Nah. Make Jen Psaki do something different and actually earn her paycheck.
Hey, you can like Jen or not, but you gotta admit at least she holds briefings. Quite unlike the last administration that went weeks and sometimes months between briefings. As I recall, there was one press secretary that failed to have a single presser.
Plus that is a mighty big platform for a hundred and nineteen undecided (or rather, uninformed) people.
As frustrated as I occasionally am by how badly the Dems message, I am very much in favor of being associated with the party of substance than the party of messaging. Now we just have to deliver on the substance (we already hold the moral high ground).
What do voters vote on? If substance (or lack thereof) mattered, you would have a larger majority in the House and wouldn’t have come within 50,000 votes of being the minority party in the Senate. You can claim to be the party of substance all you want and I can disagree with you all I want but truth be told it doesn’t matter which one of us is right when midterms are 13 months a way and the Pubs are writing the story of this Dem-controlled House/Senate/Presidency
As I recall the last administration had multiple daily briefings via twitter.
Yes and no.
For now, I don’t see what the Republicans have won, though. In fact, I agree with other posters who say that it’s the Repubs who’ve caved – for now. I admit, the Dems took an avenue I didn’t expect, which was to put the nuclear option on the table. I think McConnell assumed the Dems would be too divided to agree on that option, and maybe they still are, but McConnell wasn’t willing to make a bet on it, so he folded.
McConnell conceded the battle in hopes of winning the longer war. McConnell wisely made the concession on the debt ceiling now, saved his filibuster lever, and bought himself time - time for rising energy prices to make the argument that we’re living with inflation and that it’s the fault of Dems’ reckless spending. The Dems, however, make it harder for McConnell to use the debt ceiling as a weapon, since he obviously thought it was important enough to reverse himself once before. McConnell’s hoping that he won’t have to use the debt ceiling and that talking head will be talking about inflation thanks to rising oil and natural gas prices so that he can make the argument that we can’t afford more social spending.
Added to that, there’s a big race for Virginia governor, which will have been decided by then. If McCauliffe loses, then all kinds of warning sirens are going to start blaring, and we’re likely to see moderates really push hard against the progressive wing of the party. Moreover, they’re likely to pull Biden toward the center and away from progressives. There’s a major risk of a serious fracture between the two sides.
Just to be clear: what, exactly, do you think will happen with regard to progressives if McAuliffe wins?
Stephanie Grisham. I’m listening to her book “I’ll Take Your Questions Now.” If you had a bad impression of Trump and his family, this will make it worse.
I don’t fear what happens if he wins; if he wins, there’s less pressure to change course. But if moderates or centrists lose, they start pulling Biden away from the Bernie wing of the party. Bear in mind, Biden is supporting a stimulus bill the size of which he wouldn’t have supported 20-25 years ago. He’s branding himself as a progressive with restraints. If the moderates lose, he might rebrand himself, the same way Bill Clinton rebranded himself as a conservative Democrat after his party lost in 1994.
It doesn’t make her look that great either, I found the most interesting thing about the book was the level of her own casual corruption, unrelated to Trump.
She had someone fired for launching an investigation into her drunken behavior during an official trip. She gave her boyfriend preferential treatment and plum assignments. She demoted a female staffer in order to “protect” her from Trump’s predatory behavior. While she expresses some belated guilt for some of her actions, she has no consciousness of guilt over these episodes.
And when you spend THAT much time trying to convince your readers that despite all evidence, you don’t have a substance abuse problem or mental issues….you probably have at least one of these.
It took me a long time to read this book because my eyes hurt from all the constant rolling.
I’ve gotta admit, the best part was when she talked about first receiving the transcript for Trump’s perfect phone call and how Trump’s entire communication department pored over it and just couldn’t figure out what the Democrats found objectionable.
It’s like using informants to take down organized crime gangs. Sure, we need their help, and getting rid of the gangs is probably worth it, but we need to realize that the informants themselves are pretty nasty people in their own right. If they weren’t, they never would have been in the gang to begin with.
Even if we didn’t know the exact extent of Trump’s incompetence and corruption, it was pretty clear very early on that he was one of the most corrupt and incompetent people to ever hold office. Anyone who would go to work for him at that stage was almost certainly someone who was at least comfortable with corruption, if not actually corrupt themselves. These were not good people.
Getting their insider insights into exactly how bad Trump was is probably worth it, but let’s not forget that they’re pretty awful people in their own right.
I mean I’m a conservative and I don’t entirely link Biden’s taste for increased spending with him “becoming progressive.” For one, did you see the many trillions of dollars Trump signed off on for stimulus? I actually think the mainstream, not just of politicians, but of professional economists, globally, have shifted much more heavily to the side of “err on the side of spending lots of money during economic downturns.” Which covid was an economic downturn. Very few people on either side of the Atlantic still defend the EU’s austerity measures after the global financial crisis or the inability of the U.S. government to pass additional stimulus early in Obama’s Presidency. There’s even been a lot of writing that the U.S. Fed has been institutionally too afraid of inflation for too long. We actually had a 30 year period in which inflation was more or less below where it “should be”, so even during the last year where inflation has been above the 2% “target” rate, we still are technically many years of inflation “behind” in terms of what the Fed’s target rate for inflation would be.
Guys like Chairman Powell also generally don’t tend to confuse the price of various units of energy (be it a gallon of gasoline or a barrel of oil) with general inflation. Petroleum product pricing can be subject to hefty swings due to production shortages and other systemic issues that don’t relate to general inflation.
As Powell himself as said, he links other prices in the consumer products out there at the moment largely to supply chain issues.
The fact that current previous 12-month inflation for all products and services less energy is 4%, suggests if there is any inflation being directly caused by the various stimuluses that have been passed, it is moderate. The fact price increases in energy have mode widely out of step with all other commodities likewise points to the energy price not at all being related to inflation from government spending, but almost certainly because of supply and demand shocks. Many based on companies cancelling contracts for fuel during the initial pandemic, then rushing to try and secure fuel supplies when they realized the industrial output decrease was going to be very short lived.
I think she addresses that pretty well in the epilogue. She freely admits that she made plenty of mistakes but I think that she’d disagree with your assessment of her “drunken behavior.”
At any rate, it was an interesting listen.