Treachery or Senility?
It has gone unmentioned here on NT but the administration was forced into a strange maneuver the other day. Some may recall that scene on Thursday when president Biden stood with 10 Republicans announcing they had reached a deal on infrastructure. The deal was $1.2 Trillion on real infrastructure over an 8 year span. It was half of the $2.3 Trillion Biden wanted but it represented a true compromise. Republicans got most of the money going to traditional infrastructure and Biden got $7.5 billion for electric-vehicle charging stations and $7.5 billion for electric buses. The only people unhappy were elements of the radical left, who wanted everything in the original proposal.
Then a funny thing happened after Biden's announced the "deal." Biden followed it up by announcing that he’d veto the infrastructure bill unless a $4 trillion social-spending and tax-hike bill also passed!!!
“If they don’t come, I’m not signing it. Real simple."
Republicans felt betrayed. Some were angry after all the work done in good faith.
Then on Sunday, Biden switched positions again. He declared, in a "written statement," “My comments created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intent.”
Yes, plain English does tend to give people certain impressions, one being that the person speaking the words means what he says.
Shall we try to decipher all this?
Do the extremists on the left have that much influence over Biden?
Is there miscommunication between Biden and his handlers?
Is it simply Biden's cognitive decline?
Tags
Who is online
108 visitors
The question before the house is do Biden's words mean anything?
It was definitely a weird couple of days. But in the end, all got to see the confusion and I'll bet the handlers were pissed. Glorious. LOL
I think it is a valid question. Both political parties have people who are very skilled and very good in political maneuvering.
During the Trump administration, Pres Trump would say all sorts of things because his ego demanded to prove he was the sharpest tack in the room and I'm sure he pissed off some of his advisors with talking too much.
But Pres Biden is a life-long politician who has shown in the past to be well skilled in word-play and political maneuvering. To see this now is a bit scary. I mean, come on. That veto threat was just so wrong to say at that time regardless if that was the plan or not to get both bills pushed thru.
That was another element of all this. The administration was always prepared to pass a compromise bill, with the caveat to the radicals that they would pass a second bill through reconciliation giving the left everything else they wanted.
The American people are supposed to be stupid!
Yep, Washington loves stupid people.
Nope, he can barely spit them out and then they make no sense.
Time for a cognitive test for Biden.
"Republicans felt betrayed. Some were angry after all the work done in good faith."
Now you know how it feels!
Also, what work? When have the republicans done anything for anyone other than themselves?
That doesn't make any sense as written and in this case. Perhaps you could expound a little..................
Not my problem if you can't understand it/comprehend.
How what feels? S'plain please. You wrote it.
Again, not my problem that you cannot understand something/comprehend.
'Treachery Or Senility?'
NEITHER
Both
Saying the quiet part out loud has become an integral part of US politics. It wouldn’t have to be that way if one party would ease up on their war to move the country only sideways or backwards, never forward. We could have a major bridge fall down every day from neglect and Republicans still wouldn’t get it. It won’t be long before that is reality.
Spare us the moving forward that Chairman Mao once called "a leap forward!"
If it were up to today’s Republican Party the interstate highway system would be a dirt path with a toll booth.
Neither would Democrats. Recharging stations and electrical buses are not infrastructure by any definition. Neither is their social justice engineering.
Obviously Biden and the Democrats don't give a shit about bridges falling down either; as they are all or nothing.
[removed]
Let me rephrase, how exactly does incentivizing a green vehicle refueling network not fit within the confines of infrastructure?
What is your strategy build something that will be obsolete before it is even finished? That takes so long to use that no one will want to use it. Not to mention is not cost effective.
You don't think the electric car industry isn't going to change even more over the next 5 to 9 years? Until the technology for fast recharging stations catches up and exceeds what the electric car/consumer needs; it is useless, and a waste of taxpayer money to build recharging stations across the US.
I see your agenda, it is the same as every leftist. Waste other peoples' money on a problem where the solution is still years away. Then come back and ask for more when in 5 to 9 years all of those worthless recharging stations need to be replaced.
Do you remember leaded gasoline? Ever heard of ethanol? Yeah, technology changes and facilities and modes of transportation adapt. Step one - provide the facilities.
Wrong, step one is get technology that works! Who is going to want to be stuck at a recharging station waiting for hours for a battery recharge? It would make long trips impossible.
But I am sure airlines would love it. How much more fuel does it take to power a jet engine again; and how much worse for the environment is it?
At least getting all of those drivers off the roads will help out the wear and tear on infrastructure.
Eventually Biden will become too much of an obstacle for the democrats.
He may have to step down.
Dream on!
It's not "if" but "when" that happens.
[deleted]
Again, DREAM ON!
They won't care. It means Harris steps up, that's all it will mean.
Dumbo only had one purpose - to defeat Trump.
Dumbo waddled out of the White House on 1/20/21.
Yep ... Soros scripted, DNC sponsored .......
[deleted]
That's so stupid
We have a Dumbo and Dumbass now thanks to the voters.
It is becoming more evident by the day that Kamala Harris isn't up to the job of VP either:
"As Julio and Katie have covered , Vice President Kamala Harris' trip to the southern border has certainly had its fair share of pitfalls. The administration must not only deal with that, but the news that two of the vice president's travel officials are quitting, as Annie Karni and Katie Rogers reported for The New York Times .
That's it, just treachery and senility? Sheesh, sounds like projection masking something far more insidious. At least toss in the standard pedophile accusation.
Didn't they just pass a law up in Canada that would ban a lot of the comments I'm seeing?
[removed]
[removed]
Biden has some explaining to do here. This looks like some pretty slimy politics and I do not see how making a deal on real infrastructure, announcing same, and then refusing to honor the deal unless another more socially oriented bill is passed does the Ds (and Biden directly) any good whatsoever.
I am amazed, and have been amazed since this "controversy" began a week or so ago, at how little some people on NT understand this. I explained it to someone here 4 or 5 days ago and I'm still not sure he understand it.
Biden's comment that he wouldnt sign one bill without the other had NOTHING to do with the Republicans. Yet Republicans acted as if Biden was doublecrossing them and thus they had a right to be upset with Bidens words. That is the wrong analysis , yet the media takes the simplistic way out as usual and promotes the Republicans complaints.
Biden saying he would not support the first bill without the second was a message to Democrats , not Republicans. He was telling moderate Democrats dont think I will let you bail on the second bill because you got the first "bipartisan" one. It was aimed at Manchin and Sinema and any other Democrats who might be thinking about denying the progressives some of their wishes because they had the bird in the hand of the first infrastructure bill.
About two minutes ago, coincidentally, Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC put all this to Joe Manchin exactly as I have laid it out in this comment. There is very good reason to believe, out of his own mouth, that Manchin (as well as Sinema) will bail on the progressives intiatives. Biden said what he said to try and shore up Manchin and other Democrats who might be satisfied with just the first bill.
It has nothing to do with Republicans, who were never going to vote for the second bill anyway.
I take your explanation as spin by the Democrat Party to try to provide cover for Biden. The Republicans had been consistent all along that a lot of the items in the original Democrat list the Reps did not consider infrastructure and they said so. And Biden had stated that if the Republicans won't support the Democrat bill then they should try to negotiate a compromise bill. So after a lot of work from both parties a compromise bill was created and agreed to by both parties.
Then right after Biden had announced the successful creation of a compromise bill, the next day comes out and threatens to veto the compromise bill unless the Democrats pass their own bill also. You can say all you want that the message was supposed to be just to Democrats but he said it out loud where everybody could hear it. So I'm not at all surprised with the reaction,
Honest answer if you can. If the situation was reversed, and the Democrats had spent time negotiating a compromise bill with President Trump and then Trump had come out to the press and demanded the Republicans pass a second bill or he would veto the first, what would your reaction be?
The key to this phony controversy is that no Republicans were ever going to vote for the second bill. That is a known fact. So why would Biden be threatening the Republicans and using the first bill as leverage for the second when he knew they were not interested in the second? It was Manchin and Sinema that he was talking to.
As to why the Republicans pretended Biden had double crossed them? Thats politics.
Nope, you are no seeing what I wrote.
Yes, I agree that the Republicans would not vote for the large Democrat Infrastructure bill as it was written. They were quite clear IMO on that from the beginning. That is why they pushed for a compromise bill. And from the way they talked it seemed to me that they had a compromise to replace the entire Democrat infrastructure bill with their compromise bill.
And yes I can agree that Biden was talking to Manchin and Sinema about how they need to get behind the reconciliation push for the Democrat second bill.
Doesn't change that the Republicans came away with a compromise bill on infrastructure and in less than 24 hours Biden was threatening to veto that agreed to bill unless the Dems also passed that second bill. I don't blame the Republicans for being upset as they were against the second bill all along.
Now are the Republicans using that as a political talking point? Of course they are, that's party politics. Doesn't change that Biden should have kept his mouth shut and dealt that veto threat in private to the Democrat party only. Now it's out in the public and will be used as a talking point.
Uh, ok.
They can make a mountain out of an ant hill if they want.
BTW, you are making your comment on a seed that describes Biden's statement as "treachery".
That explanation really doesn't make much sense. Moderates in the Senate have separated physical infrastructure from what the left-leaning Democrats are touting as social infrastructure. They're not together in the same package any longer. The political left of the Democratic Party have lost political cover for what they are calling social infrastructure.
Biden is well aware that the political left of the Democratic Party won't support the moderate compromise on physical infrastructure. That has not been a priority of the political left. Biden's remarks reflect the political left's recognition that separating physical infrastructure from social infrastructure places the political left in a much weaker position. The political left is now in the position of stonewalling a moderate bipartisan compromise on physical infrastructure to strengthen their position on social infrastructure.
I agree that Biden's remarks that he would not sign one without the other wasn't directed toward Republicans. But they weren't directed toward moderate Democrats either. Biden's message was to the political left. And that message was that the political left will need to compromise on social infrastructure in the same manner as the compromise on physical infrastructure. Biden's remarks were a warning that he wouldn't sign anything on social infrastructure without the bipartisan compromise on physical infrastructure. If the political left opposes that compromise on physical infrastructure they won't get anything on social infrastructure.
Biden's remarks weren't about bringing Manchin and Sinema in line. Biden's remarks were telling the political left that they must compromise. The political left won't get their social infrastructure package without the physical infrastructure package. And that's going to require compromise.
I disagree. The "progressive" left would not abandon a Democratic president in any great numbers no matter what happened. And there are not a tremendous number of "progressive" Democrats in the Senate anyway.
Although there is a tinge of what you say in Biden's comments, the major meaning of it is to Manchin and Sinema and any other moderate Senate Democrats who might be inclined to be happy with just the first bill.
Look at the basics.
Announcing to the world that a bipartisan agreement has been reached on a bill connotes an accomplishment on a single, independent bill.
But there is no accomplishment if the bipartisan agreement is —after the agreement has been reached— made contingent on the passage of another bill. That contingency was not part of the bipartisan agreement; it is a major factor that materially changes the nature of the negotiations. I consider that slimy politics.
Your explanation was simply spin. Now if the basics I just stated are wrong in some way then explain that.
But that does not reflect reality. Either Biden gets political wins through compromise - or - Democrats pursue a scorched earth agenda to end the filibuster and assume one-party rule on a slim majority.
Which approach would be more likely to appeal to the electorate in future elections? Could Biden win reelection (or Harris win election) as an uncompromising advocate for the political left?
Disaffected Republicans helped Biden win election. Will Biden turn his back on them now? Maybe the political left believes they don't need Republicans. But Biden (and Harris) do need Republicans.
You are the one spinning.
The reason Biden made his statement so soon after the announcement of the bipartisan agreement is because he was already hearing from progressives who suspected Manchin would abandon them (which he is likely to do by the way) and he felt the need to send a message to Manchin and Sinema. Could he or should he have waited a day or two? Maybe, but the timing doesnt change anything about the reason for the statement.
Joe Manchin thinks he is the king of the United States Congress and he alone gets to decide what is appropriate or inappropriate in legislation. MSNBC asked him today about this exact topic and he said he will support a second bill to the extent that "we can afford it". That is double talk for he supports very little in the second bill.
More likely it was 2016 Sanders voters returning to home base.
Oh knock it off John. There is no spin in what I wrote. Show me, explicitly, where you imagine I engaged in spin. I stated the facts. If you cannot find fault with the facts as I stated them then do not deflect by claiming I am spinning something. That is just a bald-faced lie.
Your 'answer' was nothing but spin. You did not show how my facts were wrong.
You appropriately take issue when people refuse to acknowledge facts and instead engage in partisan spin. It applies to you too.
Are you seriously contending that Joe Biden, the former US Senator, two term Vice President and current President of the United States of America is either senile or treacherous?
Mild mannered steady as a rock Joe Biden?
Our easy goin work-a-day senior statesman?
Competent capable Joe Biden of Delaware?
That Joe Biden?
Where do you see me making any such allegation?
Read what I wrote.
I am not going to agree with everything Biden (or Harris) does over the next four years. When that occurs, for future reference, that does not mean that I have moved to an extreme, emotional and irrational position. It simply means that I do not agree for the reasons I will have stated.
Luckily they can vote any way they choose, Biden has his vote and they have theirs. They know their electorate isn't as far left as that of most other Dems so they're not going to vote for the progressive fantasy slush fund.
Some people should not be calling other people senile, from the pot kettle perspective.
Treachery or senility?
I would say relatively equal measures of both.
I would say you are completely wrong.