How will Joe Biden GOVERN? General Biden Administration F**kery Thread

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,662
Reputation
-34,332
Daps
618,112
Reppin
The Deep State
:francis:



Biden’s White House comms strategy is driving Republicans insane | Andrew Feinberg
Biden’s White House communications strategy is driving Republicans insane

In the words of one House Republican campaign operative, ‘It’s a nightmare’
67e8fe019e4f3fa2d4869a061a047e1f4c92487c.webp

Andrew Feinberg
Washington DC
|@AndrewFeinberg
|
14 hours ago
| comments

ef9e0f2ed70fcc18fac95b81c9420bf0a28388a4.webp

Joe Biden is hosting a virtual summit of 40 world leaders on April 22 and 23, to raise the stakes on global climate ambition
(EPA)
If there’s a cliché that summed up Joe Biden’s defeat of an extremely progressive Democratic primary field, it’s the pithy maxim that Twitter is not real life. And since Biden assumed the presidency this past January, his deliberate, plodding, and downrightboring communications strategy has followed a similar — but related — rule: TV isn’t governing.
As of the morning of April 13, the presidential statement trackers at factba.se report that Biden has spoken 2,288,361 words since being sworn in. Most of those have come in the form of prepared remarks during pre-arranged appearances, after which he has taken precious few questions. And even adding in his single East Room press conference and a television town hall held just a month into his term, the man who once famously called himself a “gaffe machine” has managed to spend his first 83 days in office remarkably gaffe-free, with perhaps his most newsworthy public statement of late being the ESPN interview in which he said he would support Major League Baseball if the decision was made to shift the national pastime’s all-star game away from Atlanta due to Georgia’s recently enacted restrictions on voting.
For Republicans looking to capitalize on a major misstatement or slip-up, Biden’s less-is-more strategy has meant that the pickings have been slim.
“It’s a nightmare,” said one House Republican campaign operative when asked about his party’s efforts to render Biden — and therefore his agenda — unpalatable to the majority of Americans.
For the most part, Republicans have responded to Biden’s nascent administration and the accompanying Democratic control of Congress by reverting to their Obama-era playbook. That means denying the administration support for any of its major legislative initiatives — just as they did with the 2009 American Reinvestment and Recovery Act and the legislation that followed it.


The GOP also worked to cast both Obama and his policies as unpalatable and vaguely radical — often in racialized terms — in ways that successfully poisoned his own brand and that of the Democratic Party in the eyes of many voters. For instance, when Obama said during a July 2009 news conference that a Cambridge, Massachusetts police officer had “acted stupidly” by arresting Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr in his own home, then-Iowa Representative Steve King said the remark “demonstrated that he has a default mechanism in him that breaks down the side of race that [favors] the Black person”. The incident was covered for weeks in conservative media to the point where Obama felt the need to invite Gates and the officer to the White House. In his memoir,A Promised Land, the former president wrote that internal White House polling at the time showed that that one incident cost him more white support than any other event during his presidency.
Kurt Bardella is an ex-Republican communications operative who served as a spokesperson for Republicans on the House Oversight Committee during the Obama administration. He told me that Biden’s successful avoidance of culture war traps and gaffes that can be weaponized by conservative media figures shows that he and his team have “learned a lot of lessons from the experience of President Obama’s early years”.


“if anything, the Obama White House was naïve in how they viewed Republicans and the damage that Republicans could cost the administration,” he said, adding that in his opinion, “the Biden team was going into this with their eyes wide open”.
The GOP campaign consultant — a veteran of both presidential and congressional politics — said Biden’s relative reticence, combined with his age and race, has made it harder to launch culture war-based attacks on him.
“You’ll never get anyone to admit this on the record, but it’s really f**king hard to drive down the negatives of an affable, gentlemanly white man who says nice, positive things most of the time,” he said.
Instead, Republicans have reverted to an unsuccessful tactic first deployed by the man Biden defeated in 2020: Call him senile and suggest he’s a puppet.
One such Republican, Texas Senator John Cornyn, took to Twitter recently to suggest that Biden’s tendency to limit his remarks to those prepared beforehand and eschew unscripted moments raised questions as to whether he is truly in charge of the executive branch.
When asked about Cornyn’s tweet on Monday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said she could “confirm that the president of the United States does not spend his time tweeting conspiracy theories” because he “spends his time working on behalf of the American people”.
Bardella explained that despite Biden’s limited exposure since becoming president, he has been “a very effective communicator in terms of the level of trust and authenticity that he exudes” when he does speak. He added that Cornyn’s claim that Biden is not really in charge because he isn’t omnipresent in the media like his predecessor shows that Republicans “are desperate to do insane anything they can to not have to actually talk about the substance of the Biden agenda, which is overwhelmingly popular, even with Republican voters”.
“The Biden White House is not going to play into the hands of Republicans, nor should they,” he added. “And the more that they whine about it, the more it just cements the certainty that the strategy that they’ve pursued is the right one.”
 
Last edited:

Ozymandeas

Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
14,861
Reputation
2,165
Daps
70,822
Reppin
NULL
A treaty like that just delays the inevitable at most. If we cant trust a country to not launch a nuke in aggression then how can we trust them to uphold a peace of paper? :ld: I get the monitoring and economic benefit to Iran but I remain hesitant to trust them to uphold anything

Good point.
 

Ozymandeas

Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
14,861
Reputation
2,165
Daps
70,822
Reppin
NULL
nikka if you don't get the fukk outta here with this neo-imperialist/colonialist bullshyt :mjtf:

He’s not lying though :yeshrug:

The whole time we’ve been having “peace talks” with the Taliban, cars, subways and buildings have been blowing up and people have been getting butchered out in the open while they say they have no involvement or no knowledge of how it happened. SMH. The moment we leave it’s going to be absolute Hell for anyone living there. The Afghani government might as well just hand over power now...their “authority” will be a complete farce once we aren’t there to force the terrorists to pretend like they recognize it.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,662
Reputation
-34,332
Daps
618,112
Reppin
The Deep State
Didn't I tell yall about the Jacobin and its editor Bhaskar? FAH1223 spent YEARS promoting this dude

:mjpls:



Clyburn doesn’t want Biden to be like FDR
Clyburn doesn’t want Biden to be like FDR


By LAURA BARRÓN-LÓPEZ, ALEX THOMPSON and THEODORIC MEYER

04/13/2021 06:45 PM EDT


Presented by Climate Power

With help from Allie Bice

Welcome to POLITICO’s 2021 Transition Playbook, your guide to the first 100 days of the Biden administration

HARRY TRUMAN would like a word.

It’s only Day 84 of JOE BIDEN’s presidency but there’s already been a lot of ink spilled, including by White House chief of staff RON KLAIN, comparing Biden to FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

Klain has twice tweeted an FDR quote, “action, and action now” — both times in reference to Biden. In a more explicit comparison, he tweeted side-by-side photos of FDR’s Cabinet and Biden’s Cabinet. And he's also promoted comments by columnists and media personalities linking the former president and the current one.

But House Majority Whip JIM CLYBURN (D-S.C.) has a different take.

The Biden ally, widely credited with turning around the former vice president’s bid for the nomination, brought up the FDR comparisons in a recent interview when discussing ways Biden could cement an outsized legacy.

“See I'm one who feel, contrary to some of our friends, that Joe Biden's legacy, if he's going to have credibility, must be much closer to Harry Truman than to Franklin Roosevelt,” Clyburn said. “I hear people talking about Joe Biden all the time comparing him to FDR. FDR's legacy was not good for Black people.”

“A Fair Deal rather than a New Deal,” he continued, referring to Truman’s “Fair Deal” agenda, which included civil rights protections. “Just because the thing is new doesn't mean it's fair. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was not fair to Black people. And I don't know why people just skip over that, for some reason don't want to deal with that.”

We know it’s early in the presidency to make grand historical analogies. But the White House and Biden himself have invited this academic exercise. Biden has prominent tributes to both presidents in his Oval Office: a bust of Truman flanking the Resolute Desk and a large portrait of Roosevelt that hangs directly across from the desk. His aides were reportedly trading FDR biographies before inauguration. During the campaign, Biden told Sen. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.) he wanted “to be the most progressive President since FDR.”

Most historians who spoke to Transition Playbook said that FDR’s presidency was more consequential than Truman’s given the overlapping crises he confronted. Since Biden is also facing several crises at once, they said that if Biden insisted on modeling his presidency on one of the two -- FDR or Truman -- they’d go with the former.

But no one disputed Clyburn’s central premise about Truman being a stronger advocate for Black Americans than FDR. And Biden’s base of support is much more dependent on Black voters than Roosevelt or Truman’s ever was.

“FDR had to dance around the Southern conservatives in his party who would have voted against the New Deal if he had insisted on doing as much for African Americans as he wanted to (and as his wife, Eleanor, urged him to do),” H.W. BRANDS, a University of Texas presidential historian and the author of a Roosevelt biography, “Traitor to his Class,” wrote in an email. “But FDR did ban discrimination in the defense industry — by executive order, for which he didn't need any votes.”

But that executive order, said San Francisco State University historian ROBERT C. SMITH, came at the last minute under immense pressure from civil rights leader A. PHILIP RANDOLPH, a labor unionist who had threatened a march on Washington over jobs for Black people in the defense industry.

Much of the New Deal was “compromised by racism,” Smith said, co-author of “Polarization and the Presidency: From FDR to Barack Obama.” Truman‘s record on racial equity, on the other hand, “both rhetorically and substantively was the most advanced since” President BENJAMIN HARRISON, who left office in 1893.

Just as FDR’s focus on welfare and jobs programs was driven by the crises he faced, Truman’s civil rights agenda was based on political expediency and a desire to improve the country’s image during the Cold War. Truman was the first president to address the NAACP and appointed a commission to study civil rights. But he did it because his political advisers told him the “balance of power” in the 1948 election “would be in the so-called swing states of Northeast and Midwest and that the Black vote would make the difference.”

Biden has made racial equity a centerpiece of his domestic agenda, “more so than any president since LYNDON JOHNSON,” Smith said. But Congress presents major “limitations” for Biden to have an impact equal to LBJ’s on race and FDR’s in scope.

Without real congressional majorities like FDR and LBJ, Biden’s ability to do things like make the child tax credit permanent and sign a restoration of the Voting Rights Act into law remains an open question.

“The point is that Biden should learn from their failures and be even bigger and more expansive,” EDDIE S. GLAUDE Jr., a Princeton historian who met with Biden and other historians at the White House last month, said of comparisons to FDR and Truman. “This is his moment.”

Biden has already included racial equity in his response to the health and economic crises he inherited, including billions for disadvantaged farmers in his Covid-19 stimulus package. The aid directed toward Black farmers was seen by some as a form of reparations.

Still, there are risks to setting the bar at FDR, some historians warned, especially as Biden confronts greater polarization and thin majorities in Congress. That may be why, despite repeated FDR comparisons by White House staff, one historian who spoke with the president said that “Biden doesn’t compare himself to FDR, I think that’s been misreported.”

Rather, “the beginning of the allusions was really about the compounding crises [Roosevelt] faced.” The historian, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private conversation, suggested that Biden is trying to learn from them, not become them. “I think he has looked around and said ‘I have this job because I’m Joe Biden. I’m not Lincoln. I’m not FDR.’”
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,662
Reputation
-34,332
Daps
618,112
Reppin
The Deep State
:whoo:


businessinsider.com
Senate Republicans to discuss repealing ban on earmarks, key tactic for passing difficult legislation
Ayelet Sheffey
5-7 minutes
  • The Senate GOP will meet next week to decide on bringing earmarks, funding members can use for their districts, back.
  • This follows House Republicans approving the restoration of earmarks in March.
  • Some GOP Senators opposed bringing earmarks back because of past abuses with the funding measure.
  • See more stories on Insider's business page.
Almost a month after House Republicans voted to approve the restoration of earmarks, Senate Republicans are expected to meet next week to discuss bringing back the so-called community funding measures.

A decade ago, Republicans banned earmarks, which allow members to put funding for their districts in a larger bill, following a series of scandals related to earmark abuses. But now, both House Democrats and House Republicans have voted to bring them back, and Senate Republicans are set to meet next Wednesday to ratify their rules and discuss earmark usage, according to Bloomberg.

As some moderate Democrats, notably Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, stress the importance of bipartisan legislation, earmarks could be an important tactic for easing difficult legislation through congress on bipartisan lines.

Republican Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama told The Hill on Tuesday that Democrats are already going forward with restoring earmarks, so he thinks "the decision is headed toward letting every member decide if they want to participate in the earmark process."

On March 2, House Democrats introduced new guidelines for earmarks to bring them back while increasing transparency and requiring members to verify they have no financial interest in the funding requests, among other things.

On March 17, House Republicans voted by secret ballot to bring earmarks back as well. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said after the vote that there was "real concern" about solely the Biden administration directing where money goes.

"This doesn't add one more dollar," McCarthy said. "I think members here know what's most important about what's going on in their district, not Biden."

However, some Senate Republicans did not feel the same. Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah told reporters after the vote that earmarks "are not the right way to go."

"They have been associated with excess, and it would represent a turn to the worst," he said.

The ban on earmarks once had bipartisan support, as a series of scandals led to former President Barack Obama saying in 2011 that he would veto any bill containing earmarks.

A defining earmark scandal occurred in 2005, when Alaska Rep. Don Young secured $233 million for a bridge that would connect two small cities, which became known as the "bridge to nowhere," as critics said the bridge would not significantly benefit Young's community. The same year, former California Rep. Duke Cunningham landed himself eight years in prison for accepting $2.4 million in bribes in return for promising earmarks to defense contractors.

As recently as March 1, a group of 10 Republican senators, led by Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida and Steve Daines of Montana, introduced a bill to permanently ban earmarks. Rubio said in a statement that earmarks had led to "corruption and waste, and bought votes in Congress for unpopular legislation."

Although Republican lawmakers have largely opposed President Joe Biden's infrastructure plan thus far, bringing earmarks back could help pass difficult legislation as it allows lawmakers to include funding for their specific districts in bills.

The House is already using earmarks again, and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is accepting member requests for community funding through April 23 .
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,662
Reputation
-34,332
Daps
618,112
Reppin
The Deep State
businessinsider.com
Elizabeth Warren is holding her first hearing on student debt cancelation. Here's what to expect.
Ayelet Sheffey
5-6 minutes
  • Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is holding her first hearing on student debt cancelation on Tuesday.
  • Witnesses include Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, who defaulted on her own student loans.
  • Warren will also question student loan servicer Navient's CEO on investigations regarding misleading borrowers.
  • See more stories on Insider's business page.
In her first hearing as Chair of the Senate Banking Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will address the impact of student debt on racial justice, borrowers, and the economy.

On Tuesday, 11 witnesses, including Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and the CEO of student-loan servicer Navient, John Remondi, will testify at a hearing on the burden of the $1.7 trillion student debt crisis in the country. This will be Warren's first official hearing on the topic, and it will likely amplify her previous calls on President Joe Biden to cancel $50,000 in student debt per person using his executive powers.

Pressley, who joined Warren in February to reintroduce a resolution to cancel $50,000 in student debt per person, said in a testimony published ahead of the hearing that she knows "what it feels like to wake up in a cold sweat over a student loan in default," and in a matter of months, she said, the pause on federal student loan payments will be lifted, and many people, disproportionately people of color, will bear the burden of these payments.

"So, as we work to ensure an equitable and prompt recovery to the current economic crisis, we can't afford to make the same mistakes of the past. We must be intentional and precise," Pressley said. "And student debt cancellation is an efficient and effective way to provide families across this nation with economic relief and opportunity."

Remondi is another notable witness attending the hearing. Navient is one of the nation's largest student loan servicers, and, according to a letter to Remondi from Warren, currently services federal loans to 5.6 million borrowers and holds over $58 billion annually in federally guaranteed Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans.

Warren said that between 2009 and 2019, Navient has been accused or fined for "actions that ripped off borrowers," including the improper marketing of loans and failing to notify borrowers of their rights.

In addition, an ongoing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigation found evidence that Navient "systematically steered thousands of borrowers who were having difficulty paying their loans into plans that were worse for the borrowers – but more profitable for Navient."

In February, three student loan borrowers filed a legal action against Navient, arguing that Navient owed them over $45,000 in overpayments that the company had wrongfully collected after their student loans had been discharged. This followed an Education Department ruling that Navient must repay the government $22 million in overcharged student loan subsidies.

Remondi will likely be asked to respond to those claims during the hearing.

Also attending the hearing are Maura Healey, the attorney general of Massachusetts, and James Steeley, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.

Insider reported on Tuesday, citing Education Department data, that canceling $50,000 in student debt per person could wipe out the entire debt burden of 84% of federal student loan borrowers.



businessinsider.com
Elizabeth Warren says the government should fire student loan servicer Navient, which should fire its CEO
Ayelet Sheffey
4-5 minutes
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren said Navient CEO John Remondi should be fired at a hearing on Tuesday.
  • Navient, one of the largest student loan servicers, has been accused of misleading borrowers.
  • Remondi said the allegations are untrue and "not necessarily based on facts."
  • See more stories on Insider's business page.
Navient CEO John Remondi was at Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts' first hearing on student debt relief. Warren told Remondi that he should be fired for misleading student loan borrowers, but that wasn't all.

"The federal government should absolutely fire Navient, and because this happened under your leadership, Navient should fire you," Warren told Remondi during the hearing.

Warren, as the chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Economic Policy, called 11 witnesses to testify at the hearing to discuss the impact of student debt on borrowers, racial justice, and the economy.

Warren said in her letter to Remondi inviting him to testify at the hearing that while Navient currently services federal loans to 5.6 million borrowers and holds over $58 billion annually in federally guaranteed Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans, it also has "been a contributor to the problem, with a decade-long history of allegations of abusive and misleading practices aimed at student loan borrowers."

She added that between 2009 and 2019, Navient has been accused or fined for "actions that ripped off borrowers," including the improper marketing of loans and failing to notify borrowers of their rights.

And an ongoing Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigation found evidence that Navient "systematically steered thousands of borrowers who were having difficulty paying their loans into plans that were worse for the borrowers — but more profitable for Navient."

In February, three student loan borrowers filed a legal action against Navient, arguing that Navient owed them over $45,000 in overpayments that the company had wrongfully collected after their student loans had been discharged. This followed an Education Department ruling that Navient must repay the government $22 million in overcharged student loan subsidies.

In response to Warren's questioning on investigations into Navient, Remondi said his job is "obviously to comply with the rules and laws, and we work hard to make sure all borrowers successfully manage their loans."

"These allegations are not true," Remondi said. "They're accusations and not necessarily based on facts," he added.

Also testifying at the hearing were Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, the attorney general of Massachusetts, and James Steeley, president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency.
 

Shogun

Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
25,487
Reputation
5,926
Daps
62,969
Reppin
Knicks
Glad we're finally leaving there.
Over/under 2 years before the Taliban take over again?
 
Top