Say It Ain’t Joe! (So.)
On AOTP, I discover Biden has an 82% rating from the ACLU. But Radley Balko suggests the ACLU are easy graders:
But from a policy perspective, it’s a disaster. Biden has sponsored more damaging drug war legislation than any Democrat in Congress. Hate the way federal prosecutors use RICO laws to take aim at drug offenders? Thank Biden. How about the abomination that is federal asset forfeiture laws? Thank Biden. Think federal prosecutors have too much power in drug cases? Thank Biden. Think the title of a “Drug Czar” is sanctimonious and silly? Thank Biden, who helped create the position (and still considers it an accomplishment worth boasting about). Tired of the ridiculous steroids hearings in Congress? thank Biden, who led the effort to make steroids a Schedule 3 drug, and has been among the blowhardiest of the blowhards when it comes to sports and performance enhancing drugs. Biden voted in favor of using international development aid for drug control (think plan Columbia, plan Afghanistan, and other meddling anti-drug efforts that have only fostered loathing of America, backlash, and unintended consequences). Oh, and he was also the chief sponsor of 2004’s horrendous RAVE Act.
Biden does appear to have eased up a bit in the last couple years, including taking a fairly strong position against federal raids on medical marijuana clinics (though he still opposes making marijuana available for medicinal purposes). But that’s little consolation for all the damage he’s done over the years.
Radley’s bill of particulars lengthens as the item continues. He concludes:
My problem with Biden is that he’s not even good on the issues the left is supposed to be good on. He’s an overly ambitious, elitist, tunnel-visioned, Potomac-fevered Beltway dinosaur, with all the trappings. He may well have been the worst possible pick among congressional Democrats when it comes to the drug war and criminal justice.
Comment by SomeCallMeTim —
August 23, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
the worst possible pick among congressional Democrats when it comes to the drug war and criminal justice.
I think the key words are “worst..among congressional Democrats.” The other guy is worse.
Comment by Hesiod —
August 23, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
well…it is nice to hear libertarians criticizing a democrat for being not strong enough on civil liberties (i.e. the drug war) — for a change — than for wanting to raise his taxes.
It’s all libertariany and stuff.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
August 23, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
I guess Biden is “more and better”?
Feh.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 23, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
For a year I’ve been railing against the Congressional Democrats for their stances on war and civil liberties. During this time, I’ve been called a Republican shill and a single-issue civil liberties voter (is that even such a bad thing?).
So it just fills my hear with joy to have somebody show up and say “Wow, for once those darn libertarians are criticizing a Democrat over civil liberties instead of taxes!” Finally, somebody appreciates me for being me!
Comment by abb1 —
August 23, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
…when it comes to the drug war and criminal justice
Right, but what about him being a senator from Delaware, the state where every Tom, Dick and Harry is incorporated? Protecting corporations is his state’s business, its niche – the guy has gotta be corrupt – no? I don’t know if it’s true, but just by common sense?
Comment by joe —
August 23, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
So literally every other Congressional Democrat has issued even stronger statements against raids on medicinal marijuana clinics?
There are going to be four candidates on the ballot that are completely awful on the drug war by Radley Balko’s standards. Hopefully, you don’t spend the runup to a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION trying to figure out which of the major party candidates is closest to Radley Balko on the drug war.
Comment by Thoreau —
August 23, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
More than 4 candidates, joe. You forgot about Bob Barr and whichever freaks the Constitution Party nominated.
Comment by Jim Henley —
August 23, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
Plus Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader!
Hey! Did I say something wrong????
Comment by Thoreau —
August 23, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Does anybody know what McKinney’s record on drug policy was in Congress? I know she was better than Barr, but that’s not exactly a high bar.
I don’t know much about Nader and drugs, but I assume that even if he supports legalization he’d still want strict regulation. “Speed: Unsafe at any dose” or something like that.
Comment by von Laue —
August 23, 2008 @ 8:58 pm
So literally every other Congressional Democrat has issued even stronger statements against raids on medicinal marijuana clinics?
Yes, literally, they all have.
Oh wait, no they didn’t! That was Radley’s argument, and you lanced it like bang and pow! Fuck, yeah!
Comment by Radley Balko —
August 23, 2008 @ 9:46 pm
joe — You do understand the difference between agreeing with me on all drug war issues and having your name on nearly every odious piece of drug war legislation to pass through Congress in the last 30 years (thus giving it the “bipartisan” seal of approval), don’t you?
Comment by mds —
August 24, 2008 @ 1:00 am
I think this just further illustrates the flaw in the Founders’ reasoning, when they gave the Vice President so much power to draft legislation and otherwise set government policy.
Guess what: if something happens to remove President Obama from office, someone who’s especially odious on the drug war becomes President. If a decriminalization bill is split 50-50 in the Senate, Vice President Biden casts the vote that defeats it. Barring those scenarios (the last of which is especially unlikely), Obama’s vice-presidential pick has fuck-all to do with drug policy, or Obama’s views thereof. No, let me modify that: becoming Vice President would remove Joe Biden from Congress, which would be a net plus for drug war legislation. (Unless and until we get President Biden in 2017, whereupon he bans line dancing by minors.) So… huttah!
Now, when Senator Obama endorses Senator McCain’s suggestion that the tactics of “the Surge” be brought to bear on urban crime, I’ll start sweating a little more. In the meantime, I’ll stick with “Wow, an old white dude who’s a career DC politician as VP pick. Now that’s change I can believe in.”
Comment by Jay Elias —
August 24, 2008 @ 2:44 am
mds –
Yeah, because there has never been a time in history when the Presidential candidate based his VP pick on, y’know, agreeing with him about anything. I’m sure that Obama just picked Biden to make sure he carries Delaware, but otherwise thinks he and everything he stands for sucks.
Comment by abb1 —
August 24, 2008 @ 8:38 am
…to make sure he carries Delaware
Yeah, it’s something like that; except the objective is probably to pick up some catholics and some old people and give Mr. Biden a chance to pontificate about his great ‘foreign policy experience’ on various talking-heads shows.
Comment by Jim Henley —
August 24, 2008 @ 11:08 am
Team spirit aside, the example of Dick Cheney shows the kind of damage a malign vice president can do. I don’t think Joe Biden is Dick Cheney, any more than I think Joe Biden is Hitler; but I don’t think it’s at all unreasonable to worry about the significance of the pick for law enforcement and civil liberties issues – which is what Democrat-friendly libertarians and civil-libertarian/peacenik progressives spent yesterday doing.
Comment by joe —
August 24, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
You miss my point, Radley: it isn’t that your position on the drug war is wrong, but that the candidates’ position on the drug war is completely useless in deciding how to vote.
Comment by joe —
August 24, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
I suppose it’s possible that Barack Obama set about to find a fierce drug warrior to be his vice-president. I suppose it’s possible that “agrees with me on the need to ramp up the war on drugs” was a prominent line-item on his VP checklist.
But probably not.
Comment by mds —
August 24, 2008 @ 8:50 pm
Indeed, asserting that this pick doesn’t mean that Obama agrees with Biden on drug policy is identical to asserting that he doesn’t agree with him on anything. That was my argument, and you lanced it like bang and pow! Fuck, yeah!
And if Obama actually lets Biden have the kind of extraconstitutional power that Cheney got away with wielding, then that’s pretty much it for the Republic anyway. I retain vestiges of hope that this part of the Bush administration’s crimes was an aberration. How many Presidents would actually enjoy having a Vice President with equal or greater authority?
Comment by Jay Elias —
August 25, 2008 @ 12:51 am
Joe –
I suspect that what distresses Radley is similar to what bothers me. Namely, not that Obama made this pick because he hopes to “ramp up the drug war”, but because he feels that the drug war and criminal justice issues simply aren’t that important.
Clearly, there are issues where the two disagree (Iraq, for example). On the other hand, Obama’s statements on capital punishment seem to be similar to the expansion that Biden championed. Indeed, Biden’s record of being “tough on crime” seems to me to be a serious asset for Obama politically. I’d expect him to unleash Biden in his first term for exactly that reason.
Comment by joe from Lowell —
August 25, 2008 @ 12:20 pm
Jay Elias,
I think that’s it, exactly – Biden’s history as a drug warrior simply did not matter.
As for “unleashing Biden,” maybe, but Obama’s record would tend to make me think otherwise.
For example, he really stuck his neck out as a state senator to sponsor a bill requiring the police to videotape the interrogations and confessions of murder suspects and witnesses. He did this as a politician from Chicago, who had hopes of acheiving higher office.
Comment by Jim Henley —
August 25, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Which remains, I should say, among the most impressive things Obama has done, and one of the biggest reasons for, as it were, hope.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
August 25, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
That does impress me, but I can’t help thinking that such a bill didn’t limit his power or try to check abuses by state senators. Such a thing is only suggestive towards his attitude on presidential power if he wins.
Comment by Jay Elias —
August 26, 2008 @ 4:33 am
joe from Lowell,
Perhaps to some degree he stuck his neck out. On the other hand, thinking about the constituency he served in Chicago, it was also a natural political winner. Considering what has been reported about the Chicago PD in the past year, they are horrifically corrupt. Although, it is still an impressive accomplishment. And I suspect that accomplishments like that, along with his work with Sen. Coburn on earmark reform as well as his relationships with Sunstein and Goolsbee which has many people who are (broadly speaking) left-libertarians such as Jim and Radley relatively enthusiastic about Obama’s candidacy. If the election was Gore vs. McCain, I’d expect both to be held in utter contempt. That Radley can be disappointed in Obama’s choice is reflective of Obama’s superiority.
But that’s also the problem for people like me. What I have to go on regarding Obama is very slim; the big rhetorical flourishes promising more health care for all and stronger unions is all stuff that I openly disagree with. Which is why Biden matters; if the Democrats were making a sincere attempt to court my vote, it would be a different story.
Comment by Jim Henley —
August 26, 2008 @ 7:50 am
You would think. But the win here is not just that Obama tried to institute videotaping on interrogations, but that he succeeded, in the face of police opposition.
For the record, BTW, I no longer hold Al Gore in utter contempt.