home

Joe Biden Considering White House Run

Joe Biden says there is no reason he shouldn't run for President in 2016. He hasn't yet decided.

I can think of a dozen reasons, almost all related to his crime-warrior legacy.

If he runs, it will be the first time I sit out a presidential election.

< Funeral Today for Philip Seymour Hoffman | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I also can think of a dozen reasons (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 12:47:44 PM EST
    why he should not run.

    An interesting topic would be what other Democratic candidates would be available and their chances of victory if Hillary, for whatever reason, decides not to run.

    Really not arguing that she will or will not run or that she should or should not run and really don't want to go there. Just interested if there is any consensus on who else would be the front runners and how they would fare against a Republican nominee.

    The names I have seen as (none / 0) (#9)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    potential Democratic candidates for president in the unlikely event that Secretary Clinton should decide not to run are, in no particular order,  Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Martin O'Malley, Mark Warner, Elizabeth Warren, and Deval Patrick.

    With Secretary Clinton in the forefront, it does not leave much media or other room for discussion and development of other possible contenders. It  might be that the new face could have a more "homespun" demeanor such as Montana governor, Brian Schweitzer, or an appealing personality, with fund-raising potential, such as NY Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, or be Latino candidate, Mayor Julio Castro.  But, national runs are a challenge, and these candidates are untested.

    My wonderment, is what would be  a good ticket if Secretary Clinton is, as I expect, at the top of the ticket?  Customary wisdom would be to pick a male,vice presidential candidate,  perhaps, someone like Julio Castro , a safe "moderate" senator like Virginia senator, Mark Warner, or, a Southern governor, such as Steve Beshear of KY (now age 69) owing to his experience with the Affordable Care Act--and protect that flank.   But, I wonder what thinking would be if Elizabeth Warren or Kirsten Gilliband were selected?   I like that idea, but I may be the lone ranger in this thought.

    Parent

    Must say that pairing one moderate candidate (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:41:55 PM EST
    with a "a safe "moderate" senator like Virginia senator, Mark Warner" brings out as much enthusiasm in me as Biden for President. From my POV Clinton may be considered somewhat moderate but Warner fits my definition of a conservative. Not a "bat shit" crazy conservative but a conservative none the less.

    Of the potential Democratic candidates that you mentioned in your 1st paragraph, only Elizabeth Warren would excite me and she has stated that she will not run.

    Would have to do more research on Kirsten Gillibrand, or Julio Castro and where they stand on the issues that are important to me.

       

    Parent

    It won't be (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 04:35:44 PM EST
    Warren or Gillibrand.  If HRC is the nomiee, we will not have two women from northeastern states (via Illinois and Arkansas for HRC) on the ticket.

    Look for a western or Southwestern male.  Castro is an interesting choice, but then again two "minorities" on the same ticket may be too much for some.  A white male is my best guess.

    Parent

    Brian Schweitzer (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:47:52 PM EST
    appears to be running for President on an economic populist platform to the left of Hillary.

    If he plays nice and doesn't blow it, he can be VP.

    Parent

    I'd like that. I really think if she runs she (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 08:52:10 PM EST
    should have a fresh face VP. Please no congress critters .

    Parent
    Do you think her chances will be (none / 0) (#34)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 10:21:39 PM EST
    enhanced by having a VP who is a strong advocate for the Keystone Pipeline? Part of the presidential campaign could coincide with massive protests and civil disobedience all along the length of the proposed pipeline if it is approved as anticipated.

    Parent
    Massive? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Wile ECoyote on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 06:03:49 AM EST
    Heh.  

    Parent
    If there are massive protests (none / 0) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:00:39 PM EST
    I guess it would depend on which group she is trying to court - the protesters or the anti-protesters.  She is if anything even more politically cynical than I am.

    Parent
    As usual (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:09:35 PM EST
    Yep, the advise being given to Hillary (none / 0) (#49)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:15:19 PM EST
    already this early in the game is leaning towards fck the base to win.

    Parent
    That tactic worked in 2008 (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:40:16 PM EST
    but succeeded in seriously weakening support for Obama by the Dem base ever since. I really wonder how much longer the Dem party machine thinks that approach can work.

    Parent
    At times my comments lack clarity (none / 0) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 05:19:14 PM EST
    I had bounced back to discussing possible candidates for the presidential slot when I mentioned Warren, Gillibrand and Castro.

    I know the current consensus is that the Democratic nominee will be Hillary Clinton. Yet, a lot can happen in 2 years to change everything.

    Had this discussion with friends and no one had anyone else on their radar even those who weren't eager for her to run.

    We kick around what ifs with Republican candidates and never seem to do the same with the Dems.

    Parent

    Blue, your comment was clear; (none / 0) (#23)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:13:57 PM EST
    I think I created confusion, by offering an answer to your question of potential candidates if Secretary Clinton did not run for president for whatever reason and then asking my own question of vice presidential candidates if Clinton was the presidential candidate.

    Parent
    I followed your comment just fine (none / 0) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:55:43 PM EST
    The question of who might be a potential VP candidate on a Hillary ticket was IMO a thought provoking addition.

    I'm just glad that you took the time put forth your thoughts on this subject.

    What if scenarios interest me and Hillary being in the forefront has pretty much closed down any discussion any other possible contenders.

    Parent

    I understood you (none / 0) (#42)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:39:45 AM EST
    Castro is a mayor - not really a good choice to be successful presidential candidate. He would need some federal experience and cred first. He would be well served to  take a high level position in a Democratic administration.

    I love Gillibrand and Warren, but both are first term senators, and I don't know if voters would be willing to go down that road again so soon, although to be fair, both women have been active and on the forefront of issues and actually working with their colleagues, and not just content to be one of 100 senators.

    I would think in that case a Martin O'Malley or an Andrew Cuomo would be more likely choices.  Possibly a Brian Sweitzer, except that no one really knows him, and even this early out, that could be a handicap. Governors are still the best place to look.

    Parent

    Don't know enough about Martin O'Malley (none / 0) (#48)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:10:53 PM EST
    to comment. Neither Andrew Cuomo or Brian Sweitzer would get my vote based on the world as it is today.

    If Warren maintained her current positions and changed her mind about running, she would be a definite "yes" vote and Gillibrand a possible maybe.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    you'd like Gillibrand.

    Parent
    Thanks for the reply (none / 0) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:00:30 PM EST
    When we get closer, I will do the research on where she stands on the issues that mean the most to me. I tend to look at people's records and not just listen to what they say. Some things are negotiable and some really are not.

    Parent
    As a Democratic Representative (none / 0) (#40)
    by KeysDan on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 08:21:30 AM EST
    in a Republican, upstate NY district, Kirsten Gillibrand was on the conservative side on many issues(immigration, gun control), but after becoming senator, she has become much more progressive, including on immigration and gun control.  I think she is a promising addition to the list of contenders, especially if, for some reason, Secretary Clinton does not run for president.

    Parent
    Adapting to circumstances (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by christinep on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:58:25 PM EST
    From what I have seen, both Gov. Schweitzer and Sen. Gillibrand hold promise for different positions in future.  And, both have a decidedly centrist background ... but, seem to have the ability to adapt to the realities of their position.  

    A word about Brian Schweitzer:  He has a lot of the Montana populist in him, a kind of kindred spirit with the 1930s Democrats during the Dust Bowl.  Over the years -- because Colorado is not all that far from Montana and because we had a similar plains type in two-term governor, DNC Chair, and LA schools superintendent all rolled into one Roy Romer -- I paid attention to Schweitzer as he traversed the terrain between hunter/fishermen & environmentalists or Powder River Basin development (read: mining) and traditional landowners.  He could talk with both ... genuinely.  I've seen him and talked with him a few times ... he gives good speeches, dotted with a down-home Montana plain folks (tho remember that a lot of big, big time Hollywood $$$ types have ranches there); and, yet, the Ivy League educated Schweitzer can be one smart, persuasive, savvy conversationalist in the small group setting as well.  

    While Schweitzer, in many ways, has been the new prototype western democratic governor, he has more than a splash of something else.  He exudes a refined charm, openness, and a bit of bravado.  At this stage, when I think of Brian Schweitzer and political positions and western mix, it is easy to imagine him as the VP candidate on a ticket headed by Hillary Clinton as the presidential nominee.

    Parent

    I've been impressed with Schweitzer (none / 0) (#54)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:42:59 PM EST
    for quite a while, despite some areas where he is too conservative for me. He seems like a straight shooter.

    I'm still unclear about the effect the "dark money" allegations had on his decision to not run for the Senate, and whether there was just smoke but no fire to all that.

    Parent

    Seems like I'm the only one (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by MO Blue on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 08:58:33 PM EST
    completely turned off by the fact that he is a very strong advocate for the Keystone Pipeline.

    I think that if it is approved (all indicators are that it will be), it will be an environmental disaster that will negatively impact this country for decades.


    Parent

    No, you're not the only one; support for (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Anne on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 09:28:18 PM EST
    Keystone XL makes a mockery of any "concern" for environmental and ecological issues and is so inconsistent on so many levels with a laundry list of Democratic principles that I can't get past it.

    Parent
    I wasn't aware of his support for Keystone (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by shoephone on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 10:27:19 PM EST
    Believe me, I'm not in favor of that.

    Parent
    Much as I'd like to think otherwise, MO Blue (none / 0) (#60)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 12:03:24 PM EST
    On the longstanding issue of Keystone, I also suspect that intense pressures from all sides will give way eventually to permission to construct the pipeline.  It has been surprising to me, in fact, how long the Administration has been able to hold off that result and how much concession in terms of further studies, locale adjustments, and monitoring changes has been obtained.  I am guessing that the monitoring conditions and other limitations attached to any grant will be extensive ... at least, I hope so.

    As for candidates or potential candidates: I have never seen nor known a "pure" one in my life.  Whether Schweitzer or anyone else aspiring to higher office, my expectation is that there will be areas of disagreement and areas of agreement, but that the areas of agreement far outnumber or surpass the negative attributes.  (Trivia:  Eugene McCarthy opposed the Vietnam War but supported the Long leadership over the Kennedys because of a personal animosity toward the Kennedy family OR Dennis Kucinich opposed entry into a number of unfortunate military endeavors, but did not support women's reproductive choice.  As I'm sure you recall, there are many examples.)

    Parent

    Some "disagreements" have more impact (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MO Blue on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 03:03:29 PM EST
    on the lives of people than others. The extensive monitoring procedures that you "imagine" will be imposed will IMO be the same as those which exist now. IOW either not done at all, contain so many loopholes that they are worse than useless or actual violations ignored until great damage is done. After the damage is done, the company will walk away to count their billions and people affected will have to live (or die) from the fall out of their greed.  

    I have the option to withhold my vote from those who make decisions that have the potential to poison the earth where we live. I personally choose to exercise that option. Actual policy positions mean more to me than how well a person gives a speech or fills campaign chests. YMMV

    Parent

    I understand, MO Blue (4.00 / 1) (#63)
    by christinep on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 05:50:12 PM EST
    We all have to weigh those "must haves" one way or the other.  As one who put a good part of her life (27 years) into direct environmental work at EPA -- a principal part being enforcement of environmental law and development of environmental enforcement policy -- I do understand your concern.  Believe me.  And, even tho the potential disagreement on that particular issue does not lead me to the same conclusion as yours, I fully respect your position.  

    Parent
    I'm stumped, Christine (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 09:33:32 PM EST
    You spent 27 years of your life with the EPA, working for responsible environmental stewardship, and yet...politicians supporting the Keystone XL pipeline isn't a deal-killer for you?

    I can't imagine devoting half my working life to certain policies, and then voting for people who don't support them.

    What policies would be a deal-killer for you in voting for Schweitzer, or any other Dem? Would they be things you've devoted as much of your life to as environmental issues? What is your criteria? As I said upthread, I'm impressed with Schweitzer's (seemingly) no b.s. approach to governing, but when his position on the pipeline was pointed out to me, it made me reconsider. I can't find many more important issues for the country right now than environmental ones.  

    Parent

    What's the difference between (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by shoephone on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 09:38:48 PM EST
    integrity and "purity"? Isn't assigning the "purity" label just another way of claiming that politicians have to compromise their principles in order to get elected, even if it means damaging the country?

    No wonder so many of us are tired of the SOP in party politics.

    Parent

    I would like to see Clinton-Newsom (none / 0) (#10)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:26:05 PM EST
    I think it would be killer!

    Parent
    I guess you are referring to (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    Gavin Newsom. Boy would that combo make some heads explode. Would have to stock up with plenty of popcorn to eat while enjoying the fireworks.


    Parent
    Cuomo and Warner are non-starters for me (none / 0) (#15)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    In fact, Warner is such a repulsive character, I might be compelled to travel the country protesting outside whatever venue he's scheduled to appear. What a loathesome specimen. We need to retire all DLC'ers. And Cuomo would never get my vote either. Valueless power-trippers, both.

    Of the group KeysDan listed, Warren has intimated more than once that she won't seek the job (although she may reconsider over the next two years) so O'Malley is the only one that interests me. But I don't know enough about him. I would want Anne and Zorba to weigh in on him.

    Parent

    Was reading about the Keystone Pipeline (none / 0) (#22)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 05:38:01 PM EST
    on Charlie Pierce's blog. In his article he states that Brian Schweizer is for building the pipeline. Additional research seems to confine that he is a strong advocate for building it. That puts him out of consideration for me.

    Parent
    Too good a line... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by unitron on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 12:28:49 AM EST
    ...from Pierce not to steal:

    "You simply cannot make the case for this monstrosity on the basis of economic stimulus, unless you count the strippers. Are we counting strippers?"

    Parent

    Typos the bain of having fingers with (none / 0) (#29)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:03:49 PM EST
    a mind of their own and not proofreading well enough. The comment should read:

    Additional research seems to confirm that he is a strong advocate for building it.


    Parent
    There's lots of room... (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 01:25:36 PM EST
    on the also-ran train J, in lieu of sitting out.  Same difference I guess, but I always have an hour to kill on election day...why not give somebody not beholden to powerful monied interests some love for the effort.

    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    I think you're confusing whether he should run or whether you would vote for him. I'm guessing you would not be voting for him.

    Why not run? He's done it numerous other times. I just don't see him getting anywhere.

    It's such an exercise in vanity. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:58:08 PM EST
    Really not looking forward to the 2016 campaign, much less the election.

    Do politicians ever just go out with grace, or must they fight to the last breath for a piece of anything that resembles a spotlight?  Will anyone tell Joe it's probably just the reflection off his Ross Geller-level white teeth?

    Parent

    I'm sure no one (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:48:38 PM EST
    in the Obama circle is going to tell him that but the voters have already told him numerous times they are not interested.

    He probably would have been a better candidate than Dukakis back in '88 though.

    Parent

    It's an ego trip (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 02:12:21 PM EST
    but it will end where all his other presidential ego trips have ended. I can appreciate someone who doesn't let one failure get them down, but this will be his third attempt, and he'll be a few days shy of age 74 when the 2016 election is held.

    I continue to hope that a smart, talented Democrat with new ideas and/or approaches will throw his/her hat into the ring. Speaking of hats, I still have uncomfortable memories of Biden donning that stupid Yale baseball cap during the Alito confirmation hearings, "see, we're both old Yalies!" and I'll never forgive him for his treatment of Anita Hill.

    Don't do it Uncle Joe. It won't end well.

    My guess is that (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by KeysDan on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 02:15:15 PM EST
    Joe Biden needs to be thought of as considering a run for the presidency in 2016 so as to remain politically  viable as Vice President until 2016.

     Putting aside, for the moment, the mirror that former Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, could spend time  gazing into, surely, Biden was undermined by the comment in Gates' memoir that Biden was "wrong on nearly every major policy and national security issue for the past 40 years."   Of course, Biden would love the job of president, but he must be realistic enough to know that his fund-raising capabilities alone are likely to be beyond him.

    This is not new news (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by CoralGables on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 04:20:51 PM EST
    Biden has said he's considering it since the topic first popped up. He's done nothing more than keep his options open. But don't expect it to be anything more than talk unless Hillary chooses not to run.

    Mr. Obama, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by lentinel on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:34:22 AM EST
    chose the SOTU to announce that he had tapped Mr. Biden, Joe the family man, to lead an "across-the-board reform of America's training programs to make sure they have one mission: train Americans with the skills employers need, and match them to good jobs."

    Since I can't begin to imagine Joe leading anything, I deduce that O is signaling that he would support Joe in a run in 2016.

    I never thought that there was anything but simmering loathing between O and Hillary, so... Hello Joe.

    Which may not mean much (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:33:05 AM EST
    HRC has her own deep network, and it would show how really strong Obama's support runs.  My guess is that if Obama were backing Biden, Biden would still lose.

    Parent
    I suppose so. (none / 0) (#58)
    by lentinel on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 02:13:43 AM EST
    It seems pathetic to me if the democratic party felt it had to turn to Biden.

    In the meanwhile, it will be most interesting to observe Mr. Biden in action as he leads an "across-the-board reform of America's training programs to make sure they have one mission: train Americans with the skills employers need, and match them to good jobs."

    I'm sure that Biden is energetically setting about reforming training programs as we speak.

    Parent

    I'm trying to imagine Obama... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 01:12:04 PM EST
    ...on the road stumping for Joe. But it's making me queasy.

    He's stumping for the farm bill, which (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    cut food stamps. Surely he could do the same for his VP.

    Parent
    Hence my queasiness (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Dadler on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    I guess he does not consider (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    having no prayer of winning to be a reason not to run. After all, people with even less chance than him have run.

    It is one of those things that seems like a reasonable idea in general, but a really bad one in specific.

    Play in Peoria? (none / 0) (#11)
    by gilligan on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:30:17 PM EST
    But how a crime warrior legacy play in Peoria?  And, for that matter, Hillary has a dozen pieces of baggage which could be cited as reasons not to run.  Perhaps it's time to let Andrew Cuomo take a shot since he has actually run a large state well and managed to cut spending/taxes to boot.  The only thing Hillary has ever run is the state department, and Gates' book makes it clear that it was micromanaged by the white house.

    Wev (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by sj on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 03:56:10 PM EST
    I don't live in Peoria so I figure I can let them take care of themselves. I've always thought that was a ridiculous metric.

    But as for Cuomo, the ony Cuomo I would vote for is probably Mario and that ship has sailed long since.

    Parent

    I happen to be in Peoria at this very moment. (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:59:24 AM EST
    And I can tell you, based on 6 decades of close observation of the politics of this area, that no Democrat will play here. Mark fricken' Warner, a conserva-dem if ever there was one,  could be the nominee, and he would lose in Peoria and the surrounding area.

    Instead of trying to figure out who will appeal to the conservatives, always IMO a fatal mistake by the Dems, the Democrats would be better served by nominating candidates who excite and rouse the passions of the base. You know, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party. All those hippies Obama takes such delight in punching.

    That is a strategy that would keep the Senate in Dem hands and give them a real shot at taking the House.

    I hope I live to see the day the Democratic Party runs a campaign based on Democratic ideas and policies.

    Parent

    Why would anyone care what Gates says? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by shoephone on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    Democratic voters don't give too hoots about what a Republican thinks, especially one who owes his career as a professional spook to the Bushes--and who withdrew his first nomination for CIA director under Reagan, when questions arose about his involvement in Iran-Contra.

    Parent
    Seems to me (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 04:33:38 PM EST
    But how a crime warrior legacy play in Peoria?

    Probably pretty well.

    Parent

    I think that (none / 0) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    ship has sailed. People in Peoria are as tired of having everybody put in jail.

    Parent
    I wish that was true. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:13:26 PM EST
    Too, too many places have made being homeless or not being financially able to pay small fines a criminal offense.

    One County Spent Over $5 Million Jailing Homeless People Instead Of Giving Them Homes

    Still Locking People Up for Being Poor? Really?! It's 2014.

    In instance profiled in this article occurred in your state of GA.

    How Private Companies Are Profiting From Threats To Jail The Poor

    In one Georgia instance documented in an extensive new Human Rights Watch report, a man who stole a $2 can of beer ended up in jail for failure to pay a $200 fine that ballooned into more than $1,000 under the supervision of a private probation firm. Thomas Barrett's entire income - which included selling his own blood plasma - was less than the monthly fee imposed by the private probation firm.



    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Feb 07, 2014 at 07:56:31 PM EST
    this shows where the government is out of sync with the voters. Now granted GA is behind the times in a lot of things and I know that people are put in jail here for NOTHING. I have a family memmber that was put in jail for writing a $60.00 check on a closed account. I mean she knew what she was doing was wrong but d*mn that cost everybody--tax payers included.

    It's not just poor people that being put in jail these days though poor people certainly probably get put in there more.

    Parent

    People in Peoria (none / 0) (#43)
    by jbindc on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 11:41:08 AM EST
    just like everywhere else, are also sick of criminals getting away with all kinds of crap - from Wall Street Bankers down to the lowly street thugs.

    Parent
    Do you (none / 0) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:23:29 PM EST
    really think that the taxpayers think putting someone in jail for writing a $60 bad check and costing the tax payers hundreds for that check? Do you think they think it's a good idea to put people with a small amount of pot in jail costing the tax payers thousands upon thousands. The problem is that people are put in jail for nothing costing everybody a ton of money.

    Parent
    No, but (none / 0) (#59)
    by jbindc on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 09:48:41 AM EST
    How many people go to jail for writing a $60 bad check (very, very few - and my guess is, not on a first or only offense).

    What I think the people of Peoria are looking at, is the fact that violent crime in their city is higher than the US average pretty much across the board, and has been since 1999.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 09, 2014 at 12:14:33 PM EST
    it was a first offense that landed someone in jail for a $60 check here in GA. Privatized prisons create an incentive to put people in jail. They put a ton of people in jail for not paying child support which then makes the problem worse.

    Parent
    So, one person? (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 07:58:59 AM EST
    Gotta link to that? I can't seem to find any story about someone in Georgia going to jail on a first offense for writing a $60 bad check.

    Putting people in jail for not paying child support is a completely different matter than bouncing a check.

    Parent

    You are (none / 0) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:01:22 PM EST
    not going to find a news story on it. This kind of stuff is not newsworthy. It happened to a family member. She wrote a check on a closed bank account for $60 and was put in jail for it. This happens all the time to people. A friend runs a homeless mission and they get put in jail a lot too.

    The thing about putting people in jail for child support is at least at lot of the ones here in GA is that they do not have a job. What purpose does it do to put someone in jail for not paying child support who does not have a job. I'm not talking about people who are unwilling to pay child support. I'm talking about people who are UNABLE to pay child support.

    Parent

    It's never made any sense to me at (none / 0) (#67)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 09:36:00 AM EST
    all to put someone in jail for not paying child support: it's pretty hard to earn a living from jail, and guarantees that no child support will be forthcoming.  

    That being said, I don't think most people think too much about the problems in the justice system, or how much it costs to run it, or whether the taxpayers' money is being spent wisely.  Whether it's Peoria or Pittsburgh or East BumFk, most people aren't thinking about it until they or someone they know has an encounter with law enforcement and/or the courts that they find unfair.  

    But they do want to feel safe; they want to feel safe in their homes, and on the streets going about their daily lives.  They want justice when they are wronged - and they get sick of the system not being able to enforce things like child support, and that frustration leads them to want that SOB jailed even if he can't make any money there because they just want him to be punished for making his children suffer.  The courts can't get the guy a job, so they do the only thing they can do that responds in some way to the person making the complaint: they throw his butt in jail.

    For most crimes, there are also victims.  Those victims want the 3-times-convicted-of-DWI driver off the streets.  They want the 3-times-convicted-of-domestic-abuse man off the streets.  I'm sure on some level they get the whole innocent-until-proved-guilty thing, but when it's happening to you, when the drunk driver hits your car, when it's your face and your ribs and your jaw that got broken by your husband/boyfriend - when you know who did it and it happened to you, you want someone to be held accountable.

    Now, I don't know why, all of a sudden, you've taken on this role of being the one who knows everything about what the voters are thinking and feeling, but this insistence on your part that no one else's opinion matters, or no one else knows what they're talking about, is getting old.  

    Parent

    The thing (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    is now so many people who used to have no contact with the police or the prison system are now having that contact. I have another friend whose daughter is bipolar and is has been put in jail for that because frankly in GA there is no mental health system. They just throw everybody in jail here in GA no matter what they do. I just happen to think that people actually having contact with the system is changing a lot of minds. It used to be that not too many people had contact with the "system" but now it's so excessively punitive that more and more people are seeing it.

    Parent
    It's a complex and flawed (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    system that isn't going to be easily fixed.  We don't handle mental health issues well, there are still way too many people out of work, the police departments have become more militarized and our rights are being steadily eroded.

    And I think all of those things are going to get worse, not better.  People who are poor, out of work and/or mentally ill are being treated with less humanity all the time - if you fall into one of these groups, the increasingly prevalent attitude is that it's because something you did or didn't do landed you there and you deserve whatever indignities or hardships you're facing.  And you don't deserve any help.

    It's really too depressing to keep writing about.


    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    i hope you are wrong about it getting worse but sometimes things do get worse before they get better.

    Yeah, I find that a lot of people don't believe that poor people or Hispanic people or you name the category are worthy of basic human dignity.

    Parent

    It doesn't make sense (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 09:56:42 AM EST
    in one respect, to put people in jail who don't pay child support.  On the other hand, what are you going to do - fine them?  If they aren't going to pay for their kids, then what makes you think they'll pay a fine?  And then what's the answer?  Let them go along their merry way with no consequence?

    That being said, I don't think most people think too much about the problems in the justice system, or how much it costs to run it, or whether the taxpayers' money is being spent wisely.  Whether it's Peoria or Pittsburgh or East BumFk, most people aren't thinking about it until they or someone they know has an encounter with law enforcement and/or the courts that they find unfair.  

     But they do want to feel safe; they want to feel safe in their homes, and on the streets going about their daily lives.  They want justice when they are wronged - and they get sick of the system not being able to enforce things like child support, and that frustration leads them to want that SOB jailed even if he can't make any money there because they just want him to be punished for making his children suffer.  The courts can't get the guy a job, so they do the only thing they can do that responds in some way to the person making the complaint: they throw his butt in jail.

    Yep.  Which is why when one is called "law & order type" or "crime warrior" (like those are bad things), it just makes me laugh. Really?  Doesn't everybody (except criminals, I guess) want to feel safe in their homes, in their neighborhoods, in their communities?  Doesn't everyone want criminals to pay for their criminal acts?  

    No, many people don't want to lock people up for marijuana possession (and chances are very good that, someone isn't going to get locked up for possessing a joint anyways - but that's a great / fake argument that drug warriors like to keep repeating), but people certainly want the unsolved crimes to be solved and people (voters) in communities all over the country get outraged when things like budget cuts reduce or eliminate police.

    So, I'm not sure who all these voters are that supposedly are "sick" of people being locked up.

    Parent

    An arrest = a lock up... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 10:05:42 AM EST
    it might only be for 2 hours, 12 hours, or 48 hours over a weekend for simple marijuana possession...but 5 minutes in bondage is 5 too many for such non-crime.

    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#70)
    by jbindc on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 10:23:10 AM EST
    It IS a crime.

    You may not like that it is a crime, but it IS a crime.

    I was just pointing out that it's a nice myth that "all these people are filling our jails because of marijuana possession", which just isn't true.

    Parent

    But they are filling jails... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 10:38:48 AM EST
    specifically, holding cells prior to arraignment in less civilized states.  Locked up is locked up JB...it's no myth, I wish it was!

    Parent
    We're kind of veering off-course (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Anne on Mon Feb 10, 2014 at 10:58:29 AM EST
    in terms of subject matter, but I do think there is a huge problem of people being warehoused for indefinite periods of time because they can't make bail - so they sit and sit, incarcerated and treated like criminals, without benefit of trial or other disposition, because they are poor and can't post a bond, the public defenders are overworked, the whole system is bogged down and no one's getting "justice."

    In Maryland, it's even worse:

    UNLIKE IN almost every other state, people who are arrested in Maryland do not appear initially before a judge. Instead, they are hauled before a court commissioner, often not even with a lawyer, who decides whether to throw them in jail or release them, with or without setting a bond.

    The process, established to buffer judges against a deluge of arrests in Baltimore, is quick, thanks largely to the absence of lawyers. It is also unconstitutional, according to Maryland's Court of Appeals. In deciding that defendants are entitled to a lawyer if their liberty is at stake, the state's top court has upended Maryland's pretrial criminal procedures. In the process, it may also have opened the door to a better system.

    I know your answer is just not to arrest people in the first place, but in the absence of that ever being the solution, the least - and I do mean the least - we can do is make the system conform to and uphold the basic rights and privileges we're all supposed to be entitled to.

    Parent

    Biden (none / 0) (#36)
    by Mikado Cat on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 03:27:33 AM EST
    might keep up the talk of running on the hopes of cutting a deal to keep some kind of job with whatever person that does run. As much as HRC is the front runner, realistically she might not run or win for any number of unpredictable reasons.

    Seems to me Dems and GOP need to do some serious bench building.

    The GOP (none / 0) (#52)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 07:29:41 PM EST
    has a bench but it's full of clowns with last names like Cruz and Paul.

    Parent
    To be fair to Joe Biden... (none / 0) (#45)
    by mike in dc on Sat Feb 08, 2014 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    ...part of that "Crime Warrior" legacy includes the Violence Against Women Act and the Assault Weapons Ban.  I can see why the rest of that bill is highly objectionable to Jeralyn, but VAWA was breakthrough legislation for protecting battered women.  

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#78)
    by shoephone on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:04:11 AM EST
    SPAM

    But there is no spam (none / 0) (#79)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 11:58:44 AM EST
    Is it even possible to read it without (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    "hearing" some kind of accent attached to it?

    That's the part I find kind of fun (that I find reading spam comments with accents "fun" may mean I have no life).

    Parent

    Although... (none / 0) (#80)
    by CoralGables on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 12:00:03 PM EST
    he didn't forget the spam on all his other comments today.

    Parent
    It's spam, all right (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Tue Feb 11, 2014 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    He must have hit "post" before he inserted his URL.
    I think it is very possibly Thai.
    Well, at least that's new.     ;-)

    Parent