A Look At Joe Biden's Tech Voting Record

Aviran brings us an analysis of Democratic Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden's voting record on technology issues. CNet breaks down the issues by category and provides details on the tech-related legislation he's introduced in the past several years. Biden received a score of 37.5% on CNet's 2006 technology voter guide. We've discussed the technology stances of McCain and Obama in the past.

Why...

[by Anonymous Coward]

Why did Biden vote against the FISA bill, the one where Obama voted for? You know, the one that granted telecoms immunity against criminal prosecution.

Change

[Bios_Hakr (68586)]

How can a candidate running on a base of "change" justify picking a VP who has been in DC for 30+ years?

The only thing "changing" in January is the position DC is fucking me in...

Re:Change

[kannibal_klown (531544)]

I'll admit, I really doubt anything will "change" with Obama in office. All politicians talk of change and yet it's the same thing every administration.

In this case, we can't complain too much. The US VP does very little in the government. Some even say it's a joke position. He gets a vote in Congress, and has a lead position at NASA and the Smithsonian. Beyond that he has little power.

The one thing the VP can do for him is serve as an advisor.

Some people like that Obama is new, others think he lacks enough experience. By putting someone high profile in his camp that has experience, the nay-sayers can relax.

Re:Change

[sleigher (961421)]

I suppose Reagan, and Clinton for that matter, were fully experienced and ready to take the helm from the moment they took office. All this talk of experience is driving me nuts. I imagine there are very few who are actually ready for the stress and have the depth necessary to be the president. Certainly no one in the current running. However when someone becomes elected, they are surrounded by people with all sorts of experience in many different fields. This is how a president is successful, by surrounding themselves with the right advisers. You think because McCain was beaten in Vietnam that he is somehow more qualified to be the President? I get he has been in the Senate longer, but that is NOT presidential experience.

Re:Change

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

Oh, come on. His whole point was that if Georgia had been quickly allowed into NATO when it SHOULD have been allowed in, Russia wouldn't have sent tanks into it in the first place. Are you unable to grasp the utility of a deterrent? There's a reason we never "declared war" on the Soviets.

You overlook the fact that the reason Georgia was not allowed to join NATO was precisely the fact that they had an existing border dispute with Russia. Moreover the current Georgian President was elected on a platform of starting a war with Russia to reclaim the territories concerned.

So why exactly should NATO give Georgia a blank check here? NATO has always been a defensive alliance, McCain is proposing turning it into an offensive alliance. The regions concerned have been occupied by Russia since 1992, Georgia has only been independent since 1991. Russia does in fact have a reasonable claim to make that the people who actually live in the region would prefer to be a part of Russia than Georgia.

Russia would not have sent the tanks in if the Georgians had been competent and blocked the only tunnel between Russia and S. Ossettia. So not only would McCain have us take sides in this squalid irredentist dispute, he would have us ally ourselves to an incompetent.

You're confusing a natural instinct to have the federal government NOT INVOLVED in every little aspect of your life with being uninterested.

Funny the way that wingnuts cannot talk to anyone without denigrating them as ignorant, stupid, etc. I guess that must be over-compensating for having a candidate who cannot remember what car he drives or how many houses he has. Is he really that confused or just senile?

McCain has never displayed the slightest interest in domestic policy. That is a problem because the levees that McCain called 'pork' are what the inhabitants of New Orleans called their protection from flooding.

Why aren't you concerned with how little thoughtful observation time Obama seems to be giving the actual reality on the ground in the middle east, as it relates to what the troops - whom he wants to command - are accomplishing?

McCain has made many untrue claims here. Was he lying when he said Obama had not talked to Petraus or had he merely forgotten that McCain was present when Obama questioned Petraus in the Senate hearings? You are repeating a Rovian talking point, it has no basis in fact.

Or (just as likely) he has a very predictable, oily level of disengenuous scorn for the people on the left to whom he's been promising one thing when - of course - he'll "refine" his position, and simply ignore once he gets the job.

Projection, projection. The party of Abramoff, Reed, DeLay, Stevens, Ney, Cunningham did exactly that. They promised much and then when they got into government they spent their time making it bigger and selling favors to their fat cat friends. They were willing to let Stevens build his billion dollar bridge to nowhere because they were going to get a cut from his kickbacks as well. Stevens got a $500,000 house renovation done for free by Veco, how much did the rest of the sleazy gang get?

Now once there was a guy called John McCain who used to be against that type of thing, but unfortunately its not that McCain who is on the ballot. Instead we have Rove-McCain, which is what you get when the old John McCain sells out all his principals to the religious right and the corruption wings of the GOP to win the primary. The old McCain is gone, all that is left is the empty husk left to be filled by his aides.

Re:Change

[the_skywise (189793)]

Yeah it's not like Cheney ever set policy...

/sarcasm.

Remember also that part of the point of a VP choice is that they'll be the ones running for President after the President's term ends.

Re:Change

[Zeinfeld (263942)]

Al Gore was actually one of the most active Veeps of the 20th century. He was responsible for the whole 'reinventing government' project that changed the way a lot of the civil service worked to make it more responsive to the Clinton agenda. Now Gore was nowhere as hands on as Cheney, but that is a unique situation, we are not going to see another President as weak as W. Bush for decades, if then. Cheney is the reason that Obama could not risk Hilary: her expectation for the veep role could have been a serious liability. Obama clearly does not intend to have a co-presidency. Now the source of the article has to be considered here: Declan McCullagh, who admits having been the author of the 'Al Gore claims to invent Internet' smear. The way he created that story was that he first published an article in Wired news where he took the quote out of context, then shopped it to his Girlfriend at Cato and Newt Gingrich's office. Then replaced his original story with one that eliminated his fingerprints on the matter. In this story, Declan claims that Obama surrogate Danny Weitzner was involved in a controversy, what he does not mention is that what he calls a controversy is that he was not allowed to attend a W3C workshop that was invitation only, off the record and no-press. I was an attendee at that workshop and certainly could not have given the presentation I gave if press was present and would not have attended if McCullagh was going to be present to twist the proceedings to his own personal agenda. And we have yet another Declan twist here, the C-Net voter guide - I wonder who wrote the criteria? Oh, what a suprise! Declan - again. So what this sorry story is presenting as comment from others on Biden is in fact two links to other articles written by Declan.

Re:Change

[hamburger lady (218108)]

also, biden as VP forces mccain's hand. the christian right has made it very clear that mccain's toast if he picks a pro-choice VP. now with biden as obama's VP, mccain has to pick someone who won't get beaten to a bloody pulp in a debate against biden.

also, mccain needs someone who puts forth an aura of youth to counteract the fact that he's a fossil, and since mccain is getting beaten bloody on this whole confused-rich-guy-who-can't-even-remember-how-many-houses-he-lives-in thing, someone with solid middle-class credentials.

so mccain needs to find a young, anti-abortion middle-class outsider who can go toe-to-toe with joe biden in a debate. good luck with that one.

Joe Biden's pro-RIAA, pro-FBI tech voting record

[by Anonymous Coward]

"By choosing Joe Biden as their vice presidential candidate, the Democrats have selected a politician with a mixed record on technology who has spent most of his Senate career allied with the FBI and copyright holders, who ranks toward the bottom of CNET's Technology Voters' Guide, and whose anti-privacy legislation was actually responsible for the creation of PGP."

That's the original post title and post by Aviran that's merely alluded to here... why the need to neutralize it? Would you have neutralized it for a Republican candidate?

Why I never trust "voting records"

[dada21 (163177)]

Everyone has bias. Everyone.

The problem with voting records is not always apparent when you look at them and try to decide if someone is good for an industry or not. Industries are too complicated for any law to be truly pro or against the industry. Tech is especially so.

For me, the best voting record for a candidate is proven by those who halted BAD legislation by not just voting against more government intrusions into the market, but also worked to hold up bad bills from leaving committees. My favorite legislators are those who just shut down most bills before they're even really bills. The legislative committees is where the best work is done, or the worst work is done.

This is why I fully believe our campaign finance laws are to blame when it comes to voting records. Since the individual is greatly limited in who they can support, and how, it is always the large lobbying groups that end up writing the laws. McCain and Feingold knew this, and they knew that limiting the voice of the individual would end up limiting the power of the individual.

To wrap up, trying to look at voting records is bad because most of the work is done before the vote is even considered. We have no power, as individuals, to try to work in that process. The lobbying groups, which are always about MORE legislation to destroy competition and never LESS, are cozied up very nicely: to Obama, to Biden, to McCain, to whoever it is who is elected, might be elected, or was elected. And on that, all of them have terrible voting records which do nothing but restrict competition in every market they touch.

"Joe Biden has strong anti-piracy record"

[jaiyen (821972)]

I guess we'd better hope voting records don't mean much, as it seems Biden is a firm friend of the *AA's

NEW YORK -- Joe Biden may have made his name in foreign relations in 32 years in the Senate, but his efforts against piracy have won him respect in Hollywood.

Biden was named Saturday as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's running mate. The Delaware senator has got a long list of credentials, including chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, membership on the Senate Judiciary Committee and experience on the world stage lacking in the top of the ticket. But the 64-year-old Scranton, Pa., native has been a strong advocate for U.S. intellectual property rights and an ardent soldier in the fight against piracy.

As a founding member of the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus, Biden has helped the lead the fight against countries such as China, Russia, Mexico and India that need stronger copyright protections.

"When somebody holds you up on the street and takes your wallet, we call it robbery," Biden said in May 2007. "And when somebody steals your idea and creation, we call it theft, plain and simple." The MPA has lauded the work of the anti-piracy caucus as being essential to motivating the government to action.

(From http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3i67f2ad037eba0dd6e4821ce39ce827a3?imw=Y [hollywoodreporter.com])

Some people just don't understand

[JoshJ (1009085)]

Biden wasn't nominated the VP because of his tech voting record. Just look at what the Democrats are talking about- Iraq, the economy, healthcare, the housing crisis, etc. Net Neutrality is barely on the radar, and you can be assured that NN isn't going to get a vote in the next two years (unless someone piles it in an omnibus) even with a Democratic majority.

Biden is a tactical choice to try to win the election; not a choice of "who would actually make the best VP once we win". All you have to do to realize that is watch Biden's acceptance speech, where he smacked the hell out of McCain. Regardless of which side of the aisle you're on politically; that "seven kitchen tables" line was gold. That's what Biden is there for- to attack McCain (and McCain's VP choice) while Obama is above the fray.

VPs are chosen as an attempt to win elections, not as an attempt to pick the best man for the job.

Re:Some people just don't understand

[JoshJ (1009085)]

Because Hillary has extremely high negatives. Rush, Savage, Hannity, Malkin, O'Reilly, etc. would have a field day tearing her apart. Obama would look extremely bad for picking her- we're talking about losing a large number of moderates and nearly all the Republicans who would otherwise be willing to vote for Obama.

Re:Some people just don't understand

[JoshJ (1009085)]

Well, that's because Hillary really is a conservative, so they're okay with how she votes on certain issues. Make no mistake though, if she were the Democratic nominee for President or VP, she'd be declared the next coming of Karl Marx.

Much like all those Republicans who declared McCain a traitor to his party for the past 10 years, but now fall in line behind him (though they're right to do so; since McCain is now toeing the party line rather than holding "mavericky" positions.)

Re:Some people just don't understand

[grahamd0 (1129971)]

Because she is loathed by the critical "undecided" voters. Most of Hillary's people will vote for Obama anyway, and there's no point in courting the "Hillary or nobody" crowd.

Re:Some people just don't understand

[JoshJ (1009085)]

Well, selecting a VP from state X as an attempt to win the state is almost never going to work- the election would have to be extremely close in that state for it to matter, there's just not enough people who will vote for the local guy as VP. (Remember, Gore didn't even win his own state in 2000 and he was running for President!) However, a VP selection can and does impact the outcome of the election by way of the campaign being able to launch attacks without the Presidential candidate being seen as the "attacker". This is quite important if the other side goes negative, as is the case here. I will say though, a VP nod can hurt a lot more than it can help. See: Clinton, Hillary. (Lesson to the Republicans: going negative every election gets really old, really fast; and doing it when your candidate is absurdly rich will burn you the instant you make a mistake.)

All of them voted for

[www.sorehands.com (142825)]

All of them voted for the I-CAN-SPAM Act, except Obama. Obama didn't vote for the I-CAN-SPAM Act because he was not there to vote for it.

Biden Voted Against FISA Amnesty

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

When FISA came to a vote as HR.6308 [senate.gov] on July 9, 2008, Biden voted against it, Obama voted for it.

Who wrote the summary? Fox News?

[Mark_in_Brazil (537925)]

Oh noes! The Democratic vice presidential candidate only got a 37.5 rating from the CNet technolgy voter guide.

Here are a couple of basic facts omitted by the submitter: Obama got a 50.00% rating and McCain got a 31.25% rating.

Given that that information was available via two clicks on the same page that yielded Biden's rating, and given that the positions of the presidential candidates is a lot more important than the positions of the VP candidates, one has to wonder why the submitter didn't find those details worth mentioning.

Additionally, Obama made it very clear before he announced his choice of Biden that he wanted a VP candidate who would engage him in discussions about issues, disagree with him, and challenge his assumptions. Here's an example, in Obama's own words:

Let me tell you first what I won't do. I won't hand over my energy policy to my vice president, without knowing necessarily what he's doing. I wont have my vice president engineering my foreign policy for me. The buck will stop with me, because I will be the president. My vice president, also by the way my vice president also will be a member of the executive branch, he won't be one of these 4th branches of government where he thinks he's above the law. But here's what I do want from my vice president, I want somebody who has integrity, who's in politics for the right reasons, I want somebody who is independent. Somebody who is able to say to me, 'you know what, Mr. President, I think you're wrong on this and here's why' and will give me (applause) who will help me think through major issues and consult with me, would be a key advisor. I want somebody who is capable of being president and who I would trust to be president. That's the first criteria for vice president. And the final thing is I want a [vice] president who shares with me a passion to make the lives of the American people better than they are right now. I want someone who is not in it just because they want to have their name up in lights or end up being president. I want somebody who is mad right now, that people are losing their jobs. And is mad right now that people have seen their incomes decline, and want to rebuild the middle class in this country. That's the kind of person that I want; somebody who in their gut knows where they came from and believes that we have to grow this country from the bottom up.

I apologize if this reduces the number of McCain troll points [johnmccain.com] for somebody interested in getting some McCain campaign schwag.

I added the bold text for emphasis in the Obama quote above.

Another thing: a voting record is useful for evaluating a congresscritter, but not via a simple number. It requires more careful analysis. This is because a congressvarmints will sometimes vote for positions he opposes when the defeat of those positions is assured, but the positions are popular with the congressvarmint's constituents (or the opposite: vote against a position he supports when passage is assured without his vote). And while both members of the House of Representatives and Senators both do that, Senators have yet another trick because of the existence of the filibuster in the Senate. An example is Senator Joe Lieberman, who voted with the Republicans for cloture (i.e., to end the Democratic filibuster) on the nomination of Samuel Alito the Supreme Court. Since it was known that the Republicans had enough votes to rubber-stamp Bush's nomination of Alito, the vote that mattered was the cloture vote. After that, Lieberman cast his vote against confirming Alito, so he could tell the voters in Connecticut, an overwhelmingly Democratic state, that he had voted against Alito. If you were just to look at the confirmation vote, you might think Lieberman had been against confirming Alito, but on the vote that mattered, he voted with the Republicans.

Re:I wonder what the FBI has on him.

[slutsker (804955)]

No, as President of the Senate he will always vote the way the Obama Administration wants him to - this is how all Vice Presidents have voted in the past.

Re:Can't believe parent gets modded up...

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

Perhaps if the world really worked like that, you'd have a point. But the people getting rich aren't the ones with knowledge and skill. They're the tall, confident ones who wine and dine important people. They play the game, and who join the old boy's club. These qualities do not translate into worth to society at large. The ultra-rich are parasites.

Also, small government über alles is not a sustainable philosophy. At least government is accountable. Corporations, unchecked, become little autocratic empires that aren't good for anyone but the owners.

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now

[KillerBob (217953)]

You're welcome to, but I never really found either of them particularly attractive. And I suspect my girlfriend would have a serious objection, too.

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now

[iminplaya (723125)]

It's not flamebait. There's a good 5% of the voting public feel exactly that way about these two. And they have very good reason. While their position on "high" tech is interesting and all, when you starting asking the real questions, it boils down to their position on our rights to use that tech as we see fit. Because none of them are "against" technology. We have to watch how it will used against us. So the questions become something like, Who's going to to reign in the FBI and their wiretapping? Who's going to stop the TSA from damaging [aero-news.net] our airliners, possibly causing a real disaster? When are we ever going to see real adherence to the Bill of Rights? Not that we ever had, but it's about time we make a real effort. If we want to see truly rapid development of high tech, we have to ask when are they going to put an end to near infinite copyright, and the idea of software patents.

Well, from both of these guys we are getting negative responses to all these questions and more. We are going to get more of the same thing that we have been getting since long before we were born.

So the AC is right
Fuck McCain
Fuck Obama
The only thing I could add is "!"

Re:My thoughts on US politics right now

[iminplaya (723125)]

...the system proved once again that it is an abysmal failure in promoting good leaders.

No, we have proven that we are abysmal failures at seeking out good leaders. It is we who are so easily distracted by their shiny trinkets. It is we who act so helpless when only we can make the needed changes.

Next time, vote your conscience.

I agree, but most are voting for the guy who brings it home. The system ain't broke. We are. We created this system, and we continue to feed it. Most are just just not uncomfortable enough to do anything about it. Lack of empathy and downright hate play a huge part.

Re:Quite literally doesn't matter

[jeffehobbs (419930)]

I would argue that it's not a slight difference, but past that: There's a time for idealism and a time for pragmatism. In 2000, I went idealism and voted Nader. I won't be making that mistake this time around.