Editor's Note: Everyone knows the U.S. media are compelled to report on Joe Biden's celebrity-themed inauguration as one of the proudest moments in the history of American democracy. What this article presupposes is … maybe they shouldn't be?
WASHINGTON—Joe Biden became the oldest president in American history on Wednesday under a cloud of controversy. Questions continue to swirl about his physical and mental health, while personal scandals continue to haunt the incoming commander in chief, potentially undermining his ability to lead the country in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
Biden, 78, delivered a relatively short, reasonably coherent inaugural address in front of a sparse crowd of supporters and thousands of National Guard troops mobilized in an overzealous display of military force. Partisan media outlets hailed the speech as one of the greatest rhetorical achievements in the history of politics and described Biden's inauguration as "a majestic day" and "the dawn of a new era."
Biden, who at one point likened himself—without evidence—to Abraham Lincoln, declined to address the still-unresolved claim of sexual assault by former staffer Tara Reade and did not discuss the federal government's ongoing investigation of his son, Hunter Biden, who is suspected of laundering money and committing tax fraud related to his questionable business ventures in China and Ukraine.
After the speech, which included an emotional (if unconvincing) appeal for "unity," Biden proceeded to erase several years' worth of Trump administration policies with the stroke of a pen. The president signed a whopping 17 executive orders to amend federal policy without the consent of Congress, further straining the historic bounds of the Constitution.
The unprecedented display of executive authority was followed by Biden's norm-shattering decision to fire Peter Robb, general counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, in a blatant effort to appease Big Labor organizations that spent millions backing Democrats in 2020. Robb, whose four-year term was set to expire later this year, was terminated after he refused to resign voluntarily.
Meanwhile, Biden's pick to lead the Department of Labor came under fire for funneling cash to one of the president's top advisers. Months before he was announced as Biden's nominee for labor secretary, Boston mayor Marty Walsh began using campaign funds to pay SKDKnickerbocker, the consulting firm founded by senior White House adviser Anita Dunn, for "consulting" services. The firm has raked in a total of $90,000 from Walsh since September 2020.
Despite his nominal commitment to address the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Biden was photographed at the Lincoln Memorial flouting his own executive order, signed hours earlier, mandating the use of masks on federal property. Other members of the Biden family were also seen disregarding the public-safety measure, as the U.S. set a record for most COVID-19 deaths in a single day (4,409).
The following day, the Biden administration cynically accused the Trump administration of failing to produce a vaccine-distribution plan. Even hardcore Democratic loyalists such as Politico editor Sam Stein were forced to admit the accusations were "not true."
While the Biden administration scrambled to confront the pandemic, which began in a communist country with ties to the president's son, the partisan press eagerly sought to change the subject by reporting on the problematic changes to the Oval Office interior. The new additions, which Biden reportedly approved, included portraits of Franklin D. Roosevelt, architect of the racist Japanese-internment policy, and Benjamin Franklin, a notorious brothel hound.
Why the Biden Agenda Might Come to a Screeching Halt in the Senate
|
|
Posted: Jan 25, 2021 1:50 PM
Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci
The 2020 election is over. Joe Biden is president, but down ballot, the Democratic Party didn’t do so hot. The party’s standing in the House shrunk considerably. The Democrats’ House losses were shocking; they were projected to gain 10 or so seats not lose them. There’s very little wiggle room for error. In the Senate, Democrats only have 50 seats. They have the majority because Vice President Kamala Harris is the tiebreaker, but this is far from the Obama wave that occurred in 2008. Democrats had 60 seats in the Senate. Below those slate of races, the Democratic project of overturning key state legislatures also failed miserably. Overall, besides Biden, Democrats got stuffed.
Now, all eyes are on what the Senate does regarding the rules for this current session. Will they nuke the filibuster? If they do, a lot of left-wing nonsense will pass, especially on gun control and aspects of the Green New Deal. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) was the wild card, signaling he’s a hard ‘no’ on getting rid of the filibuster or packing the courts. And now, he has company in Sen. Krysten Sinema (D-AZ). Sinema isn’t a hard-core liberal, toeing a more centrist line. She’s also one to beat to her own drum, telling Schumer off on some occasions. Her mindset is simple: she’s there to serve Arizona, not the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (via WaPo):
The Senate filibuster has evolved over the course of its history into a de facto supermajority requirement, necessitating 60 votes to end debate and advance legislation. Rarely has one party held enough votes to defeat filibusters without at least some cross-aisle cooperation.
The rule has been eroded over the past decade. After McConnell led a broad blockade of President Barack Obama’s nominees, Democrats under then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) in 2013 allowed executive appointees and lower-court judges to be advanced with a simple majority vote.
McConnell, in turn, eliminated the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees when Democrats threatened to block the nomination of Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017 and two years later changed the rules to more quickly confirm presidential nominees.
[…]
The path ahead is likely to be decided by a small group of moderate Democrats, elected from red and purple states, who have signaled support for keeping the filibuster while hinting that their patience for partisan obstruction might not be infinite.
Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) has been the most outspoken Democratic opponent of changing Senate rules and has sought to assemble a bipartisan cadre of centrist senators willing to hammer out deals across the aisle. But other Democrats are similarly resistant. A spokeswoman for Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) said the senator is “against eliminating the filibuster, and she is not open to changing her mind about eliminating the filibuster.”
The Washington Post had to correct their original story which initially said that Sinema might be open to nuking this rule [emphasis mine]:
An earlier version of this article mistakenly reported that Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) has suggested she might be willing to eliminate the filibuster. A spokeswoman for Sinema said the senator is firmly opposed to doing so and is “not open to changing her mind.”
Well, even if Manchin caves, there’s another brick in the firewall—and it’s made up of Democrats. It would have been better if Republicans were able to win the Georgia runoffs and have the filibuster protected under our folks, but I guess you take what you can get. Also, with the chamber at 50-50, there’s not much of a mandate for this move. I know no one cares, but maybe liberals should consider drafting policy initiatives that won’t—you know—bankrupt the country or trample of Americans’ rights via gun confiscation. Maybe, just maybe—there will be more cooperation.
No comments:
Post a Comment