Joe Biden is a veteran actor, miscast in the wrong movie.
 |
| Steve McQueen: The Magnificent Seven. "We deal in lead." |
I heard two Fox hosts referring to President Biden as feckless this morning. The hosts seem to have gotten a memo. Feckless is the Fox word of the day again.
We just watched a giant reversal of fortune this week. A Democratic initiative is tantalizingly close. Senator Joe Manchin and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer finally worked out a compromise that can pass through reconciliation. The new bill has Manchin's fingerprints all over it. Biden gets faint-praise credit. Schumer persuaded a Democrat to agree to 20% of a Democratic bill, so long as it gave special benefits to West Virginia, so long as it scrapped being called "green," and so long as it changed its name to the "Inflation Reduction Act." It includes a 15% minimum corporate income tax, which meant that the U.S. would participate in a worldwide agreement that we led. At least we would show up for our own party. It is better than nothing.
Democrats rejoiced for a few hours.
Then the world remembered Arizona Senator Krysten Sinema who opposed ending the "carried interest loophole" which allows hedge fund managers to pay taxes on earnings at capital gains rates. She also didn't like that corporate minimum tax rate. After three days of suspense some still-uncertain new compromise has just been announced. Sinema gives her permission to the supplicants.
There is another hitch.
The Senate parliamentarian must rule on whether the last-minute changes now make the bill ineligible for passage with 50 votes via reconciliation. Biden by yet another string.
There is a giant unspoken message out of this legislative history. Biden is tossed around by forces bigger than himself. The great asset that Biden brought to the presidency was deep relationships within the Senate and a thorough understanding of process.That doesn't mean he can change his predicament, only that he likely understands how thoroughly he has been sabotaged by Republicans and the two Democrats.
Joe Biden is miscast.
Biden's skillset might have worked if Democrats had reliable majorities. He could have presided over a well-functioning machine--like elderly royalty, perhaps, or better yet, a figurehead board chairman--quietly acknowledging a job being done by competent staff. Biden looks that part and could speak those lines.
The presidency at this moment is an action thriller movie. Biden is the wrong actor for the part. Biden cannot persuasively play the tough guy. Nor can he be the voice of strength and optimism for a new generation. He doesn't look or act like the future.
Events are bringing the future into dim view. There are strong voices out there. Liz Cheney is the nation's most persuasive voice against Trump's election denial. Republicans are unlikely to choose Cheney anytime soon. The Arizona primary elections showed that. So does the silence of southern Oregon GOP candidates in the face of a Republican Party resolution denying the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Too many Republican voters believe in Trump. It isn't her time yet. She is doing what she needs to do while Trump's clock is still ticking.
Biden will step aside because his clock has run out. The next generation is ready to grab power and members of it are already doing what ambitious people do.
More on these shortly.
[Note: To get the blog daily by email go to https://petersage.substack.com Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]
13 comments:
Besides his obvious issues with advancing age--he referred to himself in a meeting with GM bigwigs as the "Vice President" again the other day--Biden earns the "feckless" label primarily because of what isn't mentioned here, namely foreign affairs and his role as Commander in Chief.
The Taliban killed not one U.S. soldier during Trump's tenure, because at least they feared the random element. Under Biden, they have run roughshod, including a new red carpet for Al Qaeda. Putin saw this, has secured Eastern Ukraine, and today despite Biden's vaunted sanctions the ruble is higher than before the invasion. Biden looked like a weakling and fool next to MBS in Saudi Arabia. Nancy Pelosi showed China resolve while Biden quavered. Look to the Straits before the next president of either party takes office. Our military is today more concerned with buttering up racial and sexual minorities than staying (becoming) combat-ready. Iran is on the verge of nukes, while Biden has re-estranged Israel. Our southern border is not remotely secure. Meanwhile, America's economic horns are to be trimmed in the name of climate, as India and Brazil opt out, and as China rests comfortably on non-binding promises to begin fractional reductions in emissions in 2030 and sells us shiny Green gear.
Only way Biden like Obama is NOT feckless on the global stage? If their sincere desire is to see America (and Western Europe brought down, as a matter of global social justice and reparations. Even so, that would be Susan Rice, not Doddering Joe.
Biden isn’t particularly quick-witted and he has a speech impediment, so he’s easy to make fun of. But he’s done pretty well, considering that he’s had to deal with the ongoing intransigence of the traitorous party that tried to overturn his election.
I hope he manages to get his economic package passed before midterms, not that it would probably make much difference. Insurrectionists can always be counted on to vote against their own best interest.
The Democrats had better hope that someone we haven’t yet heard of emerges. None of their current cast of characters has what it takes.
In particular, they had better hope they don’t get stuck with Kamala Harris. She only got chosen for affirmative action reasons, which did not include political competence or charisma. It’s unclear whether the identity politics component of the Democratic Party will allow a “woman of color“ to be bypassed for a candidate who is actually up to the job.
I don't think that President Biden is miscast at all. He is doing the best he can given the situation. Just like Obama and Clinton.
Fox will always pick on a Democratic president. Big surprise.
I am very thankful that Joe Biden is our president. I don't want some idiot grandstander. No thanks !!!!!
Multiple factual errors in L.D's comment.
I suggest LD come out of the shadows and make the argument of Biden fecklessness and net foreign policy errors compared to Trump. Come out of the shadows. Do a guest post openly and proudly. Make the comparison of Biden and Trump with Saudi Arabia and stand the critique. Make the argument that our alliances within Europe--and yes even Israel--are not as secure as under Trump.
LD says many interesting things in quick asides. The comment earlier today is a more comprehensive criticism of Biden--but made anonymously and without opportunity for real rebuttal.
Peter Sage
Correction: Her first name is Kyrsten.
I admit this is probably a common mistake. Kirsten, Kristen, Kyrsten and Krysten are easy to confuse.
A friendly observation: LD’s conclusion, that the only way President Obama, and now President Biden are not feckless is if their “sincere desire is to see America (and Western Europe brought down, as a matter of global social justice and reparations,” is hysterical nonsense we already heard plenty of from Dinesh D’Souza and his ilk. A guest column about it would be less than informative.
I like Amy Klobucharfor President. She shows her chops every time she speaks.
Amy Klobuchar was who I supported in 2020. I contributed significant $$$ to her campaign.
Klobuchar was Biden’s preferred VP until identity politics forced him to pick Kamala Harris, even though she had sandbagged him with a gratuitous race card attack at the first debate.
Point of clarification where forum rules and expectations are concerned?
If I'm reading correctly, my comments to date and especially going forward are acceptable as is if but "asides", or drive-bys, but not so much if they are longer and/or more substantive, unless I am also willing to submit my true name and background?
That's so in part because forum rules no longer permit refutaton to content as such, except vis a vis official posts? Needless to say, "Multiple factual errors in LD's comment", does not constitute a substantive refutation in any specific regard.
I appreciate and continue to respect this forum, so the foregoing are not intended as rhetorical questions. If them's the rules, so be it. That said, there are simply too many randos out there for me to come out, as it were. Let me (us) know.
LD, greetings.
Your comments have credibility because they are informed and well written. That makes them more “formidable” as argument. Your previous comment has errors of fact and proportion. I don’t feel the need to go point by point on a mere comment. So we can just leave it. You made a comment and I warned readers that you were wrong. Done. I am aware that this is unsatisfactory, which is my point. Comments are treated as comments.
The thesis, antithesis, synthesis formula starts with a thesis. A comment that introduces new stuff, like yours, is a thesis in an antithesis setting
Commenters—as opposed to guest posts—don’t really get the give and take of being commented on, with responses and rebuttals. That is particularly true for anonymous ones. But suit yourself. Just comment, if you like. I consider it a waste because your comment is misplaced. It wastes your insights. They are yours to waste.
Peter Sage
Although I rarely read LD's comments, I support his point about commenting anonymously. I realize that anonymous comments are a pet-peeve of the blog's owner.
I would like to point out that there are many good reasons for commenting anonymously. As a reader, I don't care who writes the comments. I am interested in the facts, thoughts, ideas, and arguments.
On this blog, we are not professional, paid journalists, columnists, reporters, etc. So what if we don't want to sign our names and possibly be attacked or face retaliation?
I don't wish to write a book on the subject, but consider some of the positive and historical aspects of writing anonymously:
* Before women had any rights, it was common for women authors to use pen names
* Whistleblowers are anonymous
* Reporters use anonymous sources
* "Common Sense" and other political pamphlets were anonymous or used pseudonyms
* Deep Throat was anonymous
* Females are more likely than males to be attacked and harassed on social media (Google it)
* Apparently, some admissions officers do not use names or photos when evaluating potential students
Additionally,
* Where would law enforcement be without anonymous tips and sources?
* Many people who take surveys will not participate or answer honestly unless they can remain anonymous or their identity is hidden
* "Dear Abby" letters typically do not use the person's real name
Post a Comment