Matt Yglesias

Biden Makes the Case for Rail

Joe Biden is best known for his experience in foreign policy issues, but I’ve long been most excited by the possibility that his strong pro-rail views may have influence in an administration certain to be dominated (like all administrations) by people who don’t care about transportation policy. This morning at the National Governor’s Association, Biden took the opportunity to talk a bit about the virtues of investing in rail:

There’s a reason when you turned on the olympics to watch them this past summer, you saw mag-lev trains going over 200 miles an hour in supposedly a third world country [i.e., China] in terms of its economy, blowing into town, dealing with environmental problems they have as well as transporting people in a way that we don’t even come close to being able to do. And as Barack has pointed out, and John Corzine knows, I may have a bit of a pro-rail bias. I think think of the jobs we can create in both construction and innovation if we make similarly bold investments here in the United States as well as the environmental payoff that flows from that kind of investment.

Of course it’s not just a question of jobs we create directly through rail construction, it’s also the prospects of greater long-term growth through more efficient use of space and energy resources that should get us excited. But good for Biden — hopefully he’ll have some influence as the key transportation policy jobs get filled.

The Biden Era

Marc Ambinder wonders about the future — who will replace Joe Biden? “What about Delaware? Beau Biden?” I think you’d have to guess that Beau will be tapped. He’s Attorney-General of Delaware, and Delaware’s lone House member is a Republican. So completely apart from being Joe Biden’s son, he’d be the logical choice. And then, of course, the iron triangle can be closed by elevating Hunter Biden from the Amtrak board to the top passenger rail job. Then voters who thought they were getting the Age of Obama will recognize that we’re in fact facing the Era of Biden.

Choices That Are Made

It’s striking listening to the commentary about why this is a smart pick for John McCain that the arguments are all about how this will help him politically — attract women voters, get attention, disrupt Barack Obama’s “change” message, etc. What I haven’t seen is any conservatives making arguments about why Sarah Palin will help President McCain govern. He’ll call on her insights about . . . what?

UPDATE: For example, Ross Douthat:

I’m pretty excited, I have to say. This could, of course, turn out to be an enormous debacle if she isn’t ready for prime time. But for now, Sarah Palin looks like a perfect face for the sort of Republican Party I want to support: She’s a pro-life working mom; she’s tough on corruption and government waste without being a doctrinaire Norquistian on taxes; she’s more supportive of gay rights than the current GOP orthodoxy (while stopping short of backing same-sex marriage); she has a more conservationist record than your typical GOP pol, but supports drilling in ANWR; she’s an evangelical but she isn’t a southern evangelical … and if McCain loses, she can run at the top of a Palin-Jindal ticket in 2012!

He likes the politics, nothing to say about the substance.

Or here’s Yuval Levin:

The positives, though, are exceptionally great. She will connect tremendously well with middle class parents, at a gut level and not only a rhetorical level. Undecided women are likely to find her very appealing. Her personal story—an athlete as well as a beauty queen contestant in her youth, deeply religious but not overbearing about it, a hunter and former professional fisher(wo)man—is interesting and impressive. Her family story—from marrying her high school sweetheart the snowmobile racer to the son about to deploy to Iraq, to the wonderful way she has welcomed her Down Syndrome son—is lovely and inspiring. And on the issues, she’s the kind of conservative the country tends like best. Her unabashed but non-confrontational pro-life views will contrast in the most dramatic possible way with Obama and be nicely illustrated by her own life; she opposes gay marriage but is otherwise friendly to gay rights; she’s an ethics reformer and anti-pork fanatic (she killed the “bridge to nowhere”); great on energy, and something of a conservative reformer in general, though she hasn’t said much to my knowledge about health care and taxes—which I suppose makes her a good vehicle for McCain’s positions on those. And while you won’t hear it much from the Democrats or the press, there’s the historic female vice president element too.

Surely not a perfect pick, but a bold pick, and I think a very good one.

Likes the politics, thinks the only problems substantively are a lack of record on foreign policy . . . and taxes . . . and health care . . . but that lack of record is potentially a political upside!

UPDATE II: It seems that even Sarah Palin didn’t see Sarah Palin as a plausible choice:

Click To Play

The element of surprise is politically useful, today, in terms of controlling the news cycle. But there’s a reason nobody expected this and it’s not that we thought John McCain might be too stubborn to recognize how badly he needs Palin’s experience to make his presidency the best presidency it can be.

Ride the SUPERTRAIN

At last the MSM gets hip to Joe Biden’s potential implications for the SUPERTRAIN. Which is probably as good a time as any to recall that the SUPERTRAIN isn’t just a blogger in-joke. There are some pretty awesome trains out there. Here’s the AVE I took from Madrid to Toledo:

Biden and Obama on Iraq

In addition to questions about Joe Biden’s position on Iraq in 2002-2003 a lot of people are wondering what happened to Joe Biden’s forward-looking proposal for Iraq. His plan, which has oft been characterized as a scheme of “partition” or “soft partition” but which he and Les Gelb deemed “Unity Through Autonomy in Iraq”, was unveiled in the Spring of 2006 and called, basically, for political authority in Iraq to be dramatically decentralized so as to reduce the stakes in ethnosectarian tensions. The relevant model would be, I think, Switzerland though obviously there are a lot of aspects of Swiss political cultural and the Swiss institutional framework that you couldn’t just port over to Iraq.

At any rate, it’s been quite some time since Biden was really pushing the plan hard and it was — and is — basically a non-starter with Iraqi political leaders, so where does that leave him now? Well, Glenn Thrush and Avi Zenilman have an excellent reported article in Politico about Biden, Obama, and Iraq. They report that “since January, when Biden dropped out of the presidential race, he and Obama have quietly worked to smooth over their disagreements — and Biden has sought to erase divisions between the two of them on Iraq, sources say.” Specifically:

Biden and Obama are now in nearly total agreement on the war, with both advocating a staged withdrawal of most troops within 16 months of inauguration day. Obama has even shed some of his initial misgivings about Biden’s three-region solution, saying he’d be open to the plan if Iraqis themselves signed off on it. Biden doesn’t talk about the plan much anymore, but he still supports it, aides say, and believes it will “organically” evolve as Iraq’s political structure.

Even before Biden’s name rose to the top of veep heap, there were signs of increasing coordination. Prior to Iraq Ambassador Ryan Crocker’s Capitol Hill testimony in April, Biden and Obama huddled privately to map out lines of questioning, according to a Biden insider.

They report that the rapprochement has largely been engineered by cooperation between Susan Rice and Tony Blinken, who’s Biden’s go-to guy on the Foreign Relations committee staff. Rice and Blinken worked together in the Clinton administration. Thrush and Zenilman report that “several months ago, Rice invited Blinken to work with her on the Democratic Party’s foreign policy platform” and Steve Clemons noted that Blinken went “on vacation” in Hawaii at the exact same time as Obama did.

Biden and the AUMF

There’s a lot of interest, naturally, in Joe Biden’s vote in favor of the 2002 Iraq AUMF. Fortunately, Biden is much more disposed to deliver long talks on foreign policy than is your average Senator, so it’s possible to put his voting record in more context than is usually available. In particular, these three speeches seem relevant:

– Here’s a January 31, 2003 speech to the National Conference of the World Affairs Council of America.

– Here’s a February 3, 2003 speech “On the Possibility Of A War With Iraq”.

– And here’s a speech in Delaware on February 20, 2003 on “Two Crises: Iraq and North Korea”

The speeches read as somewhat incoherent. Biden is keenly aware of the problems with the President’s policy — war is likely to be more costly than Bush says, less necessary for American security than Bush says, and more of a distraction from al-Qaeda than Bush says. Biden also exhibits a clear understanding of the general structure of the international situation and why a threatening and unilateral posture could undermine a lot of important international objectives. He co-sponsored a resolution with Richard Lugar that would have put some breaks on the slide to war, but when the perfidy of Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt scuttled Biden-Lugar he voted for the AUMF and against an anti-war amendment by Carl Levin. But having done that, in his January speech Biden perceptively argued that the administration’s focus on Iraq made no sense:

So to put it in perspective, our failure, if you notice, I was told if you check Lexis-Nexis, since 9/11, or shortly thereafter, the President only mentioned Osama Bin Laden 6 times. He probably mentioned Saddam Hussein 6,000. In relative terms they’re not close. I would note parenthetically that we no longer have soccer moms in San Diego or Wilmington or Washington or Seattle, we have security moms. An abnormally high percentage of women between the ages of 25 and 40 with children, believe that they are likely to be a victim of a terrorist attack, which is not accurate but close to 40% believe that. Which has another destabilizing effect on us as a country.

So to make a comparative point, I think Saddam Hussein is a genuine danger and cannot be left unattended. Do I think it should have been moved front and center to the degree it has now? My answer to that is no, but it has. I think there are other things that are of a much more immediate concern, but that’s not where we are right now. And so what do we do? What do we do?

The answer he gives is: “My suggestion is that we should, and what I have attempted to do, and I will not speak for Dick Lugar, who is a close friend and whom – which will shock you all, we agree on almost everyone of these major issues – is to weigh in on a side of an incredibly divided administration.” The explanation that follows seems pretty incoherent to me, but Biden’s basic take is that the administration is deeply divided between a reasonable Powell faction and a crazy faction. The crazies are hot for a doctrine of unilateral prevention:

And so some folks believe, and I will not use names, but these folks sincerely believe that if we go it alone even when help is offered to reject it, we will demonstrate to the world our resolve. We will leverage the power we have, and to put it in colloquial terms Khomeini will sit there and say, “Oh my God! Look what they did in the face of the whole world of objecting, in Iraq we better straighten up our act.” Kim will say, whoa, we see what’s coming we’d better, you think I’m exaggerating. The only thing I’m doing here is unfairly and not fully, because of time, giving the complete rationale for their argument. And there is a chance they may be right. But I disagree with it.

Biden seems to believe, in a massive misunderstanding of how things work, that by signing on with the administration he would be able to weigh-in on the side of the non-crazy faction and thus influence events in a positive manner. I don’t really understand why he would have thought that would work, but maybe he had his reasons. Beyond that, the main things that stand out about the speeches in retrospect are that Biden was a bit too credulous about the WMD intelligence, and even as he (rightly) accused the Bush administration of understating the size of the task he himself understated the size of the task, talking about how “it could take from one to five years to win the peace and may take as many as 75,000 troops to secure victory with a cost of 20 billion dollars or more.”

Biden at CAP

Biden argued that the costs of our involvement in Iraq have outweighed the benefits and have ironically strengthened the greatest challenge to U.S. interests in the region: Iran. But “the idea that we can wipe out every vestige of Iran’s influence in Iraq is a fantasy,” Biden said. “Even with 160,000 American troops in Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, our ally in Baghdad, greets Iran’s leader with kisses—Iran is a major regional power and it shares a long border—and a long history—with Iraq. Right now, Iran loves the status quo, with 140,000 Americans troops bogged down and bleeding, caught in a cross fire of intra-Shi’a rivalry and Sunni-Shi’a civil war.”

Biden explained that by “drawing down, we can take away Iran’s ability to wage a proxy war against our troops and force Tehran to concentrate on avoiding turmoil inside Iraq’s borders and instability beyond them.”

Watching Biden’s announcement speech now.

74 is the New 72

Incidentally, I’m kind of surprised by the number of people I’m reading who seem convinced that Joe Biden would be too old to run for President in 2016 at the age of 74. John McCain is running for president right now at the age of 72, and though voters do seem to have some concerns about his age it’s hardly a crippling disadvantage. What’s more, to the best of my knowledge Biden, unlike McCain, doesn’t have a history of cancer or physical ailments stemming from years of captivity and torture. From an actuarial point of view, Biden-at-74 will almost certainly have a longer life expectancy than McCain-at-72. What’s more, given population trends the country as a whole will be older in 2016 than it is in 2008. Obviously, a million things could happen that prevent Bidenmania from sweeping the country in 2016, but if Obama wins two elections and Biden stays in reasonable health (big ifs!) I don’t see what’s stopping him from running.

Biden Clip Reel

Via James Fallows, here’s a kind of greatest hits reel of Joe Biden at a Democratic debate:

From a Heads in the Sand point of view, I’d be much happier if Joe Biden had opposed the 2002 Iraq AUMF. And even beyond that, I don’t always agree with his substantive positions on the issues. But one clear asset he has is that like only a handful of other prominent Democratic leaders (Wesley Clark one among them) Biden consistently approaches national security debates with an attitude of confidence that projects a desire to win the argument rather than wriggle away from it.

It’s Biden

As you’ve no doubt heard by now, it’s official and Barack Obama’s running mate will be Joe Biden. He wasn’t my favorite choice for the gig, but he was far from my least-favorite choice either. The major pro is that this signals as desire to take the argument to John McCain on national security policy which is a wise decision — the American people deserve to hear a full-spectrum debate about the issues facing the country rather than a positional battle in which one party talks about the economy and the other talks about national security. It’s also the case, as I noted previously, that Biden’s ascendancy augurs well for the SUPERTRAIN even though this aspect of his record isn’t especially well-known or close to the core of his political persona.

Biden also has the lowest net worth of any U.S. Senator. Combined with Barack Obama whose prosperity is a very recent consequence of book sales, it’s definitely a ticket that can argue they have more personal acquaintance with the struggles of middle class American life than John McCain or George Bush or recent Democratic nominees like John Kerry and Al Gore. It also seems to be a pick that the elite media is enthusiastic about, which isn’t necessarily an idea I’m enthusiastic about, but I suppose definitely counts as an asset. Last, moderate Republicans, especially those with a national security orientation, like the pick.

Richard Lugar:

I congratulate Senator Barack Obama on his selection of my friend, Senator Joe Biden, to be his vice-presidential running mate. I have enjoyed for many years the opportunity to work with Joe Biden to bring strong bipartisan support to United States foreign policy.

Chuck Hagel:

Joe Biden is the right partner for Barack Obama. His many years of distinguished service to America, his seasoned judgment and his vast experience in foreign policy and national security will match up well with the unique challenges of the 21st Century. An Obama-Biden ticket is a very impressive and strong team. Biden’s selection is good news for Obama and America.

And of course Biden’s tendency toward gaffes makes this good news for people who need to write about the campaign.

Let The Weekend Begin

I’m ready to say Ambinder FTW with this scooplet of a charter plane heading from Midway in Chicago to Delaware. Time to leave the office and go hit up some friends’ party so it’s possible that I won’t be able to make it immediately to the laptop when the announcement comes.

The Stevenson Scenario

As everyone has now heard, Joe Biden has now said he’s not the VP pick. It seems, basically, that neither Biden nor Evan Bayh nor Tim Kaine nor Kathleen Sebelius is going to get the nod. Nor are candidates who’ve gotten grassroots support such as Hillary Clinton or Wesley Clark going to be chosen. Nor Bill Richardson nor Chris Dodd. And yet the VP will also be someone from that list of aforementioned not-choices. Which is puzzling. But by the same token, a month ago everyone knew that Barack Obama “had to” make his pick before the start of the Olympics. And yet he didn’t. So presumably everything we know is wrong.

But as long as the world needs blog posts and Veep speculation, how about this — Obama could pull an Adlai Stevenson in 1956 and throw the selection open to the Convention delegates. The problem with that move, of course, is that you don’t get to fine-tune the pick. But it turns out to be the case that there seem to be substantial problems with all the possible picks. And opening the selection to the field would ensure huge media coverage of the convention and perhaps a bigger-than-usual convention bump.

Bidenmania

All DC’s abuzz today with talk of Joe Biden as a Vice Presidential nominee. I think putting someone who voted for the 2002 Iraq AUMF on the ticket may be more politically problematic than people realize — Obama has cited his opposition to that bill as key evidence of his good judgment, but presumably you’d want to put Biden forward as a knowledgeable and experienced foreign policy person, thus setting up a problematic contradiction. But that vote aside, Biden really is someone who’s genuinely knowledgeable about foreign policy questions rather than simply being “strong on defense” or some BS. What’s more, from a Heads in the Sand perspective, picking Biden would signal a clear intention to engage with McCain on national security issues rather than try to dodge away from them, which is definitely a decision I support.

A neglected aspect of the Biden record, however, is that his ascendancy would be excellent news for the SUPERTRAIN. Biden commutes back-and-forth from Delaware to Washington regularly on the Acela, so he appreciates what high-speed rail can do. What’s more, Wilmington recently lost its scheduled air service making Delaware a plane-free state that depends on rail for its connectivity. Biden spends a lot of time on foreign policy and Judiciary Committee business, so he’s not as much of a legislative leader on these topics as his fellow Delawarian Tom Carper, but he’s still one of the best friends rail has in the Senate. Beyond that, Biden’s son sits on the Amtrak board and unlike some of Amtrak’s leadership (which besides Biden is heavily dominated by Republicans) is actually a forceful advocate for Amtrak and for improving rail.