After reading a few days worth of carping about Joe Biden’s performance, I decided enough’s enough and responded at New York:
Joe Biden has been president of the United States for 43 days. He inherited power from a predecessor who was trying to overturn the 2020 election results via insurrection just two weeks before Inaugural Day, and whose appointees refused the kind of routine transition cooperation other administrations took for granted. His party has a four-vote margin of control in the House, and only controls the Senate via the vice presidential tie-breaking vote (along with a power-sharing arrangement with Republicans). Democratic control of the Senate was not assured until the wee hours of January 6 when the results of the Georgia runoff were clear. Biden took office in the midst of a COVID-19 winter surge, a national crisis over vaccine distribution, and flagging economic indicators.
Biden named all his major appointees well before taking office, and as recommended by every expert, pushed for early confirmation of his national security team, which he quickly secured. After some preliminary discussions with Republicans that demonstrated no real possibility of GOP support for anything like the emergency $1.9 trillion COVID-19 relief and stimulus package he had promised, and noting the votes weren’t there in the Senate for significant filibuster reform, Biden took the only avenue open to him. He instructed his congressional allies to pursue the budget reconciliation vehicle to enact his COVID package, with the goal of enacting it by mid-March, when federal supplemental unemployment insurance would run out. Going the reconciliation route meant exposing the package to scrutiny by the Senate parliamentarian, It also virtually guaranteed total opposition from congressional Republicans, which in turn meant Senate Democratic unanimity would be essential.
The House passed the massive and complex reconciliation bill on February 27, right on schedule, with just two Democratic defections, around the same time as the Senate parliamentarian, to no one’s great surprise, deemed a $15 minimum wage provision (already opposed by two Senate Democrats) out of bounds for reconciliation. The Senate is moving ahead with a modified reconciliation bill, and the confirmation of Biden’s Cabinet is chugging ahead slowly but steadily. Like every recent president, he’s had to withdraw at least one nominee – in his case Neera Tanden for the Office of Management and Budget, though the administration’s pick for deputy OMB director is winning bipartisan praise and may be substituted smoothly for Tanden.
Add in his efforts to goose vaccine distribution — which has more than doubled since he took office — and any fair assessment of Biden’s first 43 days should be very positive. But the man is currently being beset by criticism from multiple directions. Republicans, of course, have united in denouncing Biden’s refusal to surrender his agenda in order to secure bipartisan “unity” as a sign that he’s indeed the radical socialist – or perhaps the stooge of radical socialists – that Donald Trump always said he was. Progressives are incensed by what happened on the minimum wage, though it was very predictable. And media critics are treating his confirmation record as a rolling disaster rather than a mild annoyance, given the context of a federal executive branch that was all but running itself for much of the last four years.
To be clear, I found fault with Biden’s presidential candidacy early and often. I didn’t vote for him in California’s 2020 primary. I worried a lot about Biden’s fetish for bipartisanship. I support a $15 minimum wage, and as a former Senate employee, have minimal respect for the upper chamber’s self-important traditions. But c’mon: what, specifically, is the alternative path he could have pursued the last 43 days? Republican criticism is not worthy of any serious attention: the GOP is playing the same old tapes it recorded in 2009 when Barack Obama (and his sidekick Biden) spent far too much time chasing Republican senators around Washington in search of compromises they never intended to make. While they are entitled to oppose Biden’s agenda, they are not entitled to kill it.
Progressive criticism of Biden feels formulaic. Years and years of investment in the rhetoric of the eternal “fight” and the belief that outrage shapes outcomes in politics and government have led to the habit of seeing anything other than total subscription to the left’s views as a sell-out. Yes, Kamala Harris could theoretically overrule the Senate parliamentarian on the minimum wage issue, but to what end? So long as Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema oppose the $15 minimum wage, any Harris power play could easily be countered by a successful Republican amendment to strike the language in question, and perhaps other items as well. And if the idea is to play chicken with dissident Democrats over the fate of the entire reconciliation bill, is a $15 minimum wage really worth risking a $1.9 trillion package absolutely stuffed with subsidies for struggling low-income Americans? Are Fight for 15 hardliners perhaps conflating ends and means here?
Media carping about Biden’s legislative record so far is frankly just ridiculous. Presumably writing about the obscure and complicated details of reconciliation bills is hard and unexciting work that readers may find uninteresting, while treating Tanden’s travails as an existential crisis for the Biden administration provides drama, but isn’t at all true. The reality is that Biden’s Cabinet nominees are rolling through the Senate with strong confirmation votes (all but one received at least 64 votes), despite a steadily more partisan atmosphere for confirmations in recent presidencies. The COVID-19 bill is actually getting through Congress at a breakneck pace despite its unprecedented size and complexity. Trump’s first reconciliation bill (which was principally aimed at repealing Obamacare) didn’t pass the House until May 4, 2017, and never got through the Senate. Yes, Obama got a stimulus bill through Congress in February 2009, but it was less than half the size, much simpler, and more to the point, there were 59 Senate Democrats in office when it passed, which meant he didn’t even have to use reconciliation.
There’s really no exact precedent for Biden’s situation, particularly given the atmosphere of partisanship in Washington and the whole country right now, and the narrow window he and his party possess – in terms of political capital and time – to get important things done. He should not be judged on any one legislative provision or any one Cabinet nomination. So far the wins far outweigh the losses and omissions. Give the 46th president a break.
I predict that if the American’s pull out, the Bush Administration will be charged with the greatest flip flop since “Read my lips.”
Why did so many Americans die? Why did we spend so much money? First, it was because of terrorism. No terrorists. Then, it was about WMDs. No WMDs. Now, it’s about “liberating” Iraqi’s and protecting the rest of the region from “irrational” Saddam Hussein. Well, Saddam may be gone. But what good would the war have done if Iraq decends into chaos and another dictator takes over. Or worse, civil war envelops the country.
Bush will face a revolt by his neocon base. It will be the total repudiation of his own doctrine (The National Security Strategy, Bush Doctrine) and their philosophy.
> There is NO plan to remove the troops. They are
> building permanent bases in Iraq. No matter
> what people think the plan is for us to be there
> till the end of time.
That is undoubtedly what the Neocons are hoping, but what happens if the Iraqi government doesn’t want it? As this WaPo article explains [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34643-2004May17.html ] ordinary Iraqis are increasingly turning against the U.S. “liberators” simply because there is a general perception the Americans are unable or unwilling to make the country a safe place. This apparently goes for Iraqi government officials too, who will be assassinated if they are seen as collaborating with the Americans. So it is by no means a given the Iraqis will ask the U.S. military to stay since they supposedly fear a “civil war” would erupt. Let’s face reality: the country is almost there already and it’s clear a very significant, violent minority will continue the uprising as long as the “crusaders” remain in the country.
Interestingly, it seems the Bushies may in fact be planning to pull out after all! If the Iraqi government asks the Americans to leave, wouldn’t it be a golden opportunity for the Administration to cut its political losses while declaring “victory” in this battle in the war on terror?
MARCU$
Bush I and Bush II both seem to be proving Lincoln’s aphorism about fooling people. They used war to fool “all” of the people but it’s only worked some of the time.
There is NO plan to remove the troops. They are building permanent bases in Iraq. No matter what people think the plan is for us to be there till the end of time. Which may come sooner than we expect with this bunch running things.
I’ve got a real problem with the irresponsible Left that seems to assume that one can just remove the troops from Iraq and wave bye bye. There is something called “collective responsibility” even if you were a hard anti-war protester pre-Iraq 2003, and I simply don’t think that has sunk in to some proponents of just bring the troops home. Sadly, you cannot run the invasion backwards and depart.
What Kerry perhaps promises is a clean slate in dealing with potential allies. Bush is so profoundly unpopular abroad he has no hope of attracting any sort of meaningful help — but Kerry at least offers that possibility. To win Kerry is going to have to speak two languages — the one of Intnernationalization, cooperation, careful listening to the views of others, but at the same time he cannot forsake a strong identification with American Interests and all the rest of the “realist” language. It is a difficult order, and in many ways it depends on Bush proving himself most lnnept as a diplomat, as incapable of conducting advantageous foreign relations — and Kerry seeming to be very comfortable in that role, but at the same time retaining an authentic American character around himself.
I still think Kucinich offered a complete reversal of Bush’s policies. I wonder if he could really make his ideas a reality.
Kerry doesn’t seem to be different enough. He seems to be shrinking away from anything that may have made him more receptive to the progressive community.
Isn’t it only a matter of time before Bush’s numbers hit the 30s? Then he will be totally at par with Carter in 1980. How did that election turn out?
I think that 40% threshold will sink Bush. Politics is about perception. There are still people in disbelief about his not “being popular.” The GOP expected to campaign on his popularity. Now they have nothing. If he falls into the 30s, the realization will come about that he is not only “not popular,” but is actually “unpopular” (there is a difference). They will start seeing Bush as a liability.
Still want to know what a strategy would be if Bush DOES manage to run.
Please explain :/ re: lots of foreign ministers saying they will pull out if asked “(by who?) but…
TROOPS ARE NOT COMING HOME AFTER JUNE 30!!! I wonder just how many Americans are under the false impression that the “handover of sovereignty (to whom nobody knows) means that the troops will come home. If anything, troop numbers will be increasing over the next few months. If Americans are under the impression that we’re pulling troops out this summer, they’re going to be sorely disappointed and even angrier at Bush than they already are.
Kaus has been having much fun asking if it is too late for the Democrats to nominate someone other than Kerry. Maybe he should be asking if it is too late for the Republicans to nominate someone other than Bush?
I doubt many would compare Bush’s skill as equal to Lyndon Johnson’s (and I don’t want to get too hopeful), but it appears that this one is heading where the 1968 election was going until Johnson retired.
> But what do you think will happen when June 30
> comes and the US washes its hands of Iraq by
> means of the superficial handover of sovereignty?
Well, I think they need to pull the troops out of harm’s way as well and I don’t see that happening. As long as Americans are getting killed and as long as taxpayers (well, future generations of taxpayers — “read my lips: no new taxes!”) are being asked to foot the bill, I think Iraq will continue to be a liability. Besides, the dwindling but vocal neoconservative minority will scream like banshees if “Shrub” abandons the Great American Cause of creating democracy in Iraq. GOP voters and conservative pundits are grumbling a lot these days, but they still respect his “moral leadership” in the War on Terror. If “Shrub” starts backtracking on that crucial issue, what’s left?
I am much more worried about the economy: wouldn’t it be awful if the GNP and employment figures improved sufficiently for “Shrub” to squeak through in November? I hear the best guess is there won’t be a sufficiently long string of good news for “Shrub” to use it effectively in his campaign, but nor will Kerry be able to use the data to his advantage. So it’s most likely going to be a wash.
My greatest fear is Kerry will continue to stumble during and after the Demo convention when people finally start paying attention. That’s when succcesful challengers such as Clinton and Reagan took off. Will Kerry prove appealing enough? I think he likely will, if the U.S. is in the same funk as it was during Carter’s final months in office. But *if* the economy is doing acceptably and *if* Iraq/the Middle East is improving, I just don’t see how he can win even if he is running a much better campaign than he is doing right now…
MARCU$
I’ve been following the Zogby polls mainly because he was the most accurate during the last election. However, it’s become quite interesting to see all (or most) of the polls showing something that makes me want to read all of them. That being, GWB’s numbers tanking!!!!! Hopefully there isn’t time for him to recover. I certainly believe we haven’t seen the last of the other scandals (i.e. Plamegate, and 9/11 gate). There’s too much going on for this guy to survive all the negatives.
Hopefully, I haven’t jinxed this for Kerry by saying that.
Locally (Washington, DC) I listened to a political analyst on the way to work named Plotkin. He stated that traditionally people vote what they knew about the economy six months ago. I remember that from prior elections also. Other than voting machine fraud, I just don’t see how Bush can survive all the heat put on him to date and going forward.
Hey, and don’t forget that Bush’s big “Let’s go to Mars!” speech is coming up! That’ll screw him for sure. I can already hear the comments:
“So, Mr. President, do you believe that you will find the weapons of mass destruction there?”
I can’t wait.
If Bush does pull most of the troops out by July, and focus attention on the “economic recovery” and on the shameless 9/11 exploitation at the GOP convention, and on social issues, then these poll numbers don’t mean a lot. They can change at any time. The only thing that say is that Rove is having a harder time figuring out what to do. The bad news against Bush is now very diverse and hitting from him all sides (even the tobacco farmers are turning against him!).
Well, the current numbers certainly look good for Kerry when measured against past performances for incumbent presidents half a year before the election.
1964 JOHNSON-Goldwater: 59
1968 —
1972 NIXON-McGovern: 11
1976 Ford-CARTER: -6
1980 Carter-REAGAN: 8
1984 REAGAN-Mondale: 17
1988 —
1992 Bush-CLINTON: 6
1996 CLINTON-Dole: 14
2000 —
2004 Bush-Kerry: -6
Unfortunately, candidates have occasionally dug themselves out of deeper holes than this although no incumbent has ever managed the feat. In the spring of 1968, Nixon was trailing Hubert Humphrey by six points while the current moron’s father was fourteen points behind Dukakis in 1988. Let’s hope this election really *is* about the Administration’s track record rather than about Kerry.
—
BTW, how could Kerry neutralize the Nader problem? By offering him a job in the Kerry Administration in case he is elected? At least Ralph should stay away from battleground states and only appear on the ballot in safely “blue” or “red” states…
MARCU$
I wonder if Nader is drawing Republicans who can’t bear to support a Democrat — sort of a protest vote. His Reform Party endorsement probably helps that a little.
Of course when election day rolls around, I doubt they’ll be motivated enough to go out and pull a lever for Nader.
But what do you think will happen when June 30 comes and the US washes its hands of Iraq by means of the superficial handover of sovereignty?
Will the reporters go home? Will news reports on the debacle in Iraq dry up (like war reports in Afghanistan now)? Will that end the national attention on Iraq and cushion Bush’s fall?