What Will Biden's Role Be?

Hillary will lock him up and throw away the key if she is Sec'y of State. He will have zero impact on anything. On another note, while I did not vote for Obama, he is definitely making good choices with his appointees, especially his new National Security Advisor. Once he read those daily briefings, he grew up quickly. I feel much better about him and wish him the best.

Good ol’ Joe will do what he has done for thirty-five years. Bumble along and periodically have his foot extracted from his mouth.

Valerie - if more people were as objective as you seem to be, the world might be a saner place. Re: Hillary....it will be interesting! I don't think she'll have as much ultimate say in things as perhaps she'd like, as I think Obama's much steelier than people often give him credit for and he's aware of the potential for conflict.

And Biden's far from stupid. His gaffes are well-known and don't seem to detract from his gravitas as a walking encyclopedia and a foreign policy expert. I actually think there's something endearing about them, they're just part of his persona. I also doubt anyone will be walking over him. He certainly does more than 'bumble' along.

Agree about Obama's picks. As a very moderate Republican - so far - I enthusiastically voted for Obama, feeling that the way in which he's used his considerable intelligence throughout his life, his logic and demeanor, would result in a pretty sane administration - or as sane as the global craziness will permit. He's no idealogue, and this was a huge plus. I don't think I ever want to see another ideologue again. I like the idealistic pragmatism that I see.

I'm thinking something akin to one of those blue-vested greeters at Wal*Mart.

Divide the US into three countries

>Considering Biden's foreign policy bona fides (he chaired the
>Senate Foreign Relations Committee) it would be a no-brainer
>to have him weigh-in on international affairs.

Or, considering his judicial bona fides (he chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee), it would be a no-brainer to have him weigh in on judicial nominees.

Or, given his criminal justice bona fides (he wrote the Violence Against Women Act, and sponsored Clinton's bill putting 100,000 more cops on the street), ....

There are lots of things he has the "bona fides" to do.

But whatever he does, Obama has already performed his first "miracle."

He got Joe Biden to shut up.

>Divide the US into three countries

Good one, LV.

But in this country, since the mid-20th century (or around the
time LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act), that's been the GOP's job
(;-). Or into 50 countries, fka "Free and Independent States."
(In the 19th Century it was the opposite, of course.)

dr jay8:10PMNov 26th 2008
"or around the time LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act"
Thanks to the GOP Congress, Dems did not want this Act passed..not too sure they still don't.

Do you remember the song "Send in the Clowns"?? Whenever Obama needs a good laugh, He'll call Ole Joe!!

>Thanks to the GOP Congress, Dems did not want this Act
>passed..not too sure they still don't.

Thanks to some GOP in Congress (notably their Senate leader, Dirksen), not all. Southern Dems didn't want it. Which is why there are hardly any Southern Dems left -- the ones who didn't want it mostly turned Republican, and the people who voted for them even more so. As LBJ predicted at the time, and Nixon exploited in the next election.

dr jay10:21PMNov 26th 2008
"Thanks to some GOP in Congress (notably their Senate leader, Dirksen), not all."
Yup..Not all...82%...Byrd & Gore..Nay

LOL...you guys are lame

it is hard to believe some of you are adults...

>"Thanks to some GOP in Congress (notably their Senate leader,
>Dirksen), not all."
>Yup..Not all...82%...Byrd & Gore..Nay

Umm, Byrd (either one) and Gore were Democrats at the time. (Robert Byrd of WV, the only "northern" Democrat to vote against it in the Senate, is still a Democrat today. Albert A. Gore Sr., of TN, is dead today, but was a Democrat to the day he died, and all of his descendants that I know of still are. Harry Byrd of VA is dead today, but at some point was re-elected to the Senate as an Independent.) And if you're talking about the same Civil Rights Act I am (1964), I'm pretty sure Goldwater was a No.

(Plus your arithmetic is off. If all but two constituted 82%, that would mean there were only 11 total, and there have never been anywhere that few in my lifetime. And hardly ever in the lifetime of the GOP.)

Oh, screw it, here's Wikipedia on the subject. Clearly "Southerners" of both parties were overwhelmingly against,
Northerners of both parties were overwhelmingly for.
(Yes, Virginia, there were Southern Republicans even in 1964. Or if not Virginia, at least Texas.) And given that the "South" as defined here constitutes only 11 states (22% of the Senate), with a much smaller share of the total population than they have today (Thank you, Willis Carrier) so they were even a smaller percentage in the House, the north-south divide means pretty solid majorities in favor in both parties.

So LV is right that it was "almost all" Republicans, but that's only because, well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 hadn't passed yet (nor all that followed), so there hardly *were* any Southern Republicans. And it was a smaller percentage of Democrats than of Republicans, but I'm right that it was "most" Democrats as well, and essentially only Southern Democrats opposed. (And I'm right about Goldwater.)

I could be wrong, but I believe that *strong* Republican support (led by Dirksen -- the leadership was more powerful in those days) was crucial to ending (or maybe preventing) a filibuster by Southern Democrats (and maybe their GOP allies). But clearly once the bill came to a vote, it would have passed both houses even if only a minority of Republicans (and almost all the Northern Democrats) had supported it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_act_of_1964

Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

By party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

By party and region

Note : "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

I wrote:

>So LV is right that it was "almost all" Republicans, but
>that's only because, well, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
>hadn't passed yet (nor all that followed), so there hardly
>*were* any Southern Republicans. And it was a smaller
>percentage of Democrats than of Republicans, but I'm right
>that it was "most" Democrats as well, and essentially only
>Southern Democrats opposed. (And I'm right about Goldwater.)

More to the point (at least my original point), the region(s) that form the majority of the Republican party *today*, and the politicians from those regions (and others in the GOP today), are precisely the ones that opposed the Civil Rights Act, and more generally favored "States' rights," and other policies and/or "principles" that tend to divide the country along regional, racial, religious, or economic lines. And the GOP has gained markedly in strength and representation precisely by exploiting such divisions. At least at the beginning, in Nixon's day, they were sort of honest about it, proudly proclaiming a "Southern strategy" and even writing books about it. (K. Phillips, "The Emerging Republican Majority," 1969.) Nowadays (at least until 2006 or this year) they have the gall to call their narrow, divisive ideology "the real America." (I don't know whether to laugh or scream when I hear such Republicans oppose Affirmative Action on the grounds that it's "discriminatory" and "violates the spirit" of the '60s Civil Rights Acts. Every single one of them would have voted against those Acts if they had been there.)

And not coincidentally, the kind of Republicans who did support the Civil Rights Acts couldn't get the GOP nomination for dogcatcher in most of the country today. And in the places where they can (the Northeast), they've been losing seats to Democrats since the '80s almost as fast as they gained them in the South in the '70s. I don't think we're quite there yet, but pretty soon I could probably pick 11 northeastern states that have as few Republicans in Congress (or as small a proportion of GOP among those states' House members) as the 11 ex-confederate states did in 1964. (I'm too tired and/or lazy to do the current count, but the 11 states would presumably be the 6 in New England (which pretty much *are* already there) plus NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD.)

The bottom line is, whatever the party breakdown was in 1964, that's not who the parties are today. And the reason they're not is a deliberate GOP strategy, which started taking effect with the first Congressional election following the passage of the Civil Rights Acts. And which led directly to Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes, at least three of whom I consider to have been among the four worst Presidents in my lifetime. (I might consider Carter to have been slightly worse than Bush 41, if only because his ineptitude enabled Reagan. OTOH if I start going down that road, I might have to include LBJ as bad (which I definitely don't) because his *greatness* on Civil Rights, plus his wrongheadedness on Vietnam, enabled Nixon.)

President if president-elect Obama successfully
frustrated the Constitution to win the
election.
Happy Thanksgiving
Phyllis Kunz

Biden will be given only occassional errands to do.
After all he is like the Master Electrician,the Master Pipefitter, the Master Craftsman, he has the "ticket" while a younger, inexperienced "apprentice" is permitted to perform the actual work. Biden's only purpose was to allow the "appentice" to get a job.

I HOPE AND PRAY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PULLS OUR TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ AS PROMISED SENCE THE BUSHIE BABIES JUST MADE A JOKE OF OUR MILITARY LEADERS AND SERVICE MEN AND WOMEN WHEN HE PUT THEM UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE IRAQI IDIOTS. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ADMINISTRATION GOING TO DO NEXT. SEARCH WARRENT TO SEARCH AN IRAQI HOME FOR THE EMENY HELL THE LOCAL POLICE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS. BUSH IS ANOTHER HITLER
AND IS BEING CONTROLLED BY A GOVERNMENT WORST THAN HITLER, ISRAEL..........................