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.
Speaking for the Illinois 10th, first term Congressman Mark Kirk would be the poster boy for Moderate Republicans. His equally centrist Democratic opponent 2 years ago, made them almost politically indistinguishable, in a close, but issues driven election.
This district is home to the affluent North Shore suburbs bordering Chicago, a natural constituent (and home to many employees) of the Chicago Tribune. Although the scandal torn state GOP is still under the ‘silent partner’ control of the Conservative wing – which solely can dictate the slating of Republican candidates – it is highly doubtful they would attempt to knock off Kirk in a primary, for obvious reasons.
Which poses a daunting dilemma for Democrats. They would be helped first, if they could possibly link Kirk in some way to the fringe element of the GOP, which is doubtful. Even if Kirk continues to support the Iraq Invasion, it is still not a liability. Because, many of these moneyed, Rockefeller Republicans held their noses and voted for Bush.
Which forces Dems to field a candidate with the gravitas of a Rahm Emmanuel, or dare I say, a Barack Obama.
By 2006, accountability will hopefully have caught up with the Bush administration, and some moderate Republicans may choose to insure he does no further damage by booting a likable sycophant.
History is important, but only to help learn what is needed to change the outcome the next time.
What you did in 2002 really isn’t that relevant if you want to win. Develop a new game plan. And start now to do what’s needed to win. I’m in MA and we’ve got a totally DEM Congressional delegation which is not at-risk for the foreseeable future. I’ve got the interest, motivation, and some resources, to direct toward turning Red House Districts Blue.
There must be hundreds of thousands of folks in the same situation. Mobilize them by turning each race into an Internet Drama.
I hate to say this, but the kind of thinking that you displayed in your post is what’s going to keep the DEMs in permanent minority status.
Stop playing Washington’s game and create a battle plan which can win in Iowa.
Iowa 1 and 2 will be in play only if the incumbents vacate the seats. Jim Nussle, House Budget Subcommittee chairman, is unbeatable–we took a shot at him in 2002, but didn’t even come close. He can bring home too much to the district, and he has a lot of support in the Dubuque area, where Dems would have to do well to win.
If Nussle leaves the House to run for Iowa governor in 2006, however, we would have a shot at that seat with the right candidate.
Iowa 2 is occupied by Jim Leach, one of the most liberal Republicans in the House (e.g. he has a pretty good environmental record, is pro-choice and voted against the Iraq War resolution). We took a shot at him in 2002 with a great candidate, but fell just short. He even carried the “People’s Republic of Johnson County,” home of Iowa City and the state’s most liberal voters. There are too many people who don’t understand that a vote for Leach is a vote for Tom DeLay running the House.
If Leach retires, this seat is very winnable–in fact, Dems would be favored given the way it is currently drawn. Otherwise, it will continue to be a heartbreaker.
It would be great to pick up one or both of these seats by 2010, because Iowa will lose a House seat and we need incumbents to have a prayer of winning one of the remaining four districts in the state.