in my opinion, Biden lost the winning playbook when he signed on to pushing a couple of big kitchen sink bills that had zero chance of bipartisan support, forcing reliance on Democrats passing the bills alone.
Instead, he should tell Congress to break the build back better plan into single issue bills and push for votes on each as an individual issue. Don't give Senators and Congresspeople places to hide their opposition in the vastness of an omnibus bill. Tie each bill to an issue facing Americans and get on the news as only a President can talking to the American people about how, for example, their rising childcare costs are seen and how the (insert bill name here) act will help them. And when a congressperson fails to support that bill, they are answerable to their constituents as to why they didn't support it rather than than being able to hide behind "too much spending" or, "I just couldn't support everything in the bill." And he will likely pick up R votes on the individual bill approach that just can't happen with an omnibus bill. Sure, progressives won't get everything they want. But Biden will be a successful president doing what he was elected to do, and prove why he won the nomination in the first place. He's being too much of a party follower rather than the leader of the nation he is supposed to have been.
This has a lot of merit. It would be nice to remove the cover. My only question is if this is feasible procedurally. I honestly don't know the answer here just curious if all that spending could be split of individually. If it could I'm not sure I really understand the giant bills, unless they really think the optics are better. I'll say I'd prefer a few small but impactful bills getting pushed through vs a potential big package just dying in the Senate.
I think big bills tend to function politically better than small bills because each politician has plenty of room to craft their own narrative around what they did or didn't do, why they did or didn't support them. They can say they held their nose while voting for it because passing XYZ was too important, for example. And omnibus legislation allows less popular but potentially boutique party wish list items have chances of getting approved where they wouldn't if voted on separately.
Funding is it's own animal in my opinion. Tax cuts and tax increase legislation should be put forward to stand on it's own merits, too.
Last edited by honorentheos on Wed Nov 03, 2021 11:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Honor, has Biden done anything that was unexpected or not done anything that was expected?
Seems to me that he is exactly what the voters ordered.
He isn't doing what I expected currently which is take a more independent stand when it came to shepherding legislation. It seems to me the push to get the COVID relief bill passed sucked up a fair amount of the goodwill available and the infrastructure bill creation turned into a successful push by party progressives to swing bigger than a bipartisan president could own.
I am also genuinely disappointed with how the administration handled the exist from Afghanistan. Getting out I understand. I don't accept that the Taliban seizing power was something out of the blue they shouldn't have had to anticipate as a highly probable contingency.
Honor, has Biden done anything that was unexpected or not done anything that was expected?
Seems to me that he is exactly what the voters ordered.
He isn't doing what I expected currently which is take a more independent stand when it came to shepherding legislation. It seems to me the push to get the COVID relief bill passed sucked up a fair amount of the goodwill available and the infrastructure bill creation turned into a successful push by party progressives to swing bigger than a bipartisan president could own.
I am also genuinely disappointed with how the administration handled the exist from Afghanistan. Getting out I understand. I don't accept that the Taliban seizing power was something out of the blue they shouldn't have had to anticipate as a highly probable contingency.
This is an insurrection in New Jersey. The loser refuses to concede and he found 12,000 ballots in a dumpster that, I am sure, has a documented chain of custody.
“The results from Tuesday’s election continue to come in, for instance there were 12,000 ballots recently found in one county,” Sweeney said in a statement on Monday. “While I am currently trailing in the race, we want to make sure every vote is counted. Our voters deserve that, and we will wait for the final results.”
This is an insurrection in New Jersey. The loser refuses to concede and he found 12,000 ballots in a dumpster that, I am sure, has a documented chain of custody.
“The results from Tuesday’s election continue to come in, for instance there were 12,000 ballots recently found in one county,” Sweeney said in a statement on Monday. “While I am currently trailing in the race, we want to make sure every vote is counted. Our voters deserve that, and we will wait for the final results.”
This is an insurrection in New Jersey. The loser refuses to concede and he found 12,000 ballots in a dumpster that, I am sure, has a documented chain of custody.
“The results from Tuesday’s election continue to come in, for instance there were 12,000 ballots recently found in one county,” Sweeney said in a statement on Monday. “While I am currently trailing in the race, we want to make sure every vote is counted. Our voters deserve that, and we will wait for the final results.”
So, after voting last Tuesday, the statement was made "on Monday." would that be a statement made about voting the Monday BEFORE the election, or would that be a statement made the Monday AFTER the election, i.e. TOMORROW?
Jeez, cultellus, you really need to stop flapping your gums on political matters. Your credibility is shot. An "insurrection." what a hoot.
This is an insurrection in New Jersey. The loser refuses to concede and he found 12,000 ballots in a dumpster that, I am sure, has a documented chain of custody.
So, after voting last Tuesday, the statement was made "on Monday." would that be a statement made about voting the Monday BEFORE the election, or would that be a statement made the Monday AFTER the election, i.e. TOMORROW?
Jeez, cultellus, you really need to stop flapping your gums on political matters. Your credibility is shot. An "insurrection." what a hoot.
Totally. Did you read the link? That was not my statement. It was a quote from the article. This guy won't concede and has 12,000 ballots just waiting for someone to count to prove that there was an insurrection.
So, after voting last Tuesday, the statement was made "on Monday." would that be a statement made about voting the Monday BEFORE the election, or would that be a statement made the Monday AFTER the election, i.e. TOMORROW?
Jeez, cultellus, you really need to stop flapping your gums on political matters. Your credibility is shot. An "insurrection." what a hoot.
Totally. Did you read the link? That was not my statement. It was a quote from the article. This guy won't concede and has 12,000 ballots just waiting for someone to count to prove that there was an insurrection.
Got it. You are being ironic,right? Or did you just now notice the date problem, after I pointed it out? Based on your posts, I am not leaning toward you noticing it first. Credibility is not your strength, cultellus.
