With the clock running down and real problems emerging on the legislative front, the president is beginning to meet with key congressional Democrats representing different factions. At New York I took a shot at suggesting what he needs to get them to understand:
We have breathlessly been told by all the Beltway insider outlets that Joe Biden has summoned various congressional Democrats to the White House in hopes of saving his 2021 legislative agenda, which is on the brink of disaster thanks to the irreconcilable demands of competing factions. For once, the eternal “Democrats in disarray” narrative is accurate. On September 27, the House is scheduled to vote on the Senate-passed infrastructure bill, a vote rebellious House “centrists” extorted from Speaker Nancy Pelosi in order to get the votes for a must-pass budget resolution. They are quietly backed by rebellious Senate centrists. Multiple House progressives, who have their own cheering gallery in the Senate, are promising to kill the infrastructure bill if it comes up before the fiscal year 2022 budget reconciliation bill is enacted, which won’t happen for weeks. The one sure thing is that if this transpires, House Republicans will make certain there are not enough votes for the bill in their ranks to save it.
Biden should find some way to recycle his famous words to Obama about Obamacare.
The success or failure of the governing coalition Democrats managed to secure in 2020 (and in those two crucial Senate runoffs in 2021) is about to be determined by what happens in the next few days and weeks. If they fail, there will be no tomorrow, no Plan B. Next year will be a lot like 2010, when Democrats lost the ability to pass legislation against Republican obstruction and then got clobbered at the polls. It took them eight years to recover from that debacle. Another one could be staring them in the face.
Biden remembers that, and so do many Hill veterans. He needs to impress on them that this is no time to listen to hammerheaded pollsters or greedy donors or Twitter activists. Like it or not, Biden has defined the paired infrastructure and reconciliation bills as central to his presidential legacy and to his party’s case for maintaining power. He needs to make every Democrat tempted to sabotage either bill feel that his failure would be theirs as well, whether or not they lose their own seats in 2022, which some undoubtedly will if the Biden agenda implodes.
Obviously, the president must acknowledge and show respect for the fact that legitimate differences of opinion exist in his big-tent party. But lawmakers posturing and grandstanding in order to get a shout-out at Politico as big-time wheeler-dealers are not legitimate or worthy of respect. Biden needs to challenge congressional Democrats very directly on this: Let’s go a week without any name other than mine and Nancy’s and Chuck’s appearing in the national political media. If they are questioned about intra-Democratic negotiations, they should refuse comment, go vague, or say “watch and learn.”
Why is this important? Because the centrist-progressive (and on some issues House-Senate) dynamics are reciprocal and virtually guarantee escalation. A ceasefire in factional hostilities requires some peace and quiet.
Whether it’s centrists placing some arbitrary “cap” on the size of a reconciliation bill they can accept or progressives making their votes for reconciliation contingent on inclusion of this or that priority, the proliferation of absolute and totally irreconcilable demands is what has really brought congressional Democrats to the brink of disaster.
Biden needs to show Democrats he understands how and why this is happening: It’s mostly the result of the extremely small margin of control in both Houses — which in fact, objectively speaking, gives every senator and every group of a few House members the power to destroy their party’s agenda. In the past, if that had happened, leaders might have been able to offset intraparty hostage taking by securing votes from the opposition. That’s just not practicable in the current environment. Even on the so-called bipartisan infrastructure bill, Republicans are now making it clear they would love to see it go down to defeat and will work to produce that outcome.
But while expressing empathy for the temptations facing individual members, Biden has to insist that the public demands and threats stop right now and promise with whatever cold anger he can muster that there will be real consequences for those who go rogue at this sensitive moment. Successfully negotiating the size and shape of the reconciliation bill, for example, is going to be excruciatingly hard if the landscape is constantly shifting because Problem-Solver X or Progressive Caucus Y has laid down some personal marker through a press release or a staff leak.
With the clock running down on the endgame for the 2021 legislative saga, Biden and his closest congressional allies really need to adopt a strategy and demand universal support for it right now, even if that means some backtracking by congressional factions. If the infrastructure bill is going to be salvaged, Biden has to bluntly tell progressives the days of “linkage” between reconciliation and infrastructure are now over: The infrastructure bill will be on the House floor next week and it has to pass. But at the same time, Biden needs to tell centrists that while he and Pelosi and Schumer will listen to everyone’s point of view on reconciliation, he needs commitments of support now for the final product, and to threaten permanent ostracism by the entire federal government (within the limits of the law) for anyone who refuses to comply.
In asking Democratic factions and individual members to give up their leverage over one another, Biden will supply his own leverage to keep the party united. It’s probably the only thing, at this point, that will work. And what does the president have to lose in making some exceptional promises and threats of his own? He’s a 78-year-old man who has spent nearly a half-century putting himself in the position to enact the kind of legislative package that is at stake right now. If he loses it, his presidency will at best be hollow and short, and his party will go into the wilderness. Only he can stop that from happening.
The McCain campaign is shameless. Consider this idea; it may be over the top, but so is the Republican commerical about sex education:
——————
A few video clips of John McCain in ill health. A newspaper headline about his melanoma.
A clip of Sarah Palin saying something silly. A headline of her election as mayor of Wasillia, population 6000 [or whatever].
Voiceover: John McCain says he has the judgment and experience to be president. But despite his health history, he chooses an inexperienced new governor as his running mate. Why? To try to win over Hillary Clinton supporters.
Country First?
————————
I suggest this because I think the Republican willingness to put inexperienced mediocrities like Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, Harriet Miers, Heckuvajob Brownie, et al., into high office is unpatriotic. They select on the basis of tactical advantage and ideological submission rather than merit.
“MILF” and “bimbo” — those are sexist terms when applied toward any woman. When you imply that Palin’s success is based primarily on her looks (“failed beauty queen” “second-rate beauty queen”), that’s sexist. She did legitimately win election to mayor and governor. It’s fair to question her qualifications for the vice presidency; it’s not fair to label her a “bimbo.”
When did Bill Clinton call voters “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards”? When did Bill Clinton express contempt and hatred toward his opponents? When did Bill Clinton call Pat Robertson a “Jew-hating Nazi he-devil”? You may have thought those things yourself, but Bill Clinton never uttered those words (or anything close to them). Bill Clinton did, however, stick to his core message “It’s the economy, stupid.”
You mistake lack of contempt and vitriol as weakness. You accuse people who don’t share your aggressive, denigrating tone as “lacking a spine.” I read Naomi Foner’s article; she’s arguing that we go after Palin’s positions. Hit her hard with her hypocrisy. Absolutely. But your language is way beyond Foner’s.
“Leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose.” Tough talk. There’s a big difference between a solid right hook and a sucker punch, head butt or knee to the groin. My problem with your approach isn’t the fight itself; it’s how you fight. This isn’t some ultimate fighting cage match. It’s not a silly playground game of one-upmanship. It’s a fight to get more people on your side. And there are lots of ways to do that.
Stop panicking. You’re like the soldier who can’t hold his fire and gives away his position. Have some confidence in a candidate and a campaign that has done pretty damn well so far. So McCain is getting a good bump in the polls. If you thought that the country was just going to reject McCain out of hand and lovingly embrace Obama, then you completely misunderstand Americans (but of course you do, because you hold them in such contempt).
And by the way, though I do not expect anyone to believe what I or anyone says simply because we say it, I’d like to point out this article..written by a WOMAN…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-foner/were-in-big-trouble_b_124686.html
She does not seem to have a whole lot of trouble hitting Palin where it should hurt either. And she is just one of many women who undoubtedly feel the same way.
And she, unlike me, actually gets paid to say this stuff.
I’m no frothing lunatic from the woods, people. I am someone who, like many many others, is beginning to see how much Obama is in trouble. Very serious trouble….owing a lot to what I have been talking about…not enough attacks, and too much cerebral dancing.
That is the second time you have accused me of sexism..either grow a spine and come after what I say with an actual argument, or leave the political commentary to those who are not afraid of a bloody nose. But I am not about to give the MILF a pass simply because she happens to be a woman..anymore than black candidates should get a pass because they are black, or anyone should get a pass simply because of race or gender.
If wanting to hit Palin hard, because she deserves to be hit hard because of her extremism, her lies, and her positions makes me a sexist, you have a warped definition of the word. There are plenty of able women out there…Palin is not one of them, and if I see her weakness as the fact that she is a failed beauty queen with an empty head, i will say so, just as much as I will come after McCain for being a foul tempered old fool.
And you want a name? Bill Clinton. For all his many many faults, he was not afraid to hit back dirty and often during campaigns, and he is the only Democrat elected to the White House twice in the last 30 years.
I am not sure what polls or studies you are reading my friend, but we are losing this race, and the Democratic Congress that we control has the lowest aggregate approval rating in the history of Congress. The reason? They are all being led be milquetoast diplomats like yourself afraid of getting scratched in a real, honest to God fight with Republicans…the ones who actually know how to attack and..say it with me…WIN.
ThinkingGuy:
Just who do you think is going to be persuaded by your sexism, contempt and hatred? The “John Q. American” you mock? Women (who just LOVE the term “MILF”)? Independents?
Please show me one Democrat who has won an election using your suggested tactics. Democrats have won, and are continuing to win, local, state and Congressional elections because they’re finally begin to understand the “lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards” that most us more reasonably — and correctly — call our neighbors, co-workers and friends. Sorry all those folks aren’t up to your standards. But they’re the ones you have to win over if you want to be elected to national office.
Not sexy enough.
We Democrats are getting skinned alive in this election, despite all of history and all of the numbers a mere six months ago giving us a free ride to take the biggest electoral vistory in a generation. And the reason why? Sexiness.
You got a gone toting MILF and a lying mean spirited POW on the other ticket. You think ads that talk about issues and graft from Wasilla are going to speak to John Q. American, (aka. John Q. Redneck) no.
The voting public, as it proved by the re-election of Bush, are lazy, short sighted, shiny object watching dullards. If we do not hit back with as much venom, we will lose, as we always do.
How about an ad showing Palin as the second rate Beauty Queen, Jew Hating nazi she-devil that she is? This is what we need to do, because everyone else is doing it.
Define her as the evil that she is.
Spot on. And here’s the ad I would propose:
The idea is to mimic the MasterCard “priceless” ads in tone, structure and imagery. [All claims and figures need to be rigorously fact-checked.]
Opens with an establishing shot of Wasilla, Alaska, cut to interior shot of an ice hockey rink with kids playing on the ice. Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: WSJ headline “Palin’s Hockey Rink Leads to Legal Troubles: Misstep leads to years of litigation and at least $1.3 million in extra costs”
VO: “Cost overruns caused by Mayor Sarah Palin’s mismanagement of a major city project: $1.3 million dollars.”
Still shots of “Washington lobbyists” shaking hands (ideal would be a picture showing Palin shaking hands with one of the lobbyists she hired). Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: Washington Post headline: “Palin’s Small Alaska Town Secured Big Federal Funds” $26.9 Million Dollars for a town of 6,700 people.
VO: “Amount that lobbyists, hired by Mayor Palin, secured in federal earmarks for her town of 6,700: $26.9 million dollars.”
Moving overhead shot of Ketchikan, Alaska airport, zooming in to proposed location of “bridge to nowhere.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: headline from Anchorage Daily News: “Palin touts stance on ‘bridge to nowhere,’ doesn’t note flip-flop”
“Amount of taxpayer dollars Gov. Palin kept for the ‘bridge to nowhere’ she initially supported and was never built: $223 million dollars.”
Clip of Gov. Palin from Republican Convention “In politics, there are some candidates who use change to promote their careers.” Ends with graphic overlay with sound and visual FX: universal “no” sign (red circle with diagonal line) stamped over still image of Palin at podium.
VO: “A candidate who says one thing and does another: absolutely unaffordable.”
VO and graphic: “Barack Obama and Joe Biden: Change We Can Trust.”
Can do a companion version for John McCain.