WurfWhile

While I don’t know his positions inside out, there is no doubt that I share a number of important policy views with Joe Biden. That said, I’m starting to notice a pattern with his press coverage. It seems that what I previously took for a “Joe Everyman” approach instead now seems like something more. It seems to be an attempt to appear always reasonable in the face of the highly objectionable. The news script that Senator Biden adheres to is that he gets his views across, criticizing the opposition, but at the end of the day we’re all friends. His presidential run may very well focus on being a “uniter” who can listen to the other side with respect - and then even vote for them. Unprincipled? ‘Call me what you will,’ Biden seems to say, ‘I am not a “divider.’”

The problem I have is that while you can “love the sinner and hate the sin” you can’t “love the sinner, disagree with the sin and at the end of the day say the sin is largely ok because you understand their viewpoint.” But that’s what recent quotes by Biden keep projecting.

Some examples:

(5/13/05)
The President’s Man by Terence Samuel in the American Prospect discussing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee vote on John Bolton for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations:

“It is a nearly impossible task to rise above partisanship these days. But Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) thought he might try to dislodge some to the GOP support for White House. Biden reminded the Republicans that he was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1993, when President Bill Clinton’s first two choices for attorney general died in committee, largely at the hands of Democratic senators. And he tried to appeal to the independence of each senator: ‘I do not work for the president of the United States. None of you work for the president of the United States,’ he said. Later he was forced to acknowledge what he was up against. ‘I have listened to the other side…and it comes down to one really compelling argument. The president is entitled to his man. I respect that. I disagree with it, but I respect that.’”

I don’t find it a “compelling argument” - not with President George W. Bush’s record on foreign affairs. When someone who is drunk demands the keys to their car because “they’ve driven their car and know how to get to their home,” it’s an argument - but you don’t give them the keys. When a presidential administration drunk on a disastrous and deadly ideological foreign policy demands a nominee detrimental to U.S. foreign policy interests, you don’t vote for the nominee.

(1/18/05)
“Rice Endorsed by Senate Panel to Be Next Secretary of State,” by David Stout in the New York Times describing the Condoleezza Rice confirmation hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“‘I’m going to vote for you, but I must tell you it’s with a little bit of frustration and some reservation,’ Senator Joseph R. Biden of Delaware, the committee’s ranking Democrat, said today.

Mr. Biden said the administration had been less than candid about the problems in Iraq. ‘Time and again, this administration has tried to leave the American people with the impression that Iraq has well over 100,000 fully trained, fully competent military police and personnel,’ the senator said. ‘And that is simply not true. You and I know that. We’re months, probably years away from reaching our target goal.’”

Actually, as others have noted, it’s much worse - Joe Biden is seen clearly “rewarding dishonesty” and cites the figure of under “4,000 actually trained Iraqi forces” as one of many proofs to his point.

And another damning statement by Senator Joe Biden from the transcript of the Condoleezza Rice hearings dealing, it seems, with accountability:

“Just last week, very quietly, the administration ended its search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Not much fanfare. The administration concluded that the reason for going to war, weapons of mass destruction, they did not exist. Found nothing and said so quietly. And the National Intelligence Council, the CIA’s think tank, concluded that Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as a training ground for the next generation of terrorists: something it was not before the war. Despite all that, we now learn from the president that there’s no reason to hold any administration official accountable for mistakes or misjudgments on Iraq. According to the president, We had an accountability moment - I’m quoting - and that’s called the 2004 election. Dr. Rice, I hope that you as secretary of state - and I’m confident you will be confirmed secretary of state and I plan on voting for you as secretary of state - I hope you will demand accountability from the people who serve you if, heaven forbid, they misserve you to the extent that our country has been, in my view, misserved in Iraq.”

Why should he expect “accountability”?

(1/7/05)
Not with a bang but a whimper by Tim Grieve in Salon on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning of then Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales.

“And after assuring Gonzales that his confirmation was in the bag, Joe Biden found himself groveling before the nominee, calling him the ‘real deal’ - remember when they said that about John Kerry? - even as he pleaded with him to tell the truth about something. ‘We’re looking for candor, old buddy,’ Biden told Gonzales Thursday morning. ‘We’re looking for you, when we ask you a question, to give us an answer, which you haven’t done yet. I love you, but you’re not being very candid so far.’”

I’ve already registered my opinion on the episode here - it isn’t favorable.

Now we’ve seen three different authors of three different publications covering three different hearings (as well as some additional material from the Rice hearing transcripts). It’s by no means representative of everything Senator Joe Biden says (and it is all in nomination hearings) - but it’s where he gets a lot of public attention (based on being a senior Democrat) and it is suggestive. I suggest that Joe Biden won’t score points with Democrats for trying to come to terms with positions anathema to them and their values - and given the extreme partisanship at the federal level - as a presidential candidate that should be a primary consideration.