How former president Biden cost Democrats the presidency
Carl P. Leubsdorf,
Tribune News Service
If the goal of Joe Biden's 'Politburo' was to hide reality and convince Americans the former president was fit for another term, it may have been the least successful cover-up since Richard Nixon sought to avoid complicity in the Watergate scandal. That's because even before Biden gave history's worst presidential debate performance — and longer before the recent Jake Tapper-Alex Thompson disclosures of how truly bad things had gotten in the White House — polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans had already reached the conclusion he should step down.
Indeed, members of Biden's palace guard were not the worst villains in this whole unhappy episode, which resulted in the 2024 Democratic loss to Donald Trump. After all, they only did what White House palace guards always do: protect their principal and portray him in the best light. It was the other top Democrats who saw enough and probably knew enough about Biden's age and his mental state to know their party needed a different standard-bearer if it was to prevent the return of Trump — but they lacked the political courage to do anything.
After all, it didn't take a political genius to understand that, at the very least, the Democrats had undertaken a giant riverboat gamble in sticking with a president who showed increasing signs of physical and mental frailty and would be 86 at the end of a second term.
A few said so publicly, like former Obama White House adviser David Axelrod, and Minnesota Rep. Dean Phillips, who launched a quixotic primary campaign against Biden. According to Tapper and Thompson, others raised doubts behind the scenes. 'Are we sure this is a good idea?' senior adviser Anita Dunn reportedly asked some colleagues. And Secretary of State Antony Blinken told Biden directly, 'I'm with you one hundred and ten percent, whatever you want to do. But I want to make sure you want to take this on.' The authors say he suggested on two separate occasions that the real issue was not how Biden felt now but, 'how would he feel in four, five, six years from now?'
They write that former White House chief of staff Bill Daley 'felt strongly (in 2023) that the notion that Biden would be up to the task the following year was unsustainable' and reached out to some potential contenders — Governors Gavin Newsom of California, Andy Beshear of Kentucky, J. B. Pritzker of Illinois. But all demurred, reportedly fearing that, if they challenged Biden and he lost, 'they would be blamed.' (In fact, those who vouched for Biden's well-being may suffer; already, former Health and Human Services secretary Xavier Becerra's silence has been questioned by a California gubernatorial primary rival.) On the other hand, John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama all won the presidency by taking on an initially resistant Democratic establishment.
Nothing came of any of that. And one of the more startling disclosures is that Biden and his wife Jill apparently made his decision to run again without any effort to weigh the pros and cons or seek the views of his advisers. I've always felt that, had the Democrats suffered a traditional 2022 midterm setback instead of faring reasonably well, public pressure to replace Biden would have emerged before the last votes were counted.
The irony is that he had almost nothing to do with the Democrats holding those losses to a minimum, though they did lose their House majority. That's because he was already sufficiently unpopular, thanks to factors like lingering inflation and the botched US withdrawal from Afghanistan, that most embattled Democrats resisted presidential appearances in their states or districts.
That meant that the party failed to suffer the midterm rout many pre-election accounts predicted — despite Biden, not because of him. Still, the outcome deterred potential challengers from undertaking the massive and fraught task of taking on the party's incumbent in the crucial post-election period where they would have needed to start raising money and establishing campaigns in the early primary states. While a challenge might have caused an internal party bloodbath, it might also have precipitated Biden's withdrawal, given the diminished capacities he was showing behind the scenes and — when aides couldn't constrain them — in public. The authors provide additional details for the post-debate pressure that ultimately forced him to withdraw 23 days after the June 27 debate. Among their sources, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer seems to have been most open in recounting the conversation with Biden that finally convinced him he was headed for disastrous defeat.
The book accepts the widespread belief that, despite initial enthusiasm for Vice President Kamala Harris' successor candidacy, she was doomed. But they only touch lightly on how the administration's policy failures on inflation and immigration enabled her flawed rival to sway enough 'swing' voters to prevail.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Europe-US power struggle in Asia-Pacific
The annual Shangri-La Dialogue that Singapore hosts is a gathering of security and defence experts of south, south-east and east-Asia, along with the United States, European Union countries and China. It is a meeting point where new worldviews are enunciated if not new spheres of influence are carved out. At this year's Shangri-La, China stepped back as it were. There can only be speculation why it did so. India and Pakistan delegations represented by highest military personnel were present, avoiding running into each other in the corridors of the hotel. It was the Americans and the Europeans who seemed to have crossed swords at the conference. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth has spelt the American position with regard to European powers. He said, 'We would much prefer that the overwhelming balance of European investment be on that that as we partner there, which we will continue to do, we're able to use our comparative advantage as an Indo-Pacific nation to support our partners here.' In plain language, Hegseth is saying that Europe has no place in the Indo-Pacific, even if it had in the earlier period colonialism in the 19h and early 20th centuries. Americans believe that they are victors in the Second World War in the Asian region, and therefore they have the right to assert Asia-Pacific to be its sphere of influence. It is blunt language indeed, characteristic of the Trump Administration. Surprisingly, Hegseth says that the American commitment in Europe will continue, and the Americans will continue to support the European countries. This is in contrast to the rhetoric of President Donald Trump that Europe must take care of itself, and America is not interested in leading NATO. Trump has been flip-flopping quite a lot, about tariffs and about security commitments. Unable to persuade Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine, Trump feels that America has no option but to oppose Russia in Europe. The European counter to Hegseth formulation was ready. Kaja Kallas, the Estonian politician and European Union's High Representative for foreign affairs and security policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, said, 'It is a good thing we are doing more (in Europe), but what I want to stress is that the security of Europe and the security of the Pacific is very much interlinked.' She went on to say, 'If you are worried about China, you should be worried about Russia.' French President Emmanuel Macron emphasized that France remains an Indo-Pacific power. He referred to the French presence in New Caledonia and French Polynesia, and the 8,000 French soldiers in the region. Macron gave a political twist to the China factor, by countering the American approach of gathering all anti-China forces of the Indo-Pacific region. He said, 'We are neither China nor the US., we don't want to depend on either of them. We want to cooperate with both as far as we can, and we can cooperate for growth and prosperity and stability for our people and the world order, and I think this is exactly the same view of a lot of countries and a lot of people of this region.' It is not surprising that the Americans are not comfortable with the European presence in the Indo-Pacific region. But the Europeans see both economic and defence opportunities in Asia. An International Institute of Strategic Studies (ISS) of London in its report noted, 'European companies including Airbus, Damen, Naval Group and Thales have a long-standing presence in Southeast Asia, and other European actors have established themselves in the market in the last decade, including Italy's Fincantieri and Sweden's Saab.' There is competition now between Europe and America. China can watch the contest with amusement.
Gulf Today
9 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Congress wants Medicaid recipients to work
Michelle Baruchman, Tribune News Service Georgia could soon become the poster child for administering Medicaid with work requirements — for better or worse. As Congressional Republicans seek to pass a budget bill enacting President Donald Trump's agenda, they're looking to require able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work in order to receive their health care coverage. Georgia is presently the only state in the nation with work requirements for its Medicaid population. Here, Medicaid provides government-funded health care for some low-income people, with about 30 categories of eligibility including certain pregnant women, older widows and primary caregivers. Instead of embracing traditional Medicaid expansion, Gov. Brian Kemp sought to grow the number of insured Georgians through a conservative framework; his program provides Medicaid to people earning up to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level — about $15,000 for a single person — if they work at least 80 hours per month or meet academic or other requirements. But rather than leading to more Medicaid recipients working, Georgia's experience has led to people who could be eligible for the program unable to receive Medicaid, mostly because of bureaucratic red tape. While experts say Kemp's program, called Georgia Pathways to Coverage, has different aims, it could still provide lessons in both politics and policy. Pathways is designed to use health care as an incentive to get able-bodied individuals into the workforce on a limited basis. Eventually, the thinking goes, those part-time workers would transfer into full-time employees and become eligible for company-sponsored private health care plans, moving them off the government's rolls. According to Kemp's Office, at least 1,025 Pathways members have been referred to 'better, private health care coverage' through Georgia Access, the state's health care exchange, because their income increased. 'With this success it's no surprise that others are starting to emulate our innovative approach to health care coverage,' said Garrison Douglas, a spokesperson for Kemp. Chris Denson, the director of policy and research at the Georgia Public Policy Foundation, said Pathways is a way to increase health care coverage that is in line with the governor's vision without expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. States that expand Medicaid for people earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level, about $21,000 for an individual, have received additional federal funding to pay for it. About 40 states have expanded; Georgia has not. In Congress, lawmakers are looking for cuts that reduce the federal deficit, which is currently more than $1 trillion. Implementing work requirements nationwide among the existing able-bodied Medicaid population has been a Republican goal among those who believe there is waste and abuse in Medicaid. 'Medicaid has grown beyond its original intention to cover the aged, the blind, the disabled population, children, single mothers, and has grown to cover able-bodied individuals. That has long been an issue within conservative health circles,' Denson said. As part of discussions last year around easing regulations to establish new hospitals in Georgia, state Sen. Matt Brass, a Republican from Newnan, had voted for a form of Medicaid expansion. His thinking has shifted since then, and he supports work requirements and the Pathways programme. If you're going to use public money to pay for something, outside of those who are deaf, blind and disabled, you need to have some skin in the game,' he said. 'As long as you're working and a contributing member of society, then absolutely, I'm good with providing health care to help you do that.' Democrats understand that requiring Medicaid recipients to work for their benefits sounds like a good idea. A poll from the health research group KFF found that 62% of adults support work requirements. 'That actually makes sense to a lot of people. That sounds reasonable,' said state Rep. Michelle Au, a Democrat from Johns Creek. The problem, she said, is not with the work, it's with the administrative burden of reporting. 'There are people who actually are working and meet those hour eligibilities that still are not eligible for access through Pathways because of how onerous and difficult the reporting requirement is,' she said. 'It's building in a barrier to patients getting care.' KFF found that support for work requirements drops to 32% 'when those who initially support the proposal hear that most people on Medicaid are already working and many would risk losing coverage because of the burden of proving eligibility through paperwork.' Kemp's team initially expected fewer than 100,000 people to be enrolled in the program. As of earlier this year, there were about 6,500. Heather Payne is one of the patients struggling to get care. After she began having strokes a few years ago, she was no longer able to work her nursing job and has been waiting to get her disability application to be approved. She can't get Medicaid while her disability application is active, and she can't get Medicare without a disability status. Payne, 53, who lives in Dalton, recently decided to go back to school. Attending a public or private university of technical college is considered a qualifying activity for Pathways. But in addition to working clinical rotations, she's only taking nine credit hours right now, short of the 11.5 credit hours needed to be eligible for Pathways. 'I would have to take a full-time program at my school and work my clinical rotations to get the clinical experience I needed, to qualify to get Pathways,' she said. Other Georgians have said the portal to report work is a 'nightmare,' administrative support is lacking, and applicants are not given clear reasons why they are denied benefits.
Gulf Today
9 hours ago
- Gulf Today
‘Big beautiful bill' is a budget-busting boondoggle
Patricia Murphy, Tribune News Service Days before the House passed President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill,' Moody's Ratings agency had an ominous warning about the US economy. Because of America's recent history of running up huge debts and deficits, and no change in sight, 'the United States' fiscal performance is likely to deteriorate' relative to similar countries. As a part of that warning, Moody's downgraded the country's credit rating from its AAA score to AA1. Despite that red flag, House leaders forged ahead, passing their 10-year tax-and-spend plan, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, by a single vote. Unfortunately, the bill not only ignores Moody's debt warning, it looks more like one big, beautiful boondoggle. Included in the gargantuan bill are $4.5 trillion in tax cuts, more than $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and other social programs, and significant boosts in spending for defense and immigration enforcement. Costs of some social programs, including food stamps, are also shifted to states by the House. My colleague Tia Mitchell reported this week that Georgia officials could now be on the hook for more than $800 million in food spending if the GOP bill goes through. Other states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare will absorb more of those costs, too. All of the cuts to social safety net programs came, in part, to help pay for the tax cuts in the bill, which are heavily weighted toward high-income earners. For example, the working-class tax breaks that Trump promised on the campaign trail, namely eliminating taxes on tips, overtime pay, and car loan interest, will only last through the end of Trump's term in 2028. But the income tax cuts, including for the richest Americans, as well as tax breaks for estates and investment income all become permanent. The House also stuffed loads of perks for special interests into the 1,100-page bill. One measure bans states from passing new regulations on artificial intelligence for 10 years. So if Georgia lawmakers decide they want to limit the use of AI in Georgia classrooms, like they did with cellphones this year, the Big Beautiful Bill Act would stop that until 2036. It would also mean Georgia lawmakers could not pass SB 9, a bill to ban deepfakes in political ads, which passed the state House and Senate earlier this year, but did not get to final passage. A different measure, this one for gun dealers, was put into the bill by Georgia's U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde. The Republican from Athens owns two large gun stores, which both sell gun silencers. Clyde flipped from a 'no' to a 'yes' after the $200 tax on silencers was eliminated, at a cost of $1.4 billion. 'My Democrat colleagues have asked, 'How did it get in the bill, what was in the deal and who asked for it?'' Clyde said during the House debate. 'No deal. I believe (Speaker Mike Johnson) with the purest of motives wanted to restore a constitutional right. Who asked? Me, I asked.' Of all of the special interests in the bill, the most special of all seems to be Trump himself. The bill mentions Trump's name 52 times. It also creates new $1,000 savings accounts for babies born during Trump's second term called 'Trump Accounts.' It even has language to make it harder for federal courts to enforce injunctions against executive branch officials, a lot like the injunctions Trump has run into as he tries to expand his own powers in the White House. Every spending bill is a political document, of course, and a Republican Congress cutting taxes and rolling back Biden-era climate measures is no surprise. But what is a surprise is the bill's price tag, $3.94 trillion, which will all get piled onto the nation's $36 trillion debt that Moody's just warned about. For every tax cut and spending measure that may be a good idea on its merits, it's all getting paid for with more borrowed money. It's a long way from the Tea Party movement, which exploded onto the scene in 2009 after Congress passed big bailouts for banks following the 2008 financial crisis. The national debt then was $13 trillion, one third of what it is today. Republicans then promised they would finally tackle the debt and the deficit. This bill does the opposite. Even Elon Musk, the mastermind of the Department of Government Efficiency, said so on his last day as a government employee this week, adding that the bill 'undermines the work that the DOGE team is doing.' 'It can be big or beautiful, but I don't know if it can be both,' he said. If I was a House Republican at the beginning of this year, I had one job — to reduce the debt and deficit. With Trump in the White House, Republicans in control of Congress, and Musk promising to modernize and remake the federal government, the House bill was supposed to be the vehicle for all of that to happen. Instead, they just passed one big, beautiful boondoggle.
