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.
Well, barring an Al Quaida sideshow, then Kerry has it pretty much sown up..
However, I tend to think that even if the Bin Ladin clan staged an event, the Kerry crew still has a hope. I personally believe that desparate times, require desparate action and as such, any event by Al Quaida should drive the DEMs into stating in no uncertain terms that the ability of Al Quaida to successfully stage an event 2 -3 years after Bush was given a mandate to secure the nation, is living proof of his inability to get the job done. As such, he is leaving all of america and he people vulnerable and open to further humiliation, global embarrasment, open fear and general suffering.
This is the tact that would have to be used in order the right side up the cart. Any other apporach would be too weak and would lead to a Bush victory. The DEMS need to prepare for this eventuality and dont put it past the GOP to latch onto such an event for political gains.
> He can’t
> count on the economy because its heading down
> hill at a rapid rate.
Well, at *best*, the record will be mixed — but I think Kerry already has enough fuel to keep the economic fire burning through Nov. 2 even if “Shrub” gets lucky from now on. There is supposedly an old rule saying an incumbent needs half a year of good news on the economy to convince voters they’ve turned the corner. I don’t think a temporary upswing in new jobs created this fall will do the trick — particularly since fuel prices are expected to remain high for the rest of the year.
> He cant count on being a war president because
> that was is yet to produce results.
Maybe the Afghani elections will turn out to be smashing success, but I would not exactly count on that either. As you say, Iraq will remain bad for the foreseeable future.
—
I think the Administration’s best bet might be in the “lost and found” category. Found! WMD evidence, at last. Found! bin Laden and Al-Zarqawi(sp). The latter isn’t such a big stretch, but even Saddam’s capture didn’t cause a lasting bounce.
> It seems to me that his only hope is to smear
> kerry to the ground and role him in the dirt,
Won’t work… Kerry/Edwards and their base (which is angry as hell, as am I) have made a conscious effort to put on a positive face. Their message is patriotic, positive in tone and generally upbeat — the 527s are doing the Dems’ dirty work for Kerry. It will be pretty hard for “Shrub” and “Right Wing Dick” to launch a smearing campaign after the Boston convention. Incumbent presidents have rarely done that at such a late stage in the campaign.
> along with getting his rank and file to rally
> around the waggon and get every possible
> republican and wannabe republicans to vote.
Probably their best bet, I agree about that. However, this means pandering to the extreme religious right at every opportunity. Doesn’t seem like a workable strategy as Kerry/Edwards are working very hard at wooing centrist voters abandoned by the GOP!
> ofcourse, miraculous PR and advertising is
> always there and the GOPs would use it…
No. Emotional spin about Willie Horton, gay marriage, flag burning, liberal flip-flopping etc. work only if the playing field is essentially level and if the GOP candidate has no negative baggage from the past. This is why the Bushes won in 1988 and 2000. Kerry would have been toast if he had tried to run as well. But 2004 is different since most voters really are only interested in the incumbent president’s track record. And that track record looks pretty bad right now, in so many areas.
—
Apart from Kerry self-destructing in the debates, there is one major wild-card though. Al Qaeda might want to keep its “useful idiot” good-enemy American president in power, by staging another major attack killing thousands of Americans. Unless it turns out the Administration really screwed up homeland defense before 9/11 pt.II (a distinct possibility, alas), it’s bound to deflect negative attention away from “Shrub”. Don’t forget he *was* quite effective as a cheerleader in late 2001, when his approval ratings were in the 80-90% range (a boost of 40-50%). It could conceivably happen again — especially since Kerry would have little choice but to suspect campaigning and voice his unconditional support of the Admininstration’s policies.
MARCU$
I hope someone with status will get the courage really soon to declare that Bush’s terror announements are 80 percent politricks and 20 percent concern about American safety.
Someone mentioned that if Al Quaida pulls off an event before the elections that it will play directly into Bush’s hand and the country will rally behind him. Personally I tend to agree with that but only if the DEMS allow it to be this way.
Actually, well marketed and laced with good PR, any event of such a nature can be billed as a catastrophic failure of Bush to secure the country after 2 – 3 years of skirting and politicising the issue.
Truth be told, it would be the absolute truth because he had the time and pretty much the budgets to get the job done. So, if this event does happen, I hope that the opposition, who ever they are, is ready to clad the media with this kind of message on every front.
And by the way…. it is possible that not every event of a negative nature in the world might not be the Bin Ladin clan? Is it possible that there are other terrorist groups not linked to Bin Ladin? Is it possible that there are terrorist groups deep with in the US who are ready and waiting to do just as much devasatation as the purported Al Quaida before Nov 2?
Why do we blame every single event on Al Quaida? The reasons why I ask is because no one seems to be doing the research to refute the GOPs constant claims on the subject and the worse fear of all is that this two eyed approach to Al Quaida certainly leaves room for other groups to creep up on our blind side and do just as much damage.
Sometimes I wonder how much free PR Al Quaida gets from this administration and the world… Sometimes I think that these guys have gone pretty dormand and are hibernating… but then some event pops up and its Al Quaida again. hmmm..
If these events are truly always the Bin Ladin clan, then they are super organised and much more sophisticated than any army in the entire universe and then it makes me wonder why spend so many trillions on US military power and these guys are carrying out warfare on donkeys and motor bikes. Strange.. but we find out exactly whats going on here.. it doesnt make sense to me.
cheers
Leslie, Leslie…. you sound nervous. If you are this nervous now, can you imagine the butterflies on elections night? LOL.. LOL…
There comes a point when you simply have to let go and let the system do its work. Before that time, you can make sure to mobilise people in the area who are willing to ensure that the right systems are in place. Beyond that, there is not much more that can be done and you will have to sit quietly and wait for the results.
I would like to think that the DEMs have people on the inside looking after these issues. If they dont, then you have plenty reason for concern as this current admin doesnt allow for much trust.
Start talking to the powers that be, in the party.
Cheers
I’d feel a whole lot better if Florida (and some other states) weren’t using electronic voting machines without paper trails. It wouldn’t be so bad if Jebbie wasn’t the governor there and if the executives of the companies that count the electronic votes weren’t best buddies with Dubya et familia. I hate to sound like I don’t trust the Bushes; it’s just that I don’t trust the Bushes.
The more desperate things become for the Republican Party, the more nervous I get. Karl Rove and his band of meany men are ruthless, and I don’t even want to think what they have up their sleeves for October.
I agree that it’s way, way, beyond Bush’s control by now. He’s a passenger.
The only conceivable way he could win would be an event which causes people to abandon reason and react emotionally. But it’s getting late even for that. Once people have made up their mind against him, a catastrophic event would be less likely to cause a change in their thinking than it would have in 2001, when all but the most partisan voters were keeping an open mind about him, and everybody knew he’d be President for three more years no matter what.
I think that time has run out for Bush. I am sure that he was banking on a much better economical report at this time so the he could have a somewhat solid platform on which to launch his economical policies at the convention. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort happened and now he has to find something on which to run his campaign.
He cannot run it on his record because it has nothing within it by which he can stand. He cant count on the economy because its heading down hill at a rapid rate.
He cant count on being a war president because that was is yet to produce results.
It seems to me that his only hope is to smear kerry to the ground and role him in the dirt, along with getting his rank and file to rally around the waggon and get every possible republican and wannabe republicans to vote.
Beyond this, his days are numbered… The whitehouse is Kerry’s to lose and not Bush’s to win. He has already lost it, so kerry now needs to do what he needs to, to collect the keys.
I am pretty sure that his time has run out. I cant think of any possible report that can show the economy in some radical upswing, I cant think of anythiing that can be done to suddenly create peace in Iraq, I cant think of anything that can change his foreign policy instantly, I cant think of anything that can retract those fleeting truths which he has been laying on the american people in the past two years, I cant think of anything that cause his to get his first elected term in the whitehouse…
ofcourse, miraculous PR and advertising is always there and the GOPs would use it… and I am sure they are about to unleash it..
Cheers
I am particularly encouraged by the way the dreaded “outside events” have gone so far in August. Remember: this month will belong to “Shrub”. He will get lots of media coverage once the GOP convention starts in late August. Kerry won’t get as many good opportunities to make his case e.g. due to the Olympics. So the Republicans are planning a big media blitz. But the first week of this month has been dominated by unexpectedly bad news about the economy, and additional violence in Iraq. This is deadly stuff, since it re-focuses voter attention on this Administration’s track record in 2000-04 while rendering Kerry’s negative “intangibles” (=aloof French-lookin’ Taxachusetts aristocrat out of sync with All-American values etc.) increasingly irrelevant.
Time is running out for “Shrub”. He is the incumbent trying to defend his 1st term achievements. He cannot change the subject to Kerry’s shortcomings as a candidate, unless he has good news to report about the economy or the War on Terror. Right now it seems he needs to place his bets on Pakistan managing to catch bin Laden shortly before Nov.2.
MARCU$