Earlier this week, former Vice President Joe Biden admitted that his "biggest regret in life" was not currently occupying the White House...the statement left us wondering whether he also regrets growing old, balding and not owning 75 Lambo"s...perhaps we"ll never know for sure.
But, of all of Joe"s "regrets" in life, perhaps his missed opportunity at occupying the Oval Office is one that he may seek to rectify in the near future. As Politico reports, after months/years of waffling on the topic, Joe Biden has apparently "shifted in favor" of a new Presidential bid in 2020.
Joe Biden thinks it’s critical that Donald Trump not get a second term — and though it’s early, he doesn’t yet see anyone else who could stop that from happening.
So, he"s been telling people privately, that might mean he’ll just have to run himself.
After beginning the year both teasing a 2020 bid and ruling one out — sometimes on the same day — Biden in recent months has shifted unmistakably in favor of running, say multiple people who’ve been in touch with the former vice president and his team.
For the first time in what would be the sixth presidential campaign that he’s either seriously flirted with or launched, Biden sees an argument for a candidacy for which he is the only answer: An elder statesman who can help repair the damage and divisions in the country and around the world, unite the competing wings of the Democratic Party, and appeal to traditional Democratic voters who fled last year for Trump.
Of course, in typical fashion for the political world, other Politico sources in the Biden realm denied rumors of a 2020 run, saying instead that he is "laser-focused on his book tour."
Next week, Biden will launch a tour for his new book, “Promise Me, Dad,” a memoir of his relationship with his son Beau, whose death in May 2015 triggered both the last-minute exploration by Biden of a 2016 run and the emotional devastation that ultimately caused him to pull the plug.
People familiar with the planning describe the tour as deliberately structured to avoid politics. Biden"s staff is pushing off nearly every request to appear at fundraisers or other political events while he’s traveling for it.
But there’s another, more subtle purpose, some acknowledge: to test Biden’s emotional stamina, should he decide to throw himself fully into a presidential run.
“Right now, he’s pretty laser-focused on the book tour. Get through that and go see what we can do in ‘18, and see where things are then,” said a person in touch with Biden’s advisers, who have stayed in close communication since leaving their government jobs in January.
Meanwhile, in the end, the decision to run may not be left to Biden with many Democrats wary about pegging the future of the party on a candidate who will be 77 by 2020, the oldest potential candidate in the field other than Bernie Sanders. Though a clutch player in both Obama campaigns, he has proved to be bad at running for president himself, and would likely be facing a raucous and crowded primary full of candidates determined not to step aside and repeat the Hillary Clinton coronation.
Oh well, one can only hope for a little more of this...
Sometimes it is possible to read or view something that completely changes the way one looks at things. I had that experience last week when I read an article at Lobelog entitled “A Plea for Common Sense on Missile Defense,” written by Joe Cirincione, a former staffer on the House Armed Services Committee who now heads the Ploughshares Fund, which is a Washington DC based global foundation that seeks to stop the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
The article debunks much of the narrative being put out by the White House and Pentagon regarding missile defense. To be sure, it is perfectly reasonable to mistrust anything that comes out of the federal government justifying war given its track record going back to the War of 1812. And the belligerent posture of the United States towards Iran and North Korea can well be condemned based on its own merits, threatening war where there are either no real interests at stake or where a diplomatic solution has for various reasons been eschewed.
But the real reason why the White House gets away with saber rattling is historical, that the continental United States has not experienced the consequences of war since Pancho Villa invaded in 1916. This is a reality that administration after administration has exploited to do what they want when dealing with foreign nations: whatever happens “over there” will stay “over there.”
Americans consequently do not know war except as something that happens elsewhere and to foreigners, requiring only that the U.S. step in on occasion and bail things out, or screw things up depending on one’s point of view. This is why hawks like John McCain, while receiving a “Liberty” award from Joe Biden, can, with a straight face, get away with denouncing those Americans who have become tired of playing at being the world’s policeman. He describes them as fearful of “the world we have organized and led for three-quarters of a century, [abandoning] the ideals we have advanced around the globe, [refusing] the obligations of international leadership and our duty to remain ‘the last best hope of earth’ for the sake of some half-baked, spurious nationalism.”
McCain’s completely fatuous account of recent world history befits a Navy pilot who was adept at crashing his planes and almost sank his own aircraft carrier. He also made propaganda radio broadcasts for the North Vietnamese after he was captured. The McCain globalist-American Exceptionalism narrative is also, unfortunately, echoed by the media. The steady ingestion of lies and half-truths is why the public puts up with unending demands for increased defense spending, accepting that the world outside is a dangerous place that must be kept in line by force majeure. Yes, we are the good guys.
But underlying the citizenry’s willingness to accept that the military establishment should encircle the globe with foreign bases to keep the world “safe” is the assumption that the 48 States are invulnerable, isolated by broad oceans and friendly nations to the north and south. And protected from far distant threats by technology, interceptor systems developed and maintained at enormous expense to intercept and shoot down incoming ballistic missiles launched by enemies overseas.
In a recent speech, relating to the North Korean threat, President Donald Trump boasted that the United States anti-missile defenses are 97% effective, meaning that they can intercept and destroy incoming projectiles 97 times out of a 100. Trump was seeking to assure the public that whatever happens over in Korea, it cannot have an undesirable outcome over here in the continental United States nor, apparently, in Hawaii, Alaska and overseas possessions like Guam, all of which are shielded under the anti-missile defense umbrella. Trump was undoubtedly referring to, even if he was ignorant of many of the specifics, the Ground Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) installations in Alaska and Hawaii, which are part of the existing $330 billion missile defense system.
It is certainly comforting to learn that the United States cannot be physically attacked with either nuclear or conventional weapons no matter what our government does overseas, but is it true? What if the countermeasures were somewhat closer to 0% effective? Would that change the thinking about going to war in Korea? Or about confronting Russia in Eastern Europe? And for those who think that a nuclear exchange is unthinkable it would be wise to consider the recent comments by Jack Keane of the aptly named Institute for the Study of War, a leading neoconservative former general who reportedly has the ear of the White House and reflects its thinking on the matter. Keane is not hesitant to employ the military option against Pyongyang and he describes a likely trigger for a U.S. attack to take out its nuclear facilities or remove “leadership targets” as the setting up of a ballistic missile in North Korea with a nuclear warhead mounted on top “aimed at America.” Some observers believe that North Korea is close to having the ability to reduce the size of its nukes to make that possible and, if Keane is to be believed, it would be considered an “act of war” which would trigger an immediate attack by Washington. And a counter attack by Pyongyang.
The claim of 97% reliability for the U.S.’s anti-missile defenses is being challenged by Cirincione and others, who argue that the United States can only “shoot down some…missiles some of the time.” They make a number of arguments that are quite convincing, even to a layman who has no understanding of the physics involved. I will try to keep it simple.
First of all, an anti-missile interceptor must hit its target head on or nearly so and it must either actually strike the target or explode its own warhead at a close enough distance to be effective. Both objectives are difficult to achieve. An Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) travels at 5,000 meters per second. By way of comparison a bullet fired from a rifle travels at about one fifth that speed. Imagine two men with rifles standing a mile apart and firing their weapons in an attempt to have the bullets meet head on. Multiply the speed by five if one is referring to missiles, not bullets. Even using the finest radars and sensors as well as the most advanced guidance technologies, the variables involved make it much more likely that there will be a miss than a hit. Cirincione observes that “…the only way to hit a bullet is if the bullet cooperates.”
Second, the tests carried out by the Pentagon to determine reliability are essentially fraudulent. Contrary to the Donald Trump comment, the 97% accuracy is an extrapolation based on firing four anti-missile missiles at a target to make up for the fact that in the rigged tests a single interceptor has proven to be closer to only 56% accurate, and that under ideal conditions. This statistic is based on the actual tests performed since 1999 in which interceptors were able to shoot down 10 of 18 targets. The conclusion that four would result in 97% derives from the assumption that multiple interceptors increases the accuracy but most engineers would argue that if one missile cannot hit the target for any number of technical shortcomings it is equally likely that all four will miss for the same reason.
The tests themselves are carefully scripted to guarantee success. They take place in daylight, preferably at dusk to ensure maximum visibility, under good weather conditions, and without any attempt made by the approaching missile to confuse the interceptor through the use of electronic countermeasures or through the ejection of chaff or jammers, which would certainly be deployed. The targets in tests have sometimes been heated to make them easier to find and some have had transponders attached to make them almost impossible to miss. As a result, the missile interceptor system has never been tested under realistic battlefield conditions.
Even the federal government watchdog agencies have concluded that the missile interception system seldom performs. The Government Accountability Office concluded that flaws in the technology, which it describes as “failure modes,” mean that America has an “interceptor fleet that may not work as intended, prompting one Californian congressman John Garamendi to observe that “I think the answer is absolutely clear. It will not work. Nevertheless, the momentum of the fear…of the investments…[of] the momentum of the industry, it carries forward.”
The Operational Test and Evaluation Office of the Department of Defense has also been skeptical, reporting that the GMD in Alaska and Hawaii has only “…a limited capability to defend the U.S. Homeland from small numbers of simple intermediate range or intercontinental ballistic missile threats launched from North Korea…the reliability and availability of the operational [interceptors] are low.”
The dangerous overconfidence being demonstrated by the White House over the ability to intercept a North Korean missile attack might indeed be in some part a bluff, designed to convince Pyongyang that it if initiates a shooting war it will be destroyed while the U.S. remains untouched. But somehow, with a president who doesn’t do subtle very well, I would doubt that to be the case. And the North Koreans, able to build a nuclear weapon and an ICBM, would surely understand the flaws in missile defense as well as anyone.
But the real danger is that it is the American people that is being fooled by the Administration. War is thinkable, even nuclear war, if one cannot be touched by it, a truism that has enabled the sixteen-year- long and counting “global war on terror.” If that is the message being sent by the White House, it would encourage further reckless adventurism on the part of the national security state. Far better to take the North Korean threat seriously and admit that a west coast city like Seattle could well become the target of a successful nuclear weapon attack.
That would demonstrate that war has real life consequences and the unfamiliar dose of honesty would perhaps result in a public demand to seriously negotiate with Pyongyang instead of hurling threats in speeches at the United Nations and on Capitol Hill.
Some political figures truly embody the classic role of the divider; their purpose seems to be to agitate and provoke, to instigate conflict rather than mediate peace. Al Sharpton and Nancy Pelosi come to mind. Let"s not forget John McCain or Lindsay Graham. Barack Obama was known as the "great divider" for much of his presidency. While many leftists would argue that Donald Trump is the "most divisive" president in generations, I think the mainstream media has proven far more provoking than he has. In the case of Charlottesville, we see a whole host of individuals and institutions seeking to promulgate continued social tensions well beyond anything Trump has done. One of these individuals is Joe Biden.
In a short essay for The Atlantic, Joe Biden was quick to capitalize on the death of a protester in Charlottesville at the hands of an apparent white nationalist, spewing forth a host of cliches on "dark forces" creeping out from the hidden corners of America to smother the light and happiness of the silent Kumbaya majority like some kind of J.R.R. Tolkien novel.
This narrative is nothing new. It is the narrative that was promoted throughout the 2016 presidential election cycle as well as the Brexit debate in the U.K. - the notion that dangerous and "ignorant" portions of the citizenry in western society (labeled "populists") are quietly organizing for a last stand against the "inevitable evolution" of progressive multiculturalism and globalism. They are presented as the throwbacks, the cave people, the Cro-Magnons, the people who refuse to get with the times and embrace the social justice revolution. They are, according to gatekeepers like Biden, in the way.
While a host of names and labels are used to define this group of malcontents preventing society from achieving full-blown Utopia, we all know who establishment snake oil peddlers are really referring to: conservatives.
The racism subplot to this scripted conflict has always been present. When the vote on the U.K. exit from the European Union proved successful, the automatic accusation in the media was that this was driven by "hidden racism," along with the consistent idea that older generations were trying to live off the backs of younger generations while interfering with "natural" shifts in cultural consciousness. These claims were greatly amplified during the rise of the Trump administration.
I have to say, these assertions are fascinating to me. The amount of propaganda and projection involved is truly staggering.
Biden"s hope along with other establishment con-men, I believe, is that he can continue to simplify the narrative down to a series of false associations. White nationalists were present at Charlottesville? Indeed. White nationalists were standing in defense of the confederate statue issue? Yes. White nationalists faced off against Antifa counter-protesters? Certainly. A white nationalist drove his car into a group of counter-protesters and killed one of them? It would seem so, though I still think the man deserves a fair trial before being convicted in the media. But here is where Biden and his ilk deliberately go off the rails in order to incite wider tensions...
At this point, the narrative moves from facts to wild assumptions and misconceptions. White nationalists were present in Charlottesville, but does this mean everyone (or even most people) in Charlottesville protesting in defense against the removal of confederate statues was a racist? No. Does this mean that people who support the existence of confederate statues are automatically racists? No. Does this mean that anyone that stands in opposition to groups like Antifa is a racist or a fascist? No. Just because one man acted violently in response to Antifa and other leftists groups, does this mean that Antifa represents the "good guys" in Biden"s little screenplay? No.
But this is the story we are being sold. Not just by Biden, but by many other political interests.
I would specifically reference a recent panel of Trump supporters by CNN, during which the "journalist" was dismayed to discover that none of the people involved was willing to play along with the message that Donald Trump"s response to Charlottesville was anything other than logical.
I want readers to take note of a specific assertion made by CNN, as well as Biden, here - the assertion that it is the job of leftist groups like Antifa to "fight" or even destroy "hate groups" or "fascist groups." CNN outright compares Charlottesville to World War II, claiming that because the allies were justified in going to war with Nazis back then, that Antifa is justified in going to war with "Nazis" today. But again, when you consider the reality that Antifa and similar groups associate all conservatives with fascism, this narrative opens the door to a level of intolerance and violence that is unacceptable and also misplaced.
Beyond that, it seems to me that CNN, Biden and others are happily supporting the false assumption that "hate speech" is not protected speech in America. I don"t personally care for the white nationalist platform, being that skin color and genetic background is ultimately irrelevant, and as I noted in my last article, some of these groups end up being led by government paid provocateurs. But these groups still have the Constitutional right to protest grievances in public spaces. It does not matter how distasteful one person or another finds them to be.
Laughably, Biden spends the majority of his diatribe in The Atlantic admonishing the very existence of these groups as if they are a threat to the constitution. Stating:
"The giant forward steps we have taken in recent years on civil liberties and civil rights and human rights are being met by a ferocious pushback from the oldest and darkest forces in America. Are we really surprised they rose up? Are we really surprised they lashed back? Did we really think they would be extinguished with a whimper rather than a fight?
...Today we have an American president who has publicly proclaimed a moral equivalency between neo-Nazis and Klansmen and those who would oppose their venom and hate.
We have an American president who has emboldened white supremacists with messages of comfort and support
....This is a moment for this nation to declare what the president can"t with any clarity, consistency or conviction: There is no place for these hate groups in America. Hatred of blacks, Jews, immigrants - all who are seen as "the other" - won"t be accepted or tolerated or given safe harbor anywhere in this nation."
Biden has the audacity to concoct this fallacy and then associate it with the "defense of the constitution" at the end of the article. I guess the "medal of freedom" he received as a surprise gift from Barack Obama was just a meaningless trinket after all.
I don"t know that anyone claimed a "moral equivalency" between racists and people opposed to racism. That is not what the confederate statue issue is about anyway. What I do know, though, is that under the law every group present at Charlottesville had a Constitutional right to be there, regardless of how Biden or others view their "morals."
I would point out that many people, myself included, actually find the communistic fanaticism of Antifa and other social justice groups to be a much greater threat to the freedom and stability of our nation than anything white nationalist groups promote. But many conservatives, myself included, still defend Antifa"s right to free speech in public places as long as they do not interfere in the free speech rights of others. This is something leftist groups are not willing to do. These groups should be thanking their lucky stars for conservatives and conservative principles, otherwise they might have been stomped out of existence a long time ago. It is conservative thought that defends the rights of any group or individual, acting in accordance with the law, to speak freely in public forums.
It is conservative thought that defends the speech of Antifa. It is conservative thought that defends the existence of confederate statues. And yes, it is conservative thought that defends the speech of white nationalists and many others. This does not mean we necessarily agree with any particular group"s position. The nature of the speech is irrelevant. In this kind of open social environment, ideas can do battle, rather than people. When one group begins to assert preeminence and says the speech of others is now unprotected, the door is opened wide to battles between people, rather than ideas.
If a person does not agree with certain views, they can always go back home, or back to their own private websites and forums. But, as soon as they enter the public sphere, they are not entitled to insulation from the ideas of other people.
What Biden and others are championing is at bottom the ideology of "futurism," a movement launched in Europe and Russia in the early 20th Century driven by violent change or extermination of traditional principles. Futurism is often credited as being a precursor to both fascist and Bolshevist political movements (as well as globalism), and its core mantra is that all "new" ideas and systems must take precedence over old ideas and systems. New generations must advance the dominance of their ideologies over older generations. Heritage must die out. Traditions must be abandoned. Progress must be pursued.
The problem is, there are very few "new" ideas in the world. In cultural terms, society is cyclical. The same ideas come and go over the centuries; rehashed and rebranded, but certainly not new. What Antifa represents is classic communism and cultural Marxism. These are old ideals. The destruction of a nation"s history and heritage in the name of expedient political progress and "social justice" is a classic strategy turned into a science by the likes of Lenin and Mao. And this strategy is merely an extension of one of the oldest ideas ever — collectivist tyranny.
If we are to be honest here, the conservative philosophy of individual freedom and Constitutional liberty as a foundation of political life is the newest of ideas to be adopted by any culture in human history.
When we examine the mindset of the average American, there is definitely a sizable division. But, one thing the vast majority of us agree on is that government power is not to be trusted. Only 20% of Americans today believe the government will "do what is right" most of the time. The largest ideological group in the US according to recent polls continues to be conservatives. Conservative principles of limited government and individual liberty are the bedrock upon which America was founded. While many Democrats (and some Republicans) will insist upon larger government as the solution to all our societal ills, this is predicated on the notion that THEY are in control of that government. Place a host of Republicans in seats of power in Washington and the liberals become just as distrustful of the establishment as any hardcore libertarian (aka - true conservative).
You see, the fact is that most people are really conservative at heart until they think they have the reins of government in their hands. What Biden and other establishment elites want is to use government power as a temptation; a prize that will corrupt anyone that attains it and alienate anyone that doesn"t. In the case of his Atlantic article, Biden is luring leftists into stupidity and ruin. Biden WANTS domestic strife and conflict. He wants the left to believe they are fighting a righteous fight when they on the wrong side of history not to mention nothing more than cannon fodder. And they think he is actually on their side...
Biden claims that today we are in a battle "for America"s soul," but the reality is that establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ are seeking to suffocate the soul of our nation so that they can build their own vision on top of the ashes. This is what futurists do. This is what communists and fascists do. This is what globalists do. America has survived as long as it has because some ideas never become outdated. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution itself are merely the legal embodiment of the eternal principles of natural law and individual liberty. What is new is the idea that these principles must be protected by government, that they actually RESTRICT government, and that, in fact, the only job government should really be concerned with is to ensure the continuation of these restrictions on leadership and these freedoms for citizens.
This is conservative. This is the soul of America. You cannot call for the exact opposite and still claim you are a champion of America"s soul.
After declaring to a bunch of SALT Conference attendees last month that Hillary “was never a great candidate,” former Vice President Joe Biden criticized the Democratic Party"s campaign strategy for winning over working class voters, saying that too many were distracted by the Trump campaign"s negativity, the Hill reported.
“Because of the negative campaign that [President Donald] Trump ran, how much did we hear about that guy making 50,000 bucks on an assembly line, [and] the woman — his wife — making $28,000 as a hostess?" Biden asked.
"They have $78,000, two kids, [are] living in a metropolitan area, and they can hardly make it," Biden added. "When was the last time you heard us talk about those people?"
Biden, who was stumping for New Jersey gubernatorial candidate and former Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy, sounded like his old campaign-trail self, stoking speculation of another run in 2020.
When asked at SALT if he would run again for the presidency, Biden said “I may very well do it,” but added that he couldn’t commit to another run right then.
As The Hill reports, some Democrats see Biden as the best candidate to try and win back some of the working class white voters lost to Trump. Biden maintains that he hasn’t ruled out another run for the presidency.
Last week at the SALT conference in Las Vegas, Joe Biden sent some mixed messages about a potential 2020 presidential run. First, he took a shot at Hillary saying she "was never a great candidate" though he followed that up by adding that she "would have been a really good president"...which makes perfectly good sense. Then Biden went on to talk about how he has no intentions of running in 2020 just before confirming that he "may very well do it."
Of course, with politicians you can generally learn more about their intentions through their actions rather than their rhetoric. And Biden"s intense speaking schedule seems to reflect that of a candidate that has presidential ambitions. Per The Hill:
Still, Biden’s busy recent schedule of events and appearances suggests he hasn’t entirely ruled out another bid.
Biden has attended a hedge fund conference in Las Vegas and a fundraiser for New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D). His jam-packed calendar also includes upcoming speeches at the Florida Democratic Party and at a few college commencements. Biden will also receive an award at the Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) LGBT Gala next month.
But the appearance that drew the loudest buzz was Biden’s speech last month at a state party dinner in New Hampshire — a critical early state in the presidential primary circuit. During his speech, Biden sought to tamp down the 2020 rumors.
"When I got asked to speak, I knew it was going to cause speculation," Biden said to applause, only to add, "Guys, I"m not running.”
If successful, Biden would be 78 by the time he took office making him, by far, the oldest president in history.
A recent poll from Public Policy Polling found Biden as the leading Democratic contender in a hypothetical matchup against Trump with a head-to-head lead of 14 points, 54% to 40%. Of course, we"ve seen this story playout before with pollsters persistently underestimating Trump"s support through 2016.
And while those numbers may seem comforting, even close Democratic strategists don"t think Biden will run in 2020.
“I don’t have any idea what he’s going to do other than what he says publicly, which is he’s not inclined to do it at this point. I don’t think he knows what he’s going to do honestly,” said Steve Schale, a former Obama campaign aide in Florida who worked on the Draft Biden movement in 2016. He noted that he hasn’t spoken to Biden since Christmas.
“The idea that Joe Biden would continue to do what he’s done for 40 years … shouldn"t come to anybody’s surprise, nor do I think anybody should read into it that he’s definitely made a decision. He’s keeping his word that he was going to remain active in the public space and work on the issues he cares about.”
“This is who he is, this is what he’s done his whole life,” Schale said. “I think you’re going to see Joe Biden remain a pretty prominent fixture in American politics.”
"He has a very valuable role to play, but I don’t think he’s in the same league with the Sanders and Warrens of the world,” said Democratic strategist Brad Bannon. “They have bigger microphones and platforms to speak from.”
That said, one Democratic strategist had the guts to point out the real reason that Biden will likely never be the Democratic candidate for president: “I think Democrats are going to want a new face, somebody fresh"....which can be loosely translated as "he"s too white and too old."
Is Joe Biden an "agent of Putin"? Given his not-unusual foot-in-mouth-frankness at an eent Thursday night, one might think The Democrats will be calling for a probe of his connections to Russia soon...
As CNN reports, former Vice President Joe Biden on Thursday indirectly knocked Hillary Clinton"s failed 2016 campaign at a Thursday event, suggesting that the former secretary of state failed to talk to middle-class voters.
"What happened was that this was the first campaign that I can recall where my party did not talk about what it always stood for -- and that was how to maintain a burgeoning middle class," Biden said during an appearance at the University of Pennsylvania.
"You didn"t hear a single solitary sentence in the last campaign about that guy working on the assembly line making $60,000 bucks a year and a wife making $32,000 as a hostess in restaurant."
"And they are making $90,000 and they have two kids and they can"t make it and they are scared, they are frightened."
Despite calling half the nation "deplorable" and beyond help, Clinton did attempt to speak to working class voters on the campaign trail, including through multiple bus trips through Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia. But the overarching message of her campaign, especially at the end, (and The Democrats since), was more often anti-Donald Trump than policy messaging toward these voters.
