Joe Biden Corey Booker "Boy" Controversy

1. 89

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   Joe Biden is being attacked for comments, (that were relative to a segregationist Senator),  that included the word "boy."
   
   Here is a brief summary:
   
   "I know the new New Left tells me that I’m ― this is old-fashioned,” Biden, who was elected to the Senate in 1973, said at the event, per a pool report. He then went on to note how Eastland used to call him “son” rather than “boy” and referred to Talmadge as “one of the meanest guys I ever knew” to emphasize how he worked with them despite their differences.
   
   “Well guess what? At least there was some civility,” Biden continued. “We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today, you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore.”
   
   Booker, also a 2020 candidate, issued a statement shortly after the event, lambasting Biden’s recollection of segregationists to make a point and calling him “wrong for using his relationships with Eastland and Talmadge as examples of how to bring our country together.”
   
   “You don’t joke about calling black men ‘boys.’ Men like James O. Eastland used words like that, and the racist policies that accompanied them, to perpetuate white supremacy and strip black Americans of our very humanity,” Booker said. He later called on Biden to make an immediate apology “for the pain his words are dredging up for many Americans.”
   
   Biden didn't say "boy" in reference to Blacks, so I didn't read it as the slur it would be if it were. However, he was speaking of a Segregationist Senator, so Blacks are peripherally involved.
   
   A CNN story: https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/19/politics … index.html
   
   His point was about civility in politics. I think Booker, (and others), are grasping at an opportunity, not a real issue.
   
   Biden's word choice seems purposeful, (as noted in the article). His later defense seems valid.
   
   What do you think, purposeful political calculation or gaffe?
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I think Booker is looking for a way to differentiate himself from Biden, and Biden gave him a golden opportunity. I don't know if it was purposeful on Biden's part, but I think it likely will bring some of those white blue collar voters to his defense. On Booker's end, it gets him noticed and won't hurt him  with the liberal base.
      
      Politically, this controversy probably benefits both of them. Personally, I think Biden's point is a good one, even though he chose the wrong people to use as examples. Booker has a point, too.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Regarding benefit, I think it benefits Biden more. It may get Booker some PR, but I think it gets Biden some votes--via backlash to Booker's actions.
         
         Biden can show a history of non-racist Civil Rights support to validate his denial of the charge and refusal to apologize, and I don't think it is a stretch to say Booker's actions will be seen as a political tactic.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            Agree. They are both playing to their supporters but I don't think it will ultimately help Booker at all.

            replyreport
   2. 61

      Randy Godwinposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Blown out of proportions in my view, but then, political attacks are often treated in a similar manner during elections.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         Agree. I think GA is wondering if Biden did it intentionally.

         replyreport
         1. 89

            GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

            You are right PrettyPanther. Here is part of the CNN article that talks of Biden being cautioned not to use that wording;
            
            "A senior adviser to Biden said he's told the story "countless times." He usually phrases it "he never called me senator, he called me son," the adviser said, which is an attempt by Biden to show that Eastland didn't give him the respect of calling him senator because Biden was so young. The adviser stressed that Biden's intended point is to show they disagreed on many issues, but worked together to govern. The difference between previous instances and Tuesday evening's comments is the racially insensitive use of the word "boy."
            
            I think Biden is too experienced to ignore that advice without a purpose in mind.
            
            I think the electorate that will see his explanation as valid is much larger than the one that will agree with Booker's perspective.
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 89

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         My thoughts also.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   3. 93

      Tim Truzy info4uposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Hi, Ga, I think it was a calculated move by both politicians. I was curious why old Joe didn't mention Thurman from W. Va. Interestingly enough, at a  political event in S. C. years ago, Joe had said Delaware "wanted to join the Confederacy, but there were too many states in the way." This is why I think he is trying to reconnect with the Dem. blue collar roots, while trying to distance himself from more liberal Dems.
      I still think a Biden-Harris ticket may be the best chance for the Dems., but Joe will have to defend a lot more of these statements and past voting record. I wondered at first why he didn't point out the first Black president in our nation's history certainly thought he was worth running with; again, another calculation to demonstrate he was not like Obama.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         We seem to agree Tim, I don't think it was a gaffe either.
         
         Biden has to be aware of his gaffe-prone image and has to be aware he must avoid reinforcing that with more campaign gaffes. (if not, then he isn't qualified to be president in my mind)
         
         I would also bet that the "gaffe" problem is one that is a top priority among his campaign advisers. So I don't see this as an accidental slip-of-the-tongue.
         
         Your thoughts about the "blue-collar" voters might be right.
         
         As a note to your "first Black president" thought. I think it would have been a tremendous gaffe to mention that. It reminds me of the declaration that I can't be a racist because I have black friends defense.
         
         GA

         replyreport
   4. 78

      Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

      "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." (Listen to Biden's statement here)"
      
      Biden said this in 2007. We still had a lot of Southen Bigots in Congress in what would hardly be considered eons ago, the 1970's.
      
      I expect this sort of behavior from most whites, claim that you are against the wrong but somehow co-opt and accommodate it. When compared to that standard only a handful of prominent politicians clearly reveal which side they are on and truly friends of justice, without compromise. Mr. Biden is no worse than most and probably better than many. But, that has always been our choice, Lester Maddox or George Wallace, who is likely to do the least damage?
      
      I am sure that Mr. Biden has evolved politically, and I don't hold his accommodation stance against him after so long a time.Though, it would be nice not to have to not settle for the candidate that is the least troublesome in exchange for what I am actually looking for.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         GA Andersonposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         I bet you winced when you wrote that ". . . probably better than many . . . " part.
         
         Remember that old admonitory 'Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good' Cred. With regards to authenticity, if you have problems with Biden I think you will be tested to find a better choice.
         
         GA

         replyreport
         1. 78

            Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

            GA, that depends on what you are seeking, I am not satisfied with the Status Quo, more left leaning candidates captures that sentiment as a better fit.
            
            People say that centrism is the solution, I question that. If all we have to offer is more bromide, why should the electorate not stay with Trump?
            
            Yes, but better than many has too often meant not good enough. While Sanders and Warren may shake me up by going too far to the left, they are far closer to my actual sentiments than Joe Biden, a comfortable mediocrity in the midst of an increasingly activist Democratic Left.
            
            Joe is only acceptable to me as an alternative to Trump, not much more.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               Tim Truzy info4uposted 4 years agoin reply to this

               I agree in many ways, Cred. But which one of these candidates can bring the entire party together? We have seen the results of extremism in the right, playing out now, and now should we swing to the extremes in the left? I read a report that said our enemies calculated such extreme swings politically would be the exact thing to destroy our country from within. We would have demagogues assuming power, destabilizing the government. (Sounds familiar?) The center must hold. It isn't perfect, but rupture it, and we have internal problems and our enemies gnaw on our bones.

               replyreport
               1. 78

                  Credence2posted 4 years agoin reply to this

                  Pleasure to have you drop by, Tim.
                  
                  A good nquiry on your part. I really believe that there are two factions in the Democratic Party, much as there was in 2016. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton represented each faction. Well, the relative "moderate" won the nomination and cost us the general election. I blame her for wasting her time appealing to moderate Republicans and conservatives that could never really give her an edge in voting while alienating a growing base of dissatisfaction on her left flank with the status quo and with those who gave comfort and reassurance to the very people and entities that needed to be confronted and challenged. Ms. Clinton attempted to straddle both sides of the fence and that is why she lost. We cannot have a repeat performance in 2020 and hope to win.
                  
                  So, after 4 years of Trump, what is centrist? Is the Status Quo really centrist? Do we need a continued Trump attitude in Washington even though Trump may no longer by physically there ?The problem is greater than Trump itself for many of us.
                  
                  The old mainstream Democrat represented by Bill Clinton in 1992 is passé as the "model".
                  
                  Joe is far too moderate and accommodating toward the forces that will always resist challenge to their hegemony.
                  
                  There is a not a candidate either right or left that can get everything that he or she wants as President. But, I prefer the direction that the more activist candidates are taking us in over those content to let the underlying problems in our system remain unaddressed and fester because no one wants to "ruffle feathers".

                  replyreport
2. 58

   Live to Learnposted 4 years ago

   Booker almost sounded like he was going to cry on the spot I saw of a response. I can't imagine someone with such delicate sensibilities being elected president.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      No, Americans would never elect a delicate crybaby as president.
      
      LOL

      replyreport
      1. 58

         Live to Learnposted 4 years agoin reply to this

         LOL back at ya.

         replyreport
   2. 0

      Hxprofposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Typical Booker.

      replyreport
3. 93

   Tim Truzy info4uposted 4 years ago

   Good point, friend. I hadn't considered all of the variables.

   replyreport
4. 89

   GA Andersonposted 4 years ago

   Joe Biden's Democrat Convention speech was a disappointment.
   
   I lost track of how many billions and billions of dollars he was going to spend or give away on the floor-length laundry list of what he promised. He seemed to have taken all of the "promises" or "plans" of all the other candidates and rolled them into one massive Joe Biden "promise."
   
   I am aware that it was the Democrats convention and that is where all the party rah-rah is to be expected, but . . . His whole speech was either free stuff or anti-Trump stuff.
   
   https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/forme … 2501445900
   
   Say it ain't so Joe.
   
   GA

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Hxprofposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How much free stuff will be promised at the next Democratic Convention? I suspect a lot.

      replyreport