Democratic congressman who primaried Biden hammers party over health cover-up
Phillips argued that the party's "constant lying and gaslighting" about Biden's deteriorating health has cost the Democratic Party the public's trust.
The former congressman detailed multiple instances where Biden's decline was painfully apparent to those around him, and lamented the party's leadership for allowing him to run for a second term.
"In 2021, I had a front-row seat on two occasions when he addressed the House Democratic Caucus. I also spent time in close proximity to the president during two flights on Air Force One, in 2021 and 2022, where I was alarmed to see the president's obvious decline in communication skills, gait, and leadership capacity," Phillips reported.
Phillips claimed that after attending the White House holiday party in December 2022, the president's decline was "too graphic to ignore," and he had no doubt in his mind that Biden was "unfit to serve a second term."
"My opinion wasn't an outlier," Phillips claimed. "My congressional colleagues, like me, had eyes; behind closed doors we acknowledged the reality, lamented our party leadership's inaction, and recognized the impending disaster awaiting us in November 2024."
After many hushed conversations about Biden's worsening mental acuity, Phillips decided to reach out to prominent Democrats like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and Vice President Kamala Harris, to enter the race. But according to Phillips, nobody answered the call to action.
Frustrated with the leadership of his party, he decided to take matters into his own hands and enter the race himself.
"I was trying to spark a competitive primary—and at the very least to force a single, televised debate for Americans to assess the president and other candidates firsthand," Phillips said. "I simply wanted Americans to see up close what I had seen and what the White House was trying to hide from them, and before it was too late."
Phillips claimed that his efforts to primary Biden were met by stiff opposition from Democratic leadership, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries' chief of staff informing him that he "would not be speaking to Biden or anyone else in the White House" after making a courtesy call to inform Jeffries that he planned on running against the sitting president.
The former congressman also alleged that the media played a large role in preventing him from being listed on the ballot in 2024.
"Almost immediately, the party mechanism was activated, and I became persona non grata. The media, in particular MSNBC, where former Biden staffers wielded positions of influence—essentially deplatformed me and those supporting me," Phillips claimed. "Party activists, paid and volunteer, took to social media to attack and discredit me."
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) allegedly took steps to "keep anyone not named Biden from being on the ballot, forcing Phillips and his team to file multiple lawsuits.
"This wasn't a fight for democracy, rather a coordinated fight against democracy—executed by a private corporation with no accountability to voters," he asserted.
Phillips contended that Biden was surrounded by family and advisors who assured him that he was "popular, able, and the best candidate to take on Donald Trump."
"And where did it get us? All those months of carefully guarding the president, prewriting his speeches, prerecording his interviews?" Phillips questioned. "In the end, the only unscripted, significant event President Biden did during his campaign was the [June] 2024 debate that was an unmitigated disaster. His entire campaign crumbled in the most humiliating way possible."
Although Phillips had a multitude of criticisms for his party and those leading it, he did mention that the Democratic Party can still redeem itself.
"The first step is for everyone that was aware of Biden's condition to come clean. No more evasions. No more insistence that he was sharp when you met him. The whole truth will come out, and they would be wise to get ahead of it," he advised.
Phillips continued, proposing an intriguing question: "If a relatively little-known congressman like me knew that Biden was incapable of leading the country in a second term, what does that say about the complicity of the real party bosses whose names we all know?"
In conclusion, the former Democratic representative offered his party some advice on moving forward after the scandal.
"Protecting a president or institution at the cost of its credibility is a shortsighted and losing proposition. Democratic leaders and messengers must understand that sunlight is not our enemy, but rather the only way to earn the public's confidence in our party," he concluded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Biden's wind energy rules are still killing eagles and must be rescinded
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service enacted a new eagle permitting regulation last spring, claiming that it would 'promote eagle conservation.' But the new regulation only makes it easier for wind energy projects to receive permits, allowing them to kill eagles. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits 'take' of eagles, defining 'take' as 'pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.' In 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service finalized a rule that, for the first time, authorized the ' incidental take ' of eagles which grants authorization to kill eagles incidental to otherwise lawful activity. In 2013, it issued guidance to wind energy developers requiring them to complete Eagle Conservation Plans, demonstrating how they would avoid or minimize their effect upon eagles. The guidance also required running eagle-fatality models to predict the project's potential for 'take' of eagles. In short, these regulations encouraged avoidance of areas with high eagle concentrations and implementation of conservation measures, including siting considerations, before the Fish and Wildlife Service would issue a permit authorizing take. But the Biden administration alleged that the complexity of the earlier permitting process was preventing companies from applying for eagle take permits, which were only issued after the implementation of avoidance measures. The agency alleged that simplifying wind permitting was preferable and would lead to greater eagle conservation. But does the 2024 permitting regulation really increase protections for eagles, or does it just authorize the killing of eagles at wind projects? The 2024 rule revision provides for two permitting options — a specific permit and a general permit, the latter being easier to obtain, less costly and with fewer mitigation and monitoring conditions. General permits are available in the U.S. for areas where the relative abundance of eagles is considered low. Unfortunately, the general permits erroneously assume there is little risk to eagles from wind energy projects in a range covering most of the U.S. outside of the Rocky Mountain states. Local areas with high concentrations of eagles are not accounted for in the general permit region. Under the 2024 regulations, if a wind project in this region requests a general permit, staff lack discretion to refuse to issue it, even where existing wind projects have already killed eagles. Additionally, under the new regulation, the post-construction monitoring requirement for eagle mortality in wind energy projects appears purposely skewed towards underreporting. The monitoring survey distance was reduced from more than 100 meters to just 40 meters. Thus, unless an eagle carcass falls on the road or turbine pad, it is unlikely to be detected, and carcasses falling outside the 40-meter survey area will not be recorded. The 2024 regulation does not give the Fish and Wildlife Service authority to prevent the siting of wind projects in high eagle concentration areas. Nor does the agency have any recourse when siting guidance is ignored. The 2024 regulation changed its core mission from protecting eagles to handing out permits for wind energy projects with unlimited authorization to kill eagles without consequences. Before retiring, I served 25 years with the Fish and Wildlife Service enforcing federal wildlife laws. Wind energy projects have always posed a threat to birds and bats, and yet, in the past our personnel were instructed not to enforce existing wildlife protection laws against this industry, even though they would be enforced against other energy producers, such as oil and gas. In my opinion and experience, the 2024 eagle permitting regulation does not contribute to the conservation of eagles, but rather authorizes, without any consequence, wind energy projects to kill eagles. The Trump administration's August guidance aimed at forcing wind energy projects to comply with the law is a good start. But it will also be necessary to amend the 2024 Biden permitting regulations to protect our national symbol. Biden effectively tried to give wind energy projects immunity from our existing laws to protect eagles, and that's not why I went to work there, and probably not why anyone else does either.
The Hill
2 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why does the federal jobs report get revised?
Revisions to the jobs report issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) are at the center of a political firestorm after President Trump fired the agency's head earlier this month. The agency's most recent report revised down employment numbers for May and June by a whopping 258,000 jobs, drawing accusations by the president and his allies that the numbers were manipulated for political purposes. That's not true, most economists say. BLS instead revises its numbers to account for more information from its nationwide surveys, and the agency remains the gold standard for macroeconomic data in the U.S. Still, there are measures that the bureau could take, its supporters say, to modernize the collection of its survey data, particularly for its population survey — one of two surveys used to compile the jobs report. A group of former BLS heads has asked Congress to fund the agency with at least $770 million for the upcoming fiscal year. 'The greatest way to restore confidence would be ensuring that they have the resources they need,' said Kyle Ross, a fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress. Why the jobs report gets revised Each month, the BLS surveys a sample of more than 120,000 employers by email and phone, aiming to collect data on wages, total employment and other characteristics. At the end of the month, it publishes an initial estimate of how many jobs the U.S. has added from the data it has. The BLS also conducts a survey of households to track the employment status and take-home wages for the country at large. In the next two months, the bureau issues updates to its estimates, incorporating additional responses to the surveys and adjustments for seasonal changes. While the August revisions surprised many economists, they weren't the first time the BLS made large changes. During the pandemic, the agency had to make significant revisions to many of its estimates; in the summer of 2021, for example, it marked down its estimate for June to September job growth by 626,000 positions. Several key BLS surveys have struggled with falling response rates over the past two decades. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco estimates that response rates to the employment survey are around 45 percent, down to about 60 percent prior to the pandemic. However, the limited responses do not appear to have impacted the size of the BLS's revisions after 2022, the bank said in March. Over more than 60 years of data collection, the agency's initial job estimates have gradually become more accurate, according to analysis by Ernie Tedeschi, an economist at the Yale Budget Lab. Concerns over other BLS metrics Advocates say that while Trump's claims of political bias are baseless, the agency could use extra funding to be able to modernize particularly on its Current Population Survey, which polls households instead of businesses on employment. Friends of the BLS, an advocacy group that includes former commissioners William Beach and Erica Groshen, asked Congress in May to fund the agency with at least $770 million for the upcoming fiscal year. In a letter to appropriators, the group said that additional Congressional funding would allow the agency to go forward with long-planned updates to its data collection and methods. Among other modernization efforts, the agency is hoping to implement an online response model for its Current Population Survey. Additional funding, Beach and Groshen said, would also help the BLS maintain detailed data for important statistics like the Consumer Price Index, which tracks price inflation. The agency relies in part on data collectors who fan out across the country to monitor prices of goods and services. 'The field person will literally pick up a jar of, if I could say Pringles, and they'll say, well last month, we had 36 Pringles in here, and it's this month, it's the same price, but we only have 32 Pringles in here,' Beach, who was Trump's BLS pick during his first administration, told the Bloomberg podcast Odd Lots in April. 'That means that the product has actually gone up in price.' Last summer, in response to budget constraints, BLS mulled cutting the population survey's sample size by 5,000 households.
Fox News
3 minutes ago
- Fox News
Zohran Mamdani responds to the fatal shooting in Brooklyn early Sunday morning
Speaking with reporters at a canvass launch event in Prospect Park, Brooklyn, NYC Democratic mayoral candidate, Zohran Mamdani, called the shooting "another example of the scourge of gun violence" in New York City.
