do things just as well as white males. But as long as white males are in charge almost everywhere, unless they specifically decide not to, they're generally going to pick white males as the next in line.
  #127  
Old 03-17-2020, 03:43 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsuch View Post
The idea that only one person in the entire United States would be best qualified for a vacant court seat is absurd. There is always bias in these situations, and not necessarily pernicious bias: people favor a certain temperament over others, certain types of achievements over other types, and so on. As someone noted above, Kavanaugh's appointment was hardly the result of an objective vetting process; he does not "just happen" to be a white dude from a privileged background.
I agree that there is no one solely qualified person. But like anything else, when you are selecting from among a handful of good people, you shouldn't use race or gender as a consideration.

If you say that the next person you are going to hire for an open position must be a woman/man/black/white then you are excluding a whole lot of qualified people based upon racial or gender considerations. I was taught that was a bad thing.

If the black woman sets herself apart from the other candidates, then by all means hire her. But don't exclude the white woman or the white male or the black male because the person doesn't meet your racial or gender criteria.

When you do that, you lose the moral argument. I don't see how you can tell a racist that he cannot solely hire white men. If you are allowed to make race based decisions, why can't he?
  #128  
Old 03-17-2020, 03:48 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,373
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's outrageous. I thought we decided as a nation that choosing someone based on race or gender was a bad thing. As I said, if you did that at your business you would be breaking the law.

If Trump says that his next Supreme Court pick would be a white Protestant male, would you be okay with that?
I think there is merit to ensuring that the legal opinions of the courts come from a diverse set of backgrounds and life experiences ultimately representative of the population. Having 9 justices all come from a wealthy, ivy league background (for example) may mean that there is all sort of unconscious bias in the court, and only a single viewpoint to an thorny legal issue that may be blinded from seeing alternatives.

Having someone on the court with a military background, or came from poverty and had to work their way through law school waiting tables, or has a different ethnic/cultural/religious background than the currently WASP heavy court are all good things to consider as deciding factors.
  #129  
Old 03-17-2020, 04:20 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
It's outrageous. I thought we decided as a nation that choosing someone based on race or gender was a bad thing.
We know you don't believe this. We have seen your posts on the draft and other topics.
  #130  
Old 03-17-2020, 04:23 PM
YamatoTwinkie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,373
Correction for the above post: Scratch the "P" in WASP, since all of the current justices have their religion specified as either Catholic or Judaism (or were raised Catholic in the case of Gorsuch)
  #131  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:18 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
I agree that there is no one solely qualified person. But like anything else, when you are selecting from among a handful of good people, you shouldn't use race or gender as a consideration.

If you say that the next person you are going to hire for an open position must be a woman/man/black/white then you are excluding a whole lot of qualified people based upon racial or gender considerations. I was taught that was a bad thing.

If the black woman sets herself apart from the other candidates, then by all means hire her. But don't exclude the white woman or the white male or the black male because the person doesn't meet your racial or gender criteria.

When you do that, you lose the moral argument. I don't see how you can tell a racist that he cannot solely hire white men. If you are allowed to make race based decisions, why can't he?
There is certainly danger in the idea of limiting a field for public office based on gender or ethnicity just to improve representation. In the long run I think it tends to undermine such efforts, by suggesting that power can be gifted to people from underrepresented groups, when in fact power must be won if it is to mean anything at all.

But I don't think that's what Biden's up to. For one thing, I'd be amazed if he didn't already know exactly who he is talking about. For another thing, far from being tokens granted for moral or ideological reasons, these are surely calculated political moves to buttress his support in the party. The people Biden intends to fill those roles will have got there by accumulating the necessary political capital to be considered his best options under the circumstances. Power so achieved is most certainly 'won' rather than 'gifted', making these genuine steps towards greater representation.
  #132  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
In this society that was dominated by white supremacism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry for so, so long, without deciding "it's long overdue for a black person/woman/gay person/etc." for some notable position, we wouldn't have had Jackie Robinson; we wouldn't have had Thurgood Marshall; we wouldn't have had Sandra Day O'Connor; we wouldn't have had countless other "firsts". In an unfair and biased society like this one, it just doesn't happen until someone, finally, makes the decision to make it happen. That's why it's not just okay, but a positive good, when someone in power decides to put a qualified "first" in some particular notable position.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-17-2020 at 05:23 PM.
  #133  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:29 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
In this society that was dominated by white supremacism, misogyny, and other forms of bigotry for so, so long, without deciding "it's long overdue for a black person/woman/gay person/etc." for some notable position, we wouldn't have had Jackie Robinson; we wouldn't have had Thurgood Marshall; we wouldn't have had Sandra Day O'Connor; we wouldn't have had countless other "firsts". In an unfair and biased society like this one, it just doesn't happen until someone, finally, makes the decision to make it happen. That's why it's not just okay, but a positive good, when someone in power decides to put a qualified "first" in some particular notable position.
Were those people just tokens, or were they actually the best qualified for the job at hand?
  #134  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:37 PM
Nonsuch is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posts: 5,821
As I attempted to point out above, there is really no "objective" or unbiased measure of who is the most-qualified (as opposed to well-qualified) for many positions. There are probably dozens of jurists in this country who would make excellent Supreme Court justices. By what mechanism could you claim to objectively, definitively choose the most qualified? Could there be a competing, equally valid set of criteria?
  #135  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:40 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs McGinty View Post
Were those people just tokens, or were they actually the best qualified for the job at hand?
There is no "best qualified" for this kind of position, IMO. That's a political/marketing messaging term. There's "well qualified", and plenty of candidates who meet that. We should pick the well qualified candidate who best helps our society move forward.
  #136  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:43 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonsuch View Post
As I attempted to point out above, there is really no "objective" or unbiased measure of who is the most-qualified (as opposed to well-qualified) for many positions. There are probably dozens of jurists in this country who would make excellent Supreme Court justices. By what mechanism could you claim to objectively, definitively choose the most qualified? Could there be a competing, equally valid set of criteria?
Absolutely. And an individual's gender, ethnicity, background, etc. are not irrelevant considerations, especially where political capital is concerned.

Where it's a problem is where the decision is made to limit a field for the sake of representation without regard to the virtues of the actual available candidates.
  #137  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:45 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There is no "best qualified" for this kind of position, IMO. That's a political/marketing messaging term. There's "well qualified", and plenty of candidates who meet that. We should pick the well qualified candidate who best helps our society move forward.
Your last sentence describes the best qualified candidate.

The point is not to limit the field in advance of seeing who is available.

Imagine the dems insisting representation demanded a female candidate in 2008 without waiting to see who threw their hats in the ring...
  #138  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:52 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs McGinty View Post
Your last sentence describes the best qualified candidate.

The point is not to limit the field in advance of seeing who is available.

Imagine the dems insisting representation demanded a female candidate in 2008 without waiting to see who threw their hats in the ring...
I see no reason to believe Biden limited his field. Either he's already made his selection, or he had a wide field earlier and has already narrowed it down to a group of women.

And a nomination for a running mate is different than the primary process.
  #139  
Old 03-17-2020, 05:58 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I see no reason to believe Biden limited his field. Either he's already made his selection, or he had a wide field earlier and has already narrowed it down to a group of women.
Which is exactly why I said it's not an example of tokenism, but rather actual progress.

The people he intends to appoint will be there because they got themselves there, not because he's gifting it to them.
  #140  
Old 03-17-2020, 06:02 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs McGinty View Post
Which is exactly why I said it's not an example of tokenism, but rather actual progress.

The people he intends to appoint will be there because they got themselves there, not because he's gifting it to them.
Fair enough. But with multiple qualified candidates, I don't see a problem even if he went at it the other way -- deciding in advance that he was going to pick the best woman for the job. Our society is so profoundly tilted that decisions like that are necessary.
  #141  
Old 03-17-2020, 07:20 PM
Mrs McGinty is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Fair enough. But with multiple qualified candidates, I don't see a problem even if he went at it the other way -- deciding in advance that he was going to pick the best woman for the job. Our society is so profoundly tilted that decisions like that are necessary.
My point is that making decisions that way does not help to untilt things. It's putting a fig leaf over inequality.

True progress in representation requires a different dynamic, wherein power flows up from the bottom, not down from the top.

With Biden's recent successes - and his route to power - coming most significantly through the support of female and African American voters, I think what we're seeing here is an example of that dynamic in play.

But this is something I think the left very often gets wrong, demanding the appearance of progress where it has not actually been made in the real world of politics and power. The illusion thus created makes it harder to change the true dynamic, because to many it looks like it has changed already.

And I think that's something older black democrats in particular understand better than any other group in the US today. The implication from some on the left has been that most have just blindly gone for Biden because of his association with Obama, overlooking the direction in which power now flows in that relationship.

With both HRC and Sanders, power would always have been concentrated under their aegis (albeit by very different means). Like Trump, they have largely been around the edges of the game, and so moved into contention as singular candidates. Biden, by contrast, has always been right in the thick of it. And thus his candidacy is much less imperial in character, being grounded in the meat and drink of reciprocal power politics.

Last edited by Mrs McGinty; 03-17-2020 at 07:23 PM.
  #142  
Old 03-17-2020, 10:24 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
There is a philosophical/ethical problem with excluding men from contention as VP, and of excluding men AND white/Asian/Latina/Native American women from contention for SCOTUS. However, I think it's okay to set aside this concern when a certain demographic has NEVER held that position. After the first time, though, I don't think it's right to make such a categorical promise (even if deep down, it's what you intend to do).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Biden said that he'd (a) have a woman VP and (b) put a black woman on the Supreme Court. This suggests to me that (a) won't be a black woman and (b) is intended to help soften that blow for people who were expecting Harris or Abrams.

Bingo. Pretty clever of him!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Folacin View Post
And a SCOTUS appointment would be more significant/longer lasting effect.

Some might think the VP slot would potentially launch that person into the Presidency, but that really doesn't work any more - if it ever did. HW Bush got a single term, but otherwise the sitting Veep doesn't really move up (Ford, Humphrey, Nixon all lost - LBJ won an election, but special circumstances). I guess Biden would be a bit of an exception if/when he wins (except for sitting out the last election (and the Nixon precedent)), and that he'll likely only serve one term might help whoever is Veep to have a better shot at taking over.

I think this significantly understates the significance to the party's future of the nominee's VP choice. Some VPs didn't ever run for president. But over the past 67* years, every Democratic VP who sought the nomination was successful (and I'm counting Biden at this point). On the GOP side, it was almost as automatic, with (appropriately) Dan Quayle being the only one to try it and fail. So as long as you're not a national laughingstock like Quayle, it's pretty much a lock!

It strikes me as unlikely that Biden is going to pick someone who is ultimately uninterested in running for president herself. So if their ticket wins and she becomes veep, she's very likely to win the nomination in 2024 or 2028, depending on whether Biden decides to run for reelection. That means there probably won't be an open race for the Democratic presidential nomination until the 2030s (and maybe not even then!).

*I had to cut it off at this point because in 1952, well before the modern era when primary voters chose the nominee, Alvin Barkley made an unsuccessful bid to get the Democratic nomination. But he was 74 (which was really old then), and had quite publicly suffered heart trouble. The delegates at the convention openly dismissed his suitability on that basis alone. So if you eliminate him as a kind of outlier, you can go a good bit further back.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #143  
Old 03-21-2020, 09:40 PM
Damuri Ajashi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
This didn't happen.
Don't be naive. Of course it happened.
  #144  
Old 03-21-2020, 09:55 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 13,137
In the comment you're referring to, she literally said "I don't think you're racist".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #145  
Old 03-21-2020, 09:58 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Don't be naive. Of course it happened.
Here's a transcript. Could I trouble to quote the part that you thinks supports your (false and obviously bullshit) claim?

Thanks in advance.
  #146  
Old 03-21-2020, 10:30 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Here's a transcript. Could I trouble to quote the part that you thinks supports your (false and obviously bullshit) claim?

Thanks in advance.
Maybe you could take that elsewhere?

Clearly Harris took a nasty jab at Biden in that debate.
  #147  
Old 03-21-2020, 10:36 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Maybe you could take that elsewhere?
No.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017