This is wild. But was this a joke?
How will Joe Biden GOVERN? General Biden Administration F**kery Thread
- Thread starter FAH1223
- Start date
This is wild. But was this a joke?
politico.com
Abrams: I would ‘absolutely’ back Manchin’s voting rights compromise
Quint Forgey
3-4 minutes
Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams speaks at a Democratic canvass kickoff in October 2020. | Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Stacey Abrams on Thursday threw her support behind Sen. Joe Manchin’s proposed revisions to congressional Democrats’ expansive election and ethics reform bill, conferring him the endorsement of one of the nation’s premier voting rights activists.
In an interview on CNN, Abrams — a former Democratic nominee for Georgia governor who founded an organization to fight voter suppression — said she “absolutely” could support the changes to the For the People Act that Manchin (D-W.Va.) outlined in a memo circulated among colleagues on Wednesday.
“What Sen. Manchin is putting forward are some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography,” Abrams said.
Abrams went on to describe the tenets of Manchin’s proposal as “strong ones that will create a level playing field, will create standards that do not vary from state to state, and I think will ensure that every American has improved access to the right to vote.”
The apparent boost for Manchin’s compromise solution comes after he announced last week that he would not support Democrats’ election reform bill — which party leaders have given the symbolically significant title “S.1.” in the Senate — in its current form.
Although Manchin favors the bill’s expansion of early voting and ban on partisan gerrymandering, his memo on Wednesday detailed new voter ID requirements and greater flexibility for state officials to remove voters from voter rolls.
Manchin also proposed making Election Day a public holiday, mandating 15 consecutive days of early voting and allowing for automatic registration through the DMV with the ability to opt out.
On Thursday, Abrams called the compromise laid out by Manchin a “first and important step to preserving our democracy” in the face of several Republican election laws enacted on the state level, which critics say restrict voting access and contribute to disenfranchisement.
“Those should be untenable to any American,” Abrams said. “And if Joe Manchin and the U.S. senators who support this legislation are willing to come together on a compromise, then we will make progress. We will help to continue to ensure access to our democracy for as many Americans as possible. And that is always a native good.”
However, Manchin’s proposal still has little chance of passing the Senate, where he would need the votes of at least 10 Republicans to send the measure to President Joe Biden’s desk.
Manchin has repeatedly said he opposes ending the legislative filibuster, which would allow Democrats to pass his compromise bill and several other planks of the party’s agenda with a simple majority.
Abrams: I would ‘absolutely’ back Manchin’s voting rights compromise
Quint Forgey
3-4 minutes
Former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams speaks at a Democratic canvass kickoff in October 2020. | Ethan Miller/Getty Images
Stacey Abrams on Thursday threw her support behind Sen. Joe Manchin’s proposed revisions to congressional Democrats’ expansive election and ethics reform bill, conferring him the endorsement of one of the nation’s premier voting rights activists.
In an interview on CNN, Abrams — a former Democratic nominee for Georgia governor who founded an organization to fight voter suppression — said she “absolutely” could support the changes to the For the People Act that Manchin (D-W.Va.) outlined in a memo circulated among colleagues on Wednesday.
“What Sen. Manchin is putting forward are some basic building blocks that we need to ensure that democracy is accessible no matter your geography,” Abrams said.
Abrams went on to describe the tenets of Manchin’s proposal as “strong ones that will create a level playing field, will create standards that do not vary from state to state, and I think will ensure that every American has improved access to the right to vote.”
The apparent boost for Manchin’s compromise solution comes after he announced last week that he would not support Democrats’ election reform bill — which party leaders have given the symbolically significant title “S.1.” in the Senate — in its current form.
Although Manchin favors the bill’s expansion of early voting and ban on partisan gerrymandering, his memo on Wednesday detailed new voter ID requirements and greater flexibility for state officials to remove voters from voter rolls.
Manchin also proposed making Election Day a public holiday, mandating 15 consecutive days of early voting and allowing for automatic registration through the DMV with the ability to opt out.
On Thursday, Abrams called the compromise laid out by Manchin a “first and important step to preserving our democracy” in the face of several Republican election laws enacted on the state level, which critics say restrict voting access and contribute to disenfranchisement.
“Those should be untenable to any American,” Abrams said. “And if Joe Manchin and the U.S. senators who support this legislation are willing to come together on a compromise, then we will make progress. We will help to continue to ensure access to our democracy for as many Americans as possible. And that is always a native good.”
However, Manchin’s proposal still has little chance of passing the Senate, where he would need the votes of at least 10 Republicans to send the measure to President Joe Biden’s desk.
Manchin has repeatedly said he opposes ending the legislative filibuster, which would allow Democrats to pass his compromise bill and several other planks of the party’s agenda with a simple majority.
mastermind
Rest In Power Kobe
A large chunk of voters believe in Q. We should craft policy that caters to Q.Voters ultimately want a mix of what dems and Republicans are proposing. Manchin's goals aren't that far off from what the public wants.
Americans Oppose Many Voting Restrictions — But Not Voter ID Laws
We saw something similar with the criminal justice reform done under Trump.
nytimes.com
Opinion | Maybe Joe Manchin Knows Exactly What He’s Doing
Ezra Klein
8-9 minutes
Ezra Klein
June 17, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET
Credit...Al Drago/Bloomberg
Let me start with something you don’t often hear from liberals these days: A few words of praise for Joe Manchin.
By the standards of the age, Manchin is a political magician. West Virginia, the state he represents as a Democrat in the Senate, has a 35.5 point lean toward the Republican Party, according to FiveThirtyEight. To put that into context, there is only one Republican in the Senate representing a state that’s even mildly bluish, and that’s Susan Collins, from Maine, which has a 4-point Democratic bias.
Put simply, Manchin shouldn’t exist. And Democrats cannot take him for granted. Their Senate majority, and thus the whole of their legislative agenda, hinges on his ability to win elections anyone else would lose. None of that makes Manchin’s every decision laudable, or even wise, but it demands recognition. He has honed instincts worth respecting. And now, in the 50-50 Senate that teeters on his vote, he is the most powerful legislator of our age.
The question obsessing Washington, then, is simple: What does Manchin want? And Manchin, in statement after statement, has offered a clear answer: bipartisanship.
This is the core of Manchinism. All of the stances he takes that frustrate Democrats right now — his defense of the filibuster, his opposition to the For The People Act, his insistence on endless negotiations with Republicans on infrastructure — runs downstream of his belief in bipartisanship. “The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation,” he wrote in The Washington Post. This is maddening to his colleagues who want to judge legislation on the merits. But Manchin has been clear about his goal.
What has not been clear is his strategy. At his worst, Manchin prizes the aesthetic of bipartisanship over its actual pursuit. In those moments, he becomes a defender of the status quo and, paradoxically, an enabler of Republican partisanship. But over the past 24 hours, a plausible path has emerged through which Manchin could build a more cooperative and deliberative Senate. It’s narrow, but it’s there.
Part of the strategy relies on changing the rules. Manchin has said, over and over again, that he will not eliminate or weaken the filibuster. I wish he’d reconsider, but he won’t. The possibility remains, however, that he will strengthen the filibuster.
Historically, the filibuster was a way for committed groups of senators to force debate, for as long as they wanted, on issues of unusual importance to them. Modern filibusters betray that legacy. They do not require debate, they do not require the intense physical commitment of the minority and they do not encourage the long, dramatic deliberations that focus the American public on issues of consequence.
It’s possible to imagine a set of reforms that would restore something more like the filibuster of yore and rebuild the deliberative capacities of the Senate. This would begin with a variation on the congressional scholar Norm Ornstein’s idea to shift the burden of the filibuster: Instead of demanding 60 votes to end debate, require 40 (or 41) to continue it.
That would return the filibuster to something more like we imagine it to be: Impassioned minorities could hold the floor with theatrical speeches, shining public attention on their arguments, but the majority could end debate if the minority relented. To sustain this kind of filibuster would be grueling, which is as it should be. The filibuster is an extraordinary measure, and it should require extraordinary commitment to deploy.
The majority, for its part, would have to carefully weigh the consequences of proceeding with partisan legislation: They would gamble weeks or months of Senate time if they chose to face down a filibuster, with no guarantee of passage on the other end. A reform like this would demand more from both the majority and the minority and ignite the kinds of lengthy, public debates that the Senate was once known for.
In leaked audio published by The Intercept on Wednesday, Manchin appeared to favor exactly this kind of change. “I think, basically, it should be 41 people have to force the issue versus the 60 that we need in the affirmative,” he said.
In addition to changing the rules, Manchin could embrace his role as a broker of legislative compromise. His leverage is immense, and he could use it to force Republicans as well as Democrats to the table. But on voting rights, at least, Manchin hasn’t been wielding his power symmetrically.
“The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen,” Manchin wrote in the Charleston Gazette-Mail this month.
In suggesting that he would oppose any voting reform that was not bipartisan, Manchin offered Republicans a veto over the legislation rather than a choice between partisan and bipartisan bills. He was not asking of them what he was asking of his colleagues, or even of himself.
But on Wednesday, news broke that Manchin’s position was shifting. He is circulating a compromise voting rights memo that he believes could serve as the basis for a bipartisan bill. It eliminates much of what Democrats wanted, like the more ambitious campaign finance reforms, but it bans partisan gerrymandering, restores key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, makes Election Day a public holiday and implements automatic voter registration. It also includes some Republican priorities, like mandating that voters show certain forms of identification.
But the question Manchin faces isn’t whether there’s a voting rights bill he can support. It’s whether he’s willing to force Republicans to accept it. As the hinge vote, Manchin could offer both sides a choice: A bipartisan bill designed by Manchin (and whatever allies he chooses) or the outcome on voting rights they fear most — for Democrats, that would be nothing, and for Republicans, that would be everything.
If Democrats refuse to support his bill or offer something reasonable in return, Manchin could join with Republicans to kill it. If Republicans refuse to support it or offer something reasonable in return, he could join with Democrats to pass the original For The People Act, or something more like it.
Core to this strategy is Manchin admitting something he often pretends not to see: It is not in the Republican Party’s interest to cooperate with Democrats on major legislation. Republicans would prefer to pass nothing and watch Joe Biden’s presidency fail. This is not my supposition or slander. This is their own testimony.
“Mitch McConnell’s come under a lot of criticism for saying at one point he wanted to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president,” Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Republicans’ Senate leadership team, said. “I want to make Joe Biden a one-half-term president.”
Just as Manchin believes he needs to force Democrats to agree to compromise bills, so too does he need to force Republicans to agree to those bills. Bipartisanship needs to go both ways. If Manchin allows Republicans to kill any bill they do not choose to support, he will be strengthening their incentives for partisanship.
I said, at the top of this column, that Manchin is a political magician. So far he’s mostly been an escape artist, wriggling free of the partisan gravity that governs almost all other Senate elections. But if he could turn the filibuster into a rule that actually encouraged debate and deliberation and pass a bill that made automatic voter registration and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act the law of the land (and partisan gerrymandering a thing of the past), that would truly be his greatest trick.
Opinion | Maybe Joe Manchin Knows Exactly What He’s Doing
Ezra Klein
8-9 minutes
Ezra Klein
June 17, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ET
Credit...Al Drago/Bloomberg
Let me start with something you don’t often hear from liberals these days: A few words of praise for Joe Manchin.
By the standards of the age, Manchin is a political magician. West Virginia, the state he represents as a Democrat in the Senate, has a 35.5 point lean toward the Republican Party, according to FiveThirtyEight. To put that into context, there is only one Republican in the Senate representing a state that’s even mildly bluish, and that’s Susan Collins, from Maine, which has a 4-point Democratic bias.
Put simply, Manchin shouldn’t exist. And Democrats cannot take him for granted. Their Senate majority, and thus the whole of their legislative agenda, hinges on his ability to win elections anyone else would lose. None of that makes Manchin’s every decision laudable, or even wise, but it demands recognition. He has honed instincts worth respecting. And now, in the 50-50 Senate that teeters on his vote, he is the most powerful legislator of our age.
The question obsessing Washington, then, is simple: What does Manchin want? And Manchin, in statement after statement, has offered a clear answer: bipartisanship.
This is the core of Manchinism. All of the stances he takes that frustrate Democrats right now — his defense of the filibuster, his opposition to the For The People Act, his insistence on endless negotiations with Republicans on infrastructure — runs downstream of his belief in bipartisanship. “The time has come to end these political games, and to usher a new era of bipartisanship where we find common ground on the major policy debates facing our nation,” he wrote in The Washington Post. This is maddening to his colleagues who want to judge legislation on the merits. But Manchin has been clear about his goal.
What has not been clear is his strategy. At his worst, Manchin prizes the aesthetic of bipartisanship over its actual pursuit. In those moments, he becomes a defender of the status quo and, paradoxically, an enabler of Republican partisanship. But over the past 24 hours, a plausible path has emerged through which Manchin could build a more cooperative and deliberative Senate. It’s narrow, but it’s there.
Part of the strategy relies on changing the rules. Manchin has said, over and over again, that he will not eliminate or weaken the filibuster. I wish he’d reconsider, but he won’t. The possibility remains, however, that he will strengthen the filibuster.
Historically, the filibuster was a way for committed groups of senators to force debate, for as long as they wanted, on issues of unusual importance to them. Modern filibusters betray that legacy. They do not require debate, they do not require the intense physical commitment of the minority and they do not encourage the long, dramatic deliberations that focus the American public on issues of consequence.
It’s possible to imagine a set of reforms that would restore something more like the filibuster of yore and rebuild the deliberative capacities of the Senate. This would begin with a variation on the congressional scholar Norm Ornstein’s idea to shift the burden of the filibuster: Instead of demanding 60 votes to end debate, require 40 (or 41) to continue it.
That would return the filibuster to something more like we imagine it to be: Impassioned minorities could hold the floor with theatrical speeches, shining public attention on their arguments, but the majority could end debate if the minority relented. To sustain this kind of filibuster would be grueling, which is as it should be. The filibuster is an extraordinary measure, and it should require extraordinary commitment to deploy.
The majority, for its part, would have to carefully weigh the consequences of proceeding with partisan legislation: They would gamble weeks or months of Senate time if they chose to face down a filibuster, with no guarantee of passage on the other end. A reform like this would demand more from both the majority and the minority and ignite the kinds of lengthy, public debates that the Senate was once known for.
In leaked audio published by The Intercept on Wednesday, Manchin appeared to favor exactly this kind of change. “I think, basically, it should be 41 people have to force the issue versus the 60 that we need in the affirmative,” he said.
In addition to changing the rules, Manchin could embrace his role as a broker of legislative compromise. His leverage is immense, and he could use it to force Republicans as well as Democrats to the table. But on voting rights, at least, Manchin hasn’t been wielding his power symmetrically.
“The truth, I would argue, is that voting and election reform that is done in a partisan manner will all but ensure partisan divisions continue to deepen,” Manchin wrote in the Charleston Gazette-Mail this month.
In suggesting that he would oppose any voting reform that was not bipartisan, Manchin offered Republicans a veto over the legislation rather than a choice between partisan and bipartisan bills. He was not asking of them what he was asking of his colleagues, or even of himself.
But on Wednesday, news broke that Manchin’s position was shifting. He is circulating a compromise voting rights memo that he believes could serve as the basis for a bipartisan bill. It eliminates much of what Democrats wanted, like the more ambitious campaign finance reforms, but it bans partisan gerrymandering, restores key provisions of the Voting Rights Act, makes Election Day a public holiday and implements automatic voter registration. It also includes some Republican priorities, like mandating that voters show certain forms of identification.
But the question Manchin faces isn’t whether there’s a voting rights bill he can support. It’s whether he’s willing to force Republicans to accept it. As the hinge vote, Manchin could offer both sides a choice: A bipartisan bill designed by Manchin (and whatever allies he chooses) or the outcome on voting rights they fear most — for Democrats, that would be nothing, and for Republicans, that would be everything.
If Democrats refuse to support his bill or offer something reasonable in return, Manchin could join with Republicans to kill it. If Republicans refuse to support it or offer something reasonable in return, he could join with Democrats to pass the original For The People Act, or something more like it.
Core to this strategy is Manchin admitting something he often pretends not to see: It is not in the Republican Party’s interest to cooperate with Democrats on major legislation. Republicans would prefer to pass nothing and watch Joe Biden’s presidency fail. This is not my supposition or slander. This is their own testimony.
“Mitch McConnell’s come under a lot of criticism for saying at one point he wanted to make sure that Barack Obama was a one-term president,” Senator John Barrasso, a member of the Republicans’ Senate leadership team, said. “I want to make Joe Biden a one-half-term president.”
Just as Manchin believes he needs to force Democrats to agree to compromise bills, so too does he need to force Republicans to agree to those bills. Bipartisanship needs to go both ways. If Manchin allows Republicans to kill any bill they do not choose to support, he will be strengthening their incentives for partisanship.
I said, at the top of this column, that Manchin is a political magician. So far he’s mostly been an escape artist, wriggling free of the partisan gravity that governs almost all other Senate elections. But if he could turn the filibuster into a rule that actually encouraged debate and deliberation and pass a bill that made automatic voter registration and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act the law of the land (and partisan gerrymandering a thing of the past), that would truly be his greatest trick.
washingtonpost.com
Biden wiped the smirk off Putin’s face
Max Boot
5-7 minutes
Seasoning and sobriety are underappreciated virtues in politics. Voters normally opt for novelty and excitement when choosing a president. The result is that we usually wind up with foreign policy neophytes in the Oval Office. When these tyros make their maiden trip abroad, they cause considerable jitters among observers and aides, who wonder: Will the president know what he is doing? Will he say something he shouldn’t? Will he be rolled by more experienced leaders?
With President Biden, there is no such concern. He has decades of experience in foreign policy as a globe-trotting vice president and senator. His foreign policy chops (while inexplicably MIA in his chaotic exit from Afghanistan) showed on his trip to Europe — and paid dividends for the American people.
Biden established an easy rapport with his fellow democratic leaders at meetings with the Group of Seven, the European Union and NATO. “I think it’s great to have the U.S. president part of the club and very willing to cooperate,” French President Emmanuel Macron said. As a congenial insider, Biden was able to accomplish far more than a testy outsider such as Donald Trump ever could. Biden got fellow leaders to agree on a 15 percent global corporate minimum tax, on sending 1 billion doses of covid-19 vaccines to the developing world (not enough, but a start), on speaking out about the challenge posed by China, and on settling a long-festering European-American trade dispute over aircraft subsidies.
Even before Biden stepped foot in Europe, his approval ratings among U.S. allies had soared. The Pew Research Center reports that, in 16 countries, the percentage of people who have faith in the U.S. president to do the right thing in foreign affairs has risen on average from 17 percent last year to 75 percent today. Biden’s sure-footed, gaffe-free trip may send those numbers even higher.
The meetings with allies were, in some sense, merely a prelude for meeting with one of the United States’ most effective foes — Vladimir Putin. One cannot imagine a starker contrast between Biden and his predecessor than in their handling of the Russian strongman. At Helsinki in July 2018, then-President Trump simpered and cowered. In a low point of a presidency with more low points than Death Valley, Trump accepted at face value Putin’s “extremely strong and powerful” denials of complicity in the 2016 election attack. Putin emerged from that meeting smirking like the cat that swallowed the canary.
As the historian Michael Beschloss noted, there was no such grin on Putin’s lips when he did his solo press conference after meeting with Biden on Wednesday. While Putin engaged in his usual dishonesty and whataboutism — he compared his jailing of opposition leader Alexei Navalny with the prosecution of the Capitol rioters — his manner was subdued and far from triumphant. He attacked the United States but was careful not to insult Biden personally. He even compared the current president favorably to his predecessor: “President Biden is an experienced statesman. He is very different from President Trump.” (Ouch. That’s got to sting for Putin’s biggest fanboy in the United States.)
In his own remarks, Biden struck all the right notes. He made clear that he raised human-rights concerns with Putin. “How could I be the president of the United States of America and not speak out against the violation of human rights?” he asked. It is almost unimaginable — had we not just witnessed the Trump presidency. Biden said he told Putin that, if Navalny dies in a Russian prison, the consequences would be “devastating for Russia.” He said he also raised Russia’s complicity in cyberattacks, its interference with humanitarian aid in Syria, and its invasion of Ukraine (he expressed support for Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”), while holding out the hope of cooperation on the Iranian nuclear program, stability in Afghanistan, nuclear arms control and other issues.
Biden did not express any naive hopes for a transformation of Russia; he is the first U.S. president since Putin’s ascension in 1999 who does not expect a fundamental reset of relations. His goals were more modest, if perhaps still too ambitious — namely a little more stability and predictability from the Kremlin. “This is not a kumbaya moment,” he said, but it’s not in anyone’s interest to be “in a new cold war.”
Even that may not be true: Russia benefits from a cold war if that means it gets treated as the equal of the world’s sole superpower rather than, as John McCain put it, “a gas station masquerading as a country.” Indeed, one can argue that Putin is rewarded for his misbehavior by being granted the world’s stage in Geneva in a way that the leaders of larger economies, such as Italy or India, are not.
But there is a diplomatic benefit from the summit that may outweigh the cost of boosting Putin’s standing. That is to have an experienced and principled U.S. president communicate clearly and unequivocally to the “killer” in the Kremlin what U.S. interests and expectations are — and to let him know that there will be grave consequences for misbehavior. That appears to be exactly what Biden did. Whether Putin got the message remains to be seen. But at least it’s nice to have a president who knows what message to deliver.
Biden wiped the smirk off Putin’s face
Max Boot
5-7 minutes
Seasoning and sobriety are underappreciated virtues in politics. Voters normally opt for novelty and excitement when choosing a president. The result is that we usually wind up with foreign policy neophytes in the Oval Office. When these tyros make their maiden trip abroad, they cause considerable jitters among observers and aides, who wonder: Will the president know what he is doing? Will he say something he shouldn’t? Will he be rolled by more experienced leaders?
With President Biden, there is no such concern. He has decades of experience in foreign policy as a globe-trotting vice president and senator. His foreign policy chops (while inexplicably MIA in his chaotic exit from Afghanistan) showed on his trip to Europe — and paid dividends for the American people.
Biden established an easy rapport with his fellow democratic leaders at meetings with the Group of Seven, the European Union and NATO. “I think it’s great to have the U.S. president part of the club and very willing to cooperate,” French President Emmanuel Macron said. As a congenial insider, Biden was able to accomplish far more than a testy outsider such as Donald Trump ever could. Biden got fellow leaders to agree on a 15 percent global corporate minimum tax, on sending 1 billion doses of covid-19 vaccines to the developing world (not enough, but a start), on speaking out about the challenge posed by China, and on settling a long-festering European-American trade dispute over aircraft subsidies.
Even before Biden stepped foot in Europe, his approval ratings among U.S. allies had soared. The Pew Research Center reports that, in 16 countries, the percentage of people who have faith in the U.S. president to do the right thing in foreign affairs has risen on average from 17 percent last year to 75 percent today. Biden’s sure-footed, gaffe-free trip may send those numbers even higher.
The meetings with allies were, in some sense, merely a prelude for meeting with one of the United States’ most effective foes — Vladimir Putin. One cannot imagine a starker contrast between Biden and his predecessor than in their handling of the Russian strongman. At Helsinki in July 2018, then-President Trump simpered and cowered. In a low point of a presidency with more low points than Death Valley, Trump accepted at face value Putin’s “extremely strong and powerful” denials of complicity in the 2016 election attack. Putin emerged from that meeting smirking like the cat that swallowed the canary.
As the historian Michael Beschloss noted, there was no such grin on Putin’s lips when he did his solo press conference after meeting with Biden on Wednesday. While Putin engaged in his usual dishonesty and whataboutism — he compared his jailing of opposition leader Alexei Navalny with the prosecution of the Capitol rioters — his manner was subdued and far from triumphant. He attacked the United States but was careful not to insult Biden personally. He even compared the current president favorably to his predecessor: “President Biden is an experienced statesman. He is very different from President Trump.” (Ouch. That’s got to sting for Putin’s biggest fanboy in the United States.)
In his own remarks, Biden struck all the right notes. He made clear that he raised human-rights concerns with Putin. “How could I be the president of the United States of America and not speak out against the violation of human rights?” he asked. It is almost unimaginable — had we not just witnessed the Trump presidency. Biden said he told Putin that, if Navalny dies in a Russian prison, the consequences would be “devastating for Russia.” He said he also raised Russia’s complicity in cyberattacks, its interference with humanitarian aid in Syria, and its invasion of Ukraine (he expressed support for Ukraine’s “territorial integrity”), while holding out the hope of cooperation on the Iranian nuclear program, stability in Afghanistan, nuclear arms control and other issues.
Biden did not express any naive hopes for a transformation of Russia; he is the first U.S. president since Putin’s ascension in 1999 who does not expect a fundamental reset of relations. His goals were more modest, if perhaps still too ambitious — namely a little more stability and predictability from the Kremlin. “This is not a kumbaya moment,” he said, but it’s not in anyone’s interest to be “in a new cold war.”
Even that may not be true: Russia benefits from a cold war if that means it gets treated as the equal of the world’s sole superpower rather than, as John McCain put it, “a gas station masquerading as a country.” Indeed, one can argue that Putin is rewarded for his misbehavior by being granted the world’s stage in Geneva in a way that the leaders of larger economies, such as Italy or India, are not.
But there is a diplomatic benefit from the summit that may outweigh the cost of boosting Putin’s standing. That is to have an experienced and principled U.S. president communicate clearly and unequivocally to the “killer” in the Kremlin what U.S. interests and expectations are — and to let him know that there will be grave consequences for misbehavior. That appears to be exactly what Biden did. Whether Putin got the message remains to be seen. But at least it’s nice to have a president who knows what message to deliver.
washingtonpost.com
Biden’s strategy of pessimism ekes out progress with Putin
John Hudson
6-8 minutes
GENEVA — In a political career spanning four decades, President Biden has seen American presidents from both parties try to transform the U.S. relationship with Russia only to leave office disappointed.
In his first meeting as commander in chief with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Biden intended not to make the same mistake.
He would make no overtures for a reset in relations, and his pessimism about the prospects of changing Putin’s mind on issues such as human rights would inform his actions.
“This is not about trust. This is about self-interest,” he told reporters at a news conference in Switzerland after a three-hour summit on Wednesday. “This is not a kumbaya moment.”
In setting up the meeting in the Swiss lakeside city, Biden’s aides left nothing to chance.
To avoid falling short of expectations, they played down the likelihood of even modest accomplishments. To avoid appearing weak, they negotiated that Putin would arrive at the venue first, eliminating the chances that the Russian leader would keep the U.S. president waiting by showing up late — a frequent Putin psychological tactic. To avoid any surprises, they decided against holding a joint news conference, which might prompt moments of spontaneity and improvisation.
With expectations set low and pushed even lower by the talks’ ending earlier than expected, Putin and Biden emerged from the meetings with a pleasant surprise: incremental progress on a handful of issues.
“There has been no hostility,” Putin told reporters after the meeting. “On the contrary, our meeting took place in a constructive spirit.”
Biden said the meeting was “good” and “positive.”
Both presidents agreed on returning their ambassadors to their posts. Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and U.S. Ambassador John Sullivan have been away from their missions for months, imperiling diplomacy at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions.
The two sides also agreed to resume long-stalled strategic stability talks aimed at reducing the risks of unintentional conflict between the two nuclear powers, according to a joint communique issued after the meeting.
They also decided to organize meetings of experts to hold consultations on cybersecurity, in particular on which types of infrastructure should be considered “out of bounds” or “off-limits” to destructive cyberattacks, said a senior U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive discussions.
U.S. officials handed Putin a list of 16 sectors including food and agriculture, financial services, communications and the defense industrial base that they considered off-limits.
Individually, none of the agreements amounts to a watershed moment, but analysts said that together they constitute progress on issues important to both countries.
“These were clear steps forward,” said Sam Charap, a Russia analyst at Rand Corp. “Overall, this is probably the best outcome we could have expected.”
The modest technocratic gains stand in contrast to the grander ambitions of previous presidents, who sought fundamentally to overhaul the United States’ troubled relationship with Russia.
President George W. Bush famously looked into Putin’s eyes and got a “sense of his soul,” only to end his presidency with Russia’s invasion of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
President Barack Obama’s top diplomat presented her Russian counterpart with a red “reset” button in 2009 — but the relationship deteriorated over Russia’s interventions in Syria and Ukraine, and the harboring of U.S. intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden.
President Donald Trump came into office openly admiring Putin and vowing to improve relations with Russia, but his cultivation of the Russian leader, including accepting his assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 election, never translated into any change in Kremlin policies across a host of contentious issues.
On Wednesday, Putin seemed to mock the history of the American approach to summits.
“We don’t have to look each other in the eye and soul and make pledges of eternal love and friendship,” he said. “We defend the interests of our countries and peoples, and our relations always have [a] primarily pragmatic character.”
Given the vast number of disputes between Moscow and Washington, the two powers are likely to return to rhetorical blasts in the months ahead despite the gains made in Geneva.
But with a stronger diplomatic presence in each capital and plans for future discussions, the two longtime adversaries may be slightly better situated for handling future disputes.
“The Biden team faced a situation where the best they can hope for is to stop the bleeding — to put a floor under the relationship,” Charap said.
The number of issues that could trigger future disputes, however, are manifold.
Biden said he forcefully confronted Putin over election interference and human rights, including the jailing of the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, but any hope for a mutual understanding appeared slim.
Putin made no concessions over his crackdown on political dissent, military intervention in Ukraine or support for the autocratic Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko. When asked about his actions, he deflected, bemoaning the gun violence in the United States, the mistreatment of Black Americans, the continued existence of the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, drone strikes that kill civilians in Afghanistan, and what he viewed as a harsh prosecution of the pro-Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
“We feel sympathy for the United States of America, but we don’t want that to happen on our territory,” he said of the insurrection at the Capitol. “We’re doing our utmost in order to not allow it to happen.”
Biden said it was “ridiculous” to compare Russia’s treatment of opposition figures with the Capitol rioters.
While Putin dismissed the likelihood of any newfound kinship, he invoked words sometimes attributed to the Russian author Leo Tolstoy on the possibility of an improved outlook.
“There is no happiness in life, there is only a mirage on the horizon, so cherish that,” he said.
Anne Gearan and Ashley Parker in Geneva contributed to this report.
Biden’s strategy of pessimism ekes out progress with Putin
John Hudson
6-8 minutes
GENEVA — In a political career spanning four decades, President Biden has seen American presidents from both parties try to transform the U.S. relationship with Russia only to leave office disappointed.
In his first meeting as commander in chief with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Biden intended not to make the same mistake.
He would make no overtures for a reset in relations, and his pessimism about the prospects of changing Putin’s mind on issues such as human rights would inform his actions.
“This is not about trust. This is about self-interest,” he told reporters at a news conference in Switzerland after a three-hour summit on Wednesday. “This is not a kumbaya moment.”
In setting up the meeting in the Swiss lakeside city, Biden’s aides left nothing to chance.
To avoid falling short of expectations, they played down the likelihood of even modest accomplishments. To avoid appearing weak, they negotiated that Putin would arrive at the venue first, eliminating the chances that the Russian leader would keep the U.S. president waiting by showing up late — a frequent Putin psychological tactic. To avoid any surprises, they decided against holding a joint news conference, which might prompt moments of spontaneity and improvisation.
With expectations set low and pushed even lower by the talks’ ending earlier than expected, Putin and Biden emerged from the meetings with a pleasant surprise: incremental progress on a handful of issues.
“There has been no hostility,” Putin told reporters after the meeting. “On the contrary, our meeting took place in a constructive spirit.”
Biden said the meeting was “good” and “positive.”
Both presidents agreed on returning their ambassadors to their posts. Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov and U.S. Ambassador John Sullivan have been away from their missions for months, imperiling diplomacy at a time of heightened geopolitical tensions.
The two sides also agreed to resume long-stalled strategic stability talks aimed at reducing the risks of unintentional conflict between the two nuclear powers, according to a joint communique issued after the meeting.
They also decided to organize meetings of experts to hold consultations on cybersecurity, in particular on which types of infrastructure should be considered “out of bounds” or “off-limits” to destructive cyberattacks, said a senior U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive discussions.
U.S. officials handed Putin a list of 16 sectors including food and agriculture, financial services, communications and the defense industrial base that they considered off-limits.
Individually, none of the agreements amounts to a watershed moment, but analysts said that together they constitute progress on issues important to both countries.
“These were clear steps forward,” said Sam Charap, a Russia analyst at Rand Corp. “Overall, this is probably the best outcome we could have expected.”
The modest technocratic gains stand in contrast to the grander ambitions of previous presidents, who sought fundamentally to overhaul the United States’ troubled relationship with Russia.
President George W. Bush famously looked into Putin’s eyes and got a “sense of his soul,” only to end his presidency with Russia’s invasion of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
President Barack Obama’s top diplomat presented her Russian counterpart with a red “reset” button in 2009 — but the relationship deteriorated over Russia’s interventions in Syria and Ukraine, and the harboring of U.S. intelligence whistleblower Edward Snowden.
President Donald Trump came into office openly admiring Putin and vowing to improve relations with Russia, but his cultivation of the Russian leader, including accepting his assurances that Russia had not interfered in the 2016 election, never translated into any change in Kremlin policies across a host of contentious issues.
On Wednesday, Putin seemed to mock the history of the American approach to summits.
“We don’t have to look each other in the eye and soul and make pledges of eternal love and friendship,” he said. “We defend the interests of our countries and peoples, and our relations always have [a] primarily pragmatic character.”
Given the vast number of disputes between Moscow and Washington, the two powers are likely to return to rhetorical blasts in the months ahead despite the gains made in Geneva.
But with a stronger diplomatic presence in each capital and plans for future discussions, the two longtime adversaries may be slightly better situated for handling future disputes.
“The Biden team faced a situation where the best they can hope for is to stop the bleeding — to put a floor under the relationship,” Charap said.
The number of issues that could trigger future disputes, however, are manifold.
Biden said he forcefully confronted Putin over election interference and human rights, including the jailing of the Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, but any hope for a mutual understanding appeared slim.
Putin made no concessions over his crackdown on political dissent, military intervention in Ukraine or support for the autocratic Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko. When asked about his actions, he deflected, bemoaning the gun violence in the United States, the mistreatment of Black Americans, the continued existence of the U.S. military prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, drone strikes that kill civilians in Afghanistan, and what he viewed as a harsh prosecution of the pro-Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.
“We feel sympathy for the United States of America, but we don’t want that to happen on our territory,” he said of the insurrection at the Capitol. “We’re doing our utmost in order to not allow it to happen.”
Biden said it was “ridiculous” to compare Russia’s treatment of opposition figures with the Capitol rioters.
While Putin dismissed the likelihood of any newfound kinship, he invoked words sometimes attributed to the Russian author Leo Tolstoy on the possibility of an improved outlook.
“There is no happiness in life, there is only a mirage on the horizon, so cherish that,” he said.
Anne Gearan and Ashley Parker in Geneva contributed to this report.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
A large chunk of voters believe in Q. We should craft policy that caters to Q.
what if god gets jealous?
Armchair Militant
Stay woke
McConnell gets a lot of credit for obstructing….He failed to deliver on one of the biggest rethug priorities.
washingtonpost.com
Moving beyond making history
Robin Givhan
6-7 minutes
On the world stage, this country’s history comes into clearer perspective. Cast against the backdrop of populations whose stories and artifacts date back millennia, one broken glass ceiling in a new-build democracy looks rather modest. And so when Kamala D. Harris stepped on foreign ground for the first time as vice president, the sight was both momentous and anti-climactic.
During the first stop on her two-country tour, Harris stood alongside Guatemalan President Alejandro Giammattei during a news conference and fielded questions on migration, corruption and the significance of her groundbreaking role in the Biden administration. The discussion of history brought a smile to her face and she expounded on her pride in representing her country abroad and reiterated the importance not only of opening doors, but also of keeping them open so that others can walk through them, too.
“I welcome showing anyone, whatever your race or gender, that you may be the first to do anything, but make sure you’re not the last,” Harris said as she stood at a lectern in Guatemala City under the tented ceiling of the Patio de La Paz. “Let’s pave a path where we create an opportunity for others to become the first in their family or their community to do those things that perhaps others didn’t think they were capable of but God has given them that capacity to achieve, and with a little help, they will.”
Her response was precise and encouraging, but also familiar. Yes, yes, making history is wonderful, but that’s not the end goal. As with so many men and women who have been the first to reach a lofty perch, the symbolism bears consideration. But there’s also a moment when everyone’s neck begins to ache from the strain of looking admiringly up and it’s time to turn one’s gaze from the glory to the grit.
As the Biden-Harris administration hits their 100-day mark, The Post’s Sean Sullivan and a presidential historian analyze how Vice President Harris is doing. (Mahlia Posey/The Washington Post)
If there is a singular moment that speaks to Harris’s brief time in Guatemala, it was not her arrival when this country’s first Madame Vice President was greeted with an honor guard. It was not seeing this Black and Indian American woman participating in a ceremonial wave from a balcony at the Palacio Nacional de la Cultura. It was not the well-publicized time she spent celebrating female entrepreneurs in Guatemala — and later in Mexico. Her most striking public act was the stern manner in which she looked directly into the cameras and warned those considering illegal journeys to the U.S. border against doing so.
“I want to be clear to folks in this region who are thinking about making that dangerous trek to the United States-Mexico border: Do not come. Do not come,” Harris said. “The United States will continue to enforce our laws and secure our border. There are legal methods by which migration can and should occur. But we, as one of our priorities, will discourage illegal migration. And I believe if you come to our border, you will be turned back.”
This was not glittering symbolism, but rather a steely-eyed description of the administration’s border policy, one that sits in the middle of the seemingly unsolvable issue of migration, which is now part of Harris’s portfolio of problems to solve. The wonder has given way to the slow slog through a problem that has stymied multiple administrations.
In watching Harris in Guatemala and Mexico, the history of her presence looms large in the way the United States is viewed globally. It speaks of possibilities for future generations. And yet, in the moment — in the perfectly choreographed instances when the public catches glimpses of her in the midst of other dignitaries and leading the American delegation — it means next to nothing. All that matters are the policies and the aid and the agreements. That’s both the dream and the reality of these historical occasions. They’re forever in the making and tremendously important, and then when they finally arrive we’re left with little more than … a person trying to get the job done. That’s as it always has been and as it will be when another barrier falls.
Staring into the bright glow of Harris — this political marvel — it has been hard making out the person that she is, although it has been relatively easy to see what she is not. She is not the maternal co-star in an administration led by a paternal president who displays unending patience for this country’s tantrums and tears. She is not the open book of favorite sayings, family stories, soul-searching reveries and self-deprecating humor. She is not the lady boss of Seventh Avenue’s designer fashion dreams — although she may well be the one who will hammer home the message that it’s hard to go wrong by keeping a simple dark suit in daily rotation.
This trip, however, offered a reminder of what first thrust her into the national consciousness: her willingness to speak in no-nonsense terms, her flinty gaze, the hint of impatience in her tone. They were in evidence when she spoke of entrenched corruption in Guatemala as that country’s president looked on.
“I can tell you, from my work on this issue years ago: Follow the money. The underlying reason for so much of what we are seeing, in terms of this level and type of corruption, is about profit,” Harris said. “It is about profit without concern for the damage it creates to real human life, to families, to children, to communities.”
Harris was not smiling. Or waving. Or politely listening to aspirations of carefully selected local citizens. The historic vice president had shed the sheen of symbolism. She was simply a woman faced with an unenviable job that so many men before her had been unable to solve.
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Probably just how Republicans communicate with one another but if there’s evidence he said that he should be indicted(didn’t read the article).
honestly, biden should've just picked stacey abrams
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
The House votes to repeal the 2002 authorization for the invasion of Iraq.
HL will call this performative but whatever
HL will call this performative but whatever
Do we hate Abrams again like when she flipped Bloomberg’s money into 2 democratic Georgia seats and some electoral votes for Joey B ?
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
