Biden's failings

None of us are going to support Biden on every issue. (I don't think, anyway.)

So far, over just a few months, he's been criticized for immigration policy and his delayed response to helping India re they pandemic.

In both cases though, he's responded to pressure and corrected himself - so those are good signs.

Was wondering what other things you might disagree with him on.



This article is what got me to start this thread. It's about Keva Landrum, whom Biden has nominated to be US Attorney for New Orleans. She's got a problematic past and does not look to be a good choice. He should withdraw her.

https://theappeal.org/landrum-new-orleans-da/


I think he needs to do an LBJ on Manchin and Sinema. 


ml1 said:

I think he needs to do an LBJ on Manchin and Sinema. 

 what's that?


ml1 said:

I think he needs to do an LBJ on Manchin and Sinema. 

Which senators did LBJ do an LBJ on, after he was no longer his party's Senate leader?


I think we should take into consideration the clusterphuk he was left to take care of. And it was planted in his lap on Inauguration Day!  The previous administration left the entire government booby trapped for Biden to walk right into. He’s been cleaning up the siht from day one, he’s actually doing a phenomenal job. Obama had it easier if you ask me. 
His only failing might be his naïveté in believing that he can get the republicans to meet him halfway. He might very well be our last decent president. 






DaveSchmidt said:

Which senators did LBJ do an LBJ on, after he was no longer his party's Senate leader?

Your response suggests you know what I'm talking about. LBJ didn't need to do it as president. But in the Senate he knew how to use whatever leverage he had. 

If Joe Manchin is  going to obstruct any Democratic legislation he might as well be a Republican. If Biden and Schumer can't find a way to get him on board they aren't the politicians I thought they were.  And if they can't, the next year or two of Biden's priorities will be a non-starter. 


My response suggests I know what you're talking about when LBJ was Senate leader. What I don't know, and the reason I asked, is how that Senate leverage works for a president.


DaveSchmidt said:

My response suggests I know what you're talking about when LBJ was Senate leader. What I don't know, and the reason I asked, is how that Senate leverage works for a president.

 it's just leverage. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema lose all their perceived power if the Republicans get 51 seats in 2022. The Biden Administration needs to figure out how to get that through their heads to get them on board or nothing happens. 

I've got to say this is the kind of thing that has me posting less here lately. Having to explain this kind of thing to people whom I believe know what the reference means. It's tiring.  "An LBJ" meant using the strong arm. Which I guess I should have written instead of trying to be cute.

My bad. 


Jaytee said:

I think we should take into consideration the clusterphuk he was left to take care of. And it was planted in his lap on Inauguration Day!  The previous administration left the entire government booby trapped for Biden to walk right into. He’s been cleaning up the siht from day one, he’s actually doing a phenomenal job. Obama had it easier if you ask me. 
His only failing might be his naïveté in believing that he can get the republicans to meet him halfway. He might very well be our last decent president. 




yeah, I don't disagree with this. Biden has been reluctant to point out the mess he's inherited, though they mention it sometimes.

And the press has been horrible in documenting it. I don't think we really realize the extent to which the fed govt was dismantled under Trump.


ml1 said:

 it's just leverage. Joe Manchin and Kristen Sinema lose all their perceived power if the Republicans get 51 seats in 2022. The Biden Administration needs to figure out how to get that through their heads to get them on board or nothing happens. 

I've got to say this is the kind of thing that has me posting less here lately. Having to explain this kind of thing to people whom I believe know what the reference means. It's tiring.  "An LBJ" meant using the strong arm. Which I guess I should have written instead of trying to be cute.

My bad. 

Oh, stop it, ml1. Poor you. 

Because I knew the reference, these two caveats came to mind, and I don't think they're minor. One is that a big reason LBJ could do what he did was that only he was Lyndon Baines Johnson; the tactics worked because the man behind them also had rare talent for personal persuasion. The other is that the senators he pressured were probably more worried about losing their sinecures, and therefore more beholden to his power to make them look good, than LBJ was worried about losing their seat to a Republican. He could always work with the next Democrat from so-and-so's state. Schumer isn't in the same position.

I hear "do an LBJ" almost as often as I hear "they should trade for a No. 3 starter." So forgive me for asking for some details.


DaveSchmidt said:

Oh, stop it, ml1. Poor you. 

Nah. 

It's just discussing the discussion gets old. Pretty sure we could have just discussed whether Manchin and Sinema are going to thwart Biden without going on a tangent. 


You, wearied soul, discussed the discussion. I asked for elaboration on how a president can strong-arm senators, which you brought up, and then wondered, even if we’re talking about the Senate leader, how a less-than-Johnsonian one like Schumer had more leverage over Manchin and Sinema than they, right now, have over him.

In the end, “needs to figure out how to get that through their heads” sounds more amorphous and unknowing — and therefore closer to the difficult reality — to me than the original “needs to do an LBJ.”


DaveSchmidt said:

You, wearied soul, discussed the discussion. I asked for elaboration on how a president can strong-arm senators, which you brought up, and then wondered, even if we’re talking about the Senate leader, how a less-than-Johnsonian one like Schumer had more leverage over Manchin and Sinema than they, right now, have over him.

In the end, “needs to figure out how to get that through their heads” sounds more amorphous and unknowing — and therefore closer to the difficult reality — to me than “needs to do an LBJ.”

 OK. 

How about this? The title of this thread is "Biden's failings." The key to whether or not Biden can succeed in his plans appears to be held by Manchin and Sinema.

Discuss. 


ml1 said:

DaveSchmidt said:

You, wearied soul, discussed the discussion. I asked for elaboration on how a president can strong-arm senators, which you brought up, and then wondered, even if we’re talking about the Senate leader, how a less-than-Johnsonian one like Schumer had more leverage over Manchin and Sinema than they, right now, have over him.

In the end, “needs to figure out how to get that through their heads” sounds more amorphous and unknowing — and therefore closer to the difficult reality — to me than “needs to do an LBJ.”

 OK. 

How about this? The title of this thread is "Biden's failings." The key to whether or not Biden can succeed in his plans appears to be held by Manchin and Sinema.

Discuss. 

 Actually I think the question  of Manchin and Sinema and maybe the filibuster are worth their own thread. It's a complicated issue.

This thread is more for when Biden messes up on his own - not when he's thwarted.


drummerboy said:

 Actually I think the question  of Manchin and Sinema and maybe the filibuster are worth their own thread. It's a complicated issue.

This thread is more for when Biden messes up on his own - not when he's thwarted.

fair point. But I would also call it a failure of Biden's if none of his priorities get through the Senate and he doesn't try to do anything to flip those two Senators. I don't know if anything would work. But at some point he's going to need to try public shaming at the very least.

Manchin was on CNN on Sunday talking about bipartisanship. He sounded delusional or terribly stupid or hopelessly naive. If he follows through on his comments not a thing will get passed, not even infrastructure.


I don't think it should be the President's assignment to "shame" Manchin and Sinema. He should push policies, and the benefits of those policies. That sets up the contrast, and others can point out how any senators aren't doing their jobs if they oppose them.


A Seal of Approval - 


I think the real test with Manchin and Sinema will be the infrastructure bill. Maybe all the talk about bipartisanship is more than talk and ten Republicans really will come back with a serious offer (highly unlikely -- and to be clear, their current response isn't serious). Or maybe Manchin and Sinema just feel the need to be very public in their call for bipartisanship and loudly distance themselves from their fellow Democrats while the quietly vote largely for whatever Biden and Schumer come up with. Or maybe they actually have some concrete changes they demand to the bill, then declare themselves satisfied and vote for it.

My money's on a bit of the last one and a lot of the middle one. Speak loudly and vote quietly is a pretty common strategy for politicians facing daunting electoral balancing.


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

 Actually I think the question  of Manchin and Sinema and maybe the filibuster are worth their own thread. It's a complicated issue.

This thread is more for when Biden messes up on his own - not when he's thwarted.

fair point. But I would also call it a failure of Biden's if none of his priorities get through the Senate and he doesn't try to do anything to flip those two Senators. I don't know if anything would work. But at some point he's going to need to try public shaming at the very least.

Manchin was on CNN on Sunday talking about bipartisanship. He sounded delusional or terribly stupid or hopelessly naive. If he follows through on his comments not a thing will get passed, not even infrastructure.

I don't think shaming would work with these two clowns, but I can't think of anything else that would work either. Bribery might work better, like the good old days of Congressional wheeling and dealing.

I saw Manchin for that interview and I agree with your characterization. I wish Bash had asked him "And where in the constitution is the filibuster?" because I think he really thinks it's in there.


drummerboy said:

I don't think shaming would work with these two clowns, but I can't think of anything else that would work either. Bribery might work better, like the good old days of Congressional wheeling and dealing.

I saw Manchin for that interview and I agree with your characterization. I wish Bash had asked him "And where in the constitution is the filibuster?" because I think he really thinks it's in there.

 he talks as if bipartisanship is a virtue and a laudable goal for its own sake. He speaks as if good legislation becomes bad legislation if Republicans don't vote for it. It's really quite a bizarre notion of what's for the public good. 


ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

I don't think shaming would work with these two clowns, but I can't think of anything else that would work either. Bribery might work better, like the good old days of Congressional wheeling and dealing.

I saw Manchin for that interview and I agree with your characterization. I wish Bash had asked him "And where in the constitution is the filibuster?" because I think he really thinks it's in there.

 he talks as if bipartisanship is a virtue and a laudable goal for its own sake. He speaks as if good legislation becomes bad legislation if Republicans don't vote for it. It's really quite a bizarre notion of what's for the public good. 

 and on top of it all, he fails to acknowledge a decade of utterly bad faith on the part of the R's.


drummerboy said:

 and on top of it all, he fails to acknowledge a decade of utterly bad faith on the part of the R's.

 and polls are showing that the infrastructure plan is really popular, even among Republican voters. If the whole thing passes because the filibuster is ended, what person who supports it now is going to care how it passed?


I can't imagine there are a significant number of WV voters who give a hoot about the filibuster. 

Having said that, here's a poll that says I'm wrong, though I have a lot of problems with how the opening question is phrased.

https://thefga.org/polling/west-virginia-filibuster/


I love how the GOP words their polls to get feedback: https://gop.com/biden-100-day-survey

It gives an idea of where the GOP is targeting the Biden Failures.


jamie said:

I love how the GOP words their polls to get feedback: https://gop.com/biden-100-day-survey

It gives an idea of where the GOP is targeting the Biden Failures.

 Those "surveys" are for fund raising.


I still don't get the slogan  "Build, Back, Better".

Maybe the worst slogan ever.


Not so bad if you leave out the commas, or at least the first one.


The way it's written it sounds like a commercial for a new appetizer at Chili's. 


this is not good.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.