Tag: Bidens

  • Opinion | Joe Biden’s Missed Opportunity to Wrestle With Fox News

    Opinion | Joe Biden’s Missed Opportunity to Wrestle With Fox News

    [ad_1]

    It’s not that Buttigieg is likely to convince large numbers of Fox viewers to become a cheerleader for Biden. It’s rather that on a network where everything from its biggest stars to its graphics offer unremitting hostility to Biden, a calm voice politely but firmly pushing back on that view is the rhetorical equivalent of chicken soup: “couldn’t hurt.” This approach is in sharp contrast to the idea that there is virtually no point in even attempting to persuade; that the way to win is simply to turn to more of your team than the other side.

    It’s the kind of thinking that the New York Times’ Amy Chozick wrote up just after Hillary Clinton’s 2016 defeat: “Last year, a prominent group of supporters asked Hillary Clinton to address a prestigious St. Patrick’s Day gathering at the University of Notre Dame, an invitation that previous presidential candidates had jumped on. Barack Obama and Joseph R. Biden Jr. had each addressed the group, and former President Bill Clinton was eager for his wife to attend. But Mrs. Clinton’s campaign refused, explaining to the organizers that white Catholics were not the audience she needed to spend time reaching out to.”

    Her campaign was convinced that turning out her core voters — Black people, women, the young, the college educated — was the path to victory. Why bother reaching out to voters disinclined to support her in the first place? (It was an approach, Chozick wrote, that Bill Clinton watched with increasing anxiety). In abandoning any real effort to reach these voters, it ensured that even a marginal decline among her supporters would leave her just vulnerable enough for the “blue wall” of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan to crumble. Four years later, Biden’s marginal improvement among blue-collar white people was a crucial factor in bringing those states, as well as Georgia, into his column. He wasn’t going to win these constituencies, but he didn’t need to. A slightly better performance among them was enough to turn the tide.

    But there’s something more than political calculation at stake here: It’s the idea that if you are asking the country for the most important job of all, you should be willing to do more than speak to a succession of cheering squads. Two politicians of very different outlooks can serve as an example.

    In 1980, Ronald Reagan, who began his general election campaign with a speech about “states’ rights” in Neshoba County, Miss., later appeared in a very different venue — in New York. As Reagan biographer Lou Cannon wrote in the Washington Post: “Comparing himself to John F. Kennedy attempting to win Protestant votes in 1960, Ronald Reagan today appealed to Black voters not to consider him ‘a caricature conservative’ who is ‘anti-poor, anti-Black and anti-disadvantaged.’” In his speech to the National Urban League, the GOP presidential nominee also “called for the creation of inner-city ‘enterprise zones’ where taxes would be substantially reduced and regulations relaxed to encourage industry and new jobs.” Later, he went to a vacant lot in the South Bronx — a symbol of urban decay — and engaged in a sometimes confrontational, sometimes civil exchange with residents and activists.

    The quick rejoinder to this campaign appearance is that little, if any energy was expended during the Reagan administration in turning these words into deeds. But even if Reagan’s speech fits Voltaire’s quip that “hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue,” it was at least a recognition that a potential president owed it to the American people to cross over a normally imposing wall of political separation.

    Twelve years earlier, Robert Kennedy made a similar journey. Just days after announcing his candidacy for president, he spoke at the University of Alabama, where five years earlier the Justice Department he led faced down Gov. George Wallace to enforce the racial integration of the school.

    “I believe that any who seek high office this year must go before all Americans,” he said, “not just those who agree with him but also those who disagree. Recognizing that it is not just our supporters, not just those who vote for us but all Americans who we must lead in the years ahead. So I have come at the outset of my campaign not to New York, not to Chicago, not to Boston, but here to Alabama.”

    Did Kennedy believe that the Alabama delegation would support him at the convention? Of course not. But in making the unlikely visit — and in telling his audience that “racial injustice is a national, not a Southern dilemma” — he was offering a gesture of respect.

    In fairness, Bobby may be a special case: He had an appetite for entering the lion’s den: he debated anti-American radicals in Japan and Communist organizers in Brazil, told small-town Midwestern conservatives of the deprivations of inner-city Black people and American college students that he opposed college deferments.

    But that instinct would be healthy for our potential leaders — and for the country. Indeed, I sometimes wonder what would happen if more politicians had that kind of willingness to engage. Suppose, for example, Hillary Clinton had wangled an invitation from Tony Perkins to address the Family Research Council, a firm if not zealous center of cultural conservatism, and talked to them about her concept of “family values?” (“I believe in family so strongly that when my own marriage was threatened, my husband and I worked hard to preserve it.”) Would it have changed any votes? Probably not — but it might have convinced some in her audience to see her in less malevolent terms, and might have reminded her that she had once talked with sympathy about those with very different views on issues like abortion.

    Of course, meeting with the “other team” runs the risk of angering the most fervent supporters on “your team.” I’ve heard plenty on the left say that even appearing on Fox News gives undeserved respect and legitimacy to a force for evil.

    But Pete Buttigieg regularly refutes that view. And I think if Joe Biden had brought the energy and feistiness of his State of the Union address to that Fox interview, he would have given as good as he got, and might even have picked up a handful of new supporters. The way our elections have been going recently, that could make all the difference. And anyway… “couldn’t hurt.”

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Joe #Bidens #Missed #Opportunity #Wrestle #Fox #News
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden’s Super Bowl interview appears off — for good

    Biden’s Super Bowl interview appears off — for good

    [ad_1]

    super bowl eagles football 83689

    But brinkmanship between the president’s team and the media giant stretched for days and then hours heading into the weekend of the big game. It started Friday morning when the White House announced that an interview with Fox Soul — which came as a surprise to many — had been scrapped for good.

    “The President was looking forward to an interview with Fox Soul to discuss the Super Bowl, the State of the Union, and critical issues impacting the everyday lives of Black Americans,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a tweet. “We’ve been informed that Fox Corp. has asked for the interview to be cancelled.”

    Hours later, Fox Corp. issued a statement citing “some initial confusion” the night before, but concluding that Fox Soul still looked forward to hosting the interview.

    But by Friday evening — a point by which presidents and TV networks traditionally record Super Bowl interviews ahead of the Sunday program — a White House official informed POLITICO that nothing had changed since providing the earlier comments.

    “FOX has since put out a statement indicating the interview was rescheduled, which is inaccurate,” the White House official said. While the person did not elaborate, Biden was not expected to conduct a Super Bowl interview of any kind.

    The saga comes after initial talks fell apart between the White House and Fox News, the company’s highly-rated network. Earlier this week, a Fox anchor said the White House had ghosted the network. In the days that followed, Fox representatives confirmed that productive discussions were effectively over.

    White House officials declined to provide specifics on why their outreach to Fox stopped. Fox’s Bret Baier was viewed as the most likely anchor from the news and conservative opinion network to land the president. Biden sat down in previous years with news anchors from NBC and CBS.

    The decision not to have Biden tangle with one of Fox News’ top anchors means the White House was willing to sacrifice a massive pre-game audience on Sunday to which the president could share his message. But it also suggests the White House was unwilling to reward a network that houses prime-time hosts who mercilessly assail the administration and Democrats.

    Instead, Biden’s team worked on landing an agreement with Fox Soul, a streaming outfit part of Fox’s TV stations division and geared toward a Black audience. White House officials had arranged for the interview to be conducted by Fox Sports host Mike Hill and actress Vivica A. Fox. Fox Soul general manager James DuBose had planned to produce the interview. All three flew Friday from Los Angeles to Washington for the interview.

    The White House seeking out Fox Soul was seen as a way to have the president avoid appearing with a Fox News personality while still going through with an interview. Biden has yet to sit for an interview with Fox News, making a different calculation than his former boss, Barack Obama. While the Obama White House is remembered for icing Fox News journalists — leading other networks to offer their solidarity — Obama did sit for a pair of pre-game interviews with former Fox host Bill O’Reilly.

    [ad_2]
    #Bidens #Super #Bowl #interview #appears #good
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden’s moonshot examined: Researchers say cancer cure is a long ways off

    Biden’s moonshot examined: Researchers say cancer cure is a long ways off

    [ad_1]

    “It’s a lot harder than getting a man to the moon,” Gilbert Welch, an internist and senior investigator at the Center for Surgery and Public Health at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said of curing cancer. “It’s a very complex set of diseases. You need to think of it as a family of diseases. The moon is just one thing. Just gotta get there. This is hundreds of different things.”

    Biden wants to press ahead on a bipartisan initiative. He has called on Congress to maintain funding for the 2016 law that launched the moonshot, the 21st Century Cures Act. He pledged to cut cancer death rates by 50 percent in the next 25 years and to turn fatal cancers into treatable diseases.

    Biden also has asked Congress to reauthorize the National Cancer Act, signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1971. Reauthorization would help the National Cancer Institute support researchers around the country by building clinical trial networks and more robust data systems, according to Danielle Carnival, the White House’s moonshot coordinator.

    But some experts, such as Ezekiel Emanuel, an oncologist, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and former White House adviser, said there’s plenty of money devoted to cancer research. The National Cancer Institute had a nearly $6.4 billion budget for cancer research in 2021 and its annual spend has been growing since 2015. Cancer non-profits like the American Cancer Institute also raise hundreds of millions of dollars every year.

    Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry is incentivized to put money behind increasingly lucrative cancer diagnostics and therapeutics. Research shows that from 2010 to 2019 revenue generated from cancer medicines increased 70 percent among the top 10 pharmaceutical companies to reach $95 billion.

    And not everyone thinks more funding is a good thing. “There’s so much money sloshing around,” Welch said of the cancer industry, adding, “Both academic and biotech or industry are excessively enthusiastic and just trying to put out as many products as they can.”

    We’ve overinvested in cancer, according to Welch, especially in expensive cancer drugs with modest or unproven benefit for patients and in screenings — Welch’s research area. He’s particularly opposed to the Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act, sponsored by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), which would require Medicare to cover cancer blood tests if they’re approved by the FDA. From Welch’s vantage point, benefits from screenings have been exaggerated, while its harms have been minimized.

    Other critics, such as Keith Humphreys, a public health professor at Stanford University who has published academic articles on the link between alcohol use and cancer, see cancer prevention as a more immediate way to save lives.

    Managing disease and curing it

    The president’s agenda goes beyond money, Carnival told POLITICO, emphasizing prevention efforts, such as improving nutrition for kids, discouraging smoking, and decreasing environmental risks.

    “We’re going to have to reach more people with the tools we already have and those we develop along the way,” Carnival said. “The purview is much broader than research. I don’t think anyone would say we have all of the research advancements and knowledge and treatments that we need today to end cancer as we know it.”

    Those closely involved in developing cutting-edge cancer therapeutics said the field has shifted dramatically in recent years. It’s gone from treating cancer as a chronic disease, to trying to cure patients.

    During his medical fellowship in the early 2000s, improving patient survival by months or years was the goal, explained Marco Davila, a physician-scientist at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center in Buffalo, N.Y., who helped pioneer some of the first CAR-T cell therapies for patients with blood cancer.

    Since then, treatment breakthroughs for some previously incurable cancer have upended the cancer-as-chronic-disease philosophy. Now, doctors and researchers believe cancer-curing therapies are within reach. “It’s changed the nature of how we manage patients. There’s that option there. It’s on the table,” Davila said.

    For Davila, moonshot funds earmarked for cancer research and therapies created a new pool of money for his work. It doesn’t fix the problem of underfunded science as a whole, he said, but it makes his work as a cancer researcher a priority.

    “It’s great for us, because that’s our field. It’s also great for patients, because cancer is still going to be one of the most common causes of people’s death in the United States,” Davila said. (In the U.S., it’s second behind heart disease, taking more than 600,000 lives in 2020, the most recent year for which there are statistics.)

    Indeed, since the late 1980s, scientists have developed effective treatments for lung cancer, breast cancer and Hodgkin’s lymphoma. There are caveats, of course. They don’t work for all patients.

    “It’s maybe 20 percent, 30 percent,” Davila said. The goal now is to keep improving those cure rates over time — to 50 percent or 60 percent, for example.

    “Will it get to 100 percent in your lifetime? I don’t know,” he said.

    What Davila does know is that each 10 percent cure-rate increase means saving tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of lives.

    ‘Prevention takes action’

    But some cancer experts said there’s a downside to the shift toward precision medicine and individualized treatments. Attempting to test everyone or characterize every tumor more precisely is a bit of magical thinking, according to Welch.

    “The more you subset people, the more difficult it is to know whether your treatments help. It’s too small of a group,” Welch said. “It used to be just lung cancer. Now we’ve got eight genetic variants we’re testing in adenocarcinomas of the lung,” he added.

    “Ironically, the more precise we get, the more types of cancer there are, as we genetically signature each cancer, all of a sudden we don’t really know what to do with any one of them.”

    Others think there needs to be a fundamental shift away from screening and treatment and toward preventing cancer in the first place.

    “It’s terrific when we develop new treatments for cancer, but it certainly is always better to prevent something than to treat it,” said Humphreys, who served as a drug policy adviser under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

    “Very high-end, complicated treatments are never going to be accessible to the whole population,” he added. “Congress could definitely do more.”

    Tobacco taxation is widely considered one of the most effective practices in preventing people from starting to smoke in the first place, leading existing smokers to quit, and reducing deaths from tobacco-related cancers. Humphreys said Congress could take the same taxation approach to the alcohol industry. “We have very good evidence that when we raise the federal alcohol tax that fewer people die,” he said.

    While broad blood-based cancer screening may not be a cost-effective strategy for stopping cancer early, targeted cancer screening for colorectal, breast, cervical, prostate, and lung cancers could be. Rules could stoke participation or ensure that patients on Medicaid, who are more likely to be at risk of cancer, are getting regular screenings.

    “It’s important to acknowledge that our biggest success in cancer really reflects prevention,” Welch said. “It’s nothing fancy. It’s discouraging cigarette smoking.”

    Following a surgeon general warning in the 1960s about the health risk of smoking, and subsequent anti-smoking campaigns, tobacco use — and later lung cancer rates — plummeted.

    The White House touts prevention in its moonshot agenda. In 2022, the first year of the reignited moonshot, the FDA proposed rules to prohibit menthol cigarettes. Among other agenda items, the moonshot program plans to increase cancer screenings in at-risk communities and facilitate donations of sunscreen to schools and youth organizations.

    But prevention is a trickier cancer-prevention mechanism than treatment. It could mean cleaning up Superfund sites or removing lead pipes to reduce environmental cancer risk. It often requires people to change their behavior — to drink less alcohol and exercise more or stop smoking — a more challenging mission at the population level than directing patients to take a pill or offering them a diagnostic test.

    “It’s not necessarily clear how one spends money on prevention,” Welch acknowledged. “It’s much easier to sell a test or a drug. It’s a concrete thing. Prevention takes action on the part of individuals,” he said. “You gotta say, that’s harder.”

    More funding wouldn’t necessarily solve the problem, according to Emanuel.

    There’s a lot of money already in the system. It just needs to be redirected and allocated differently, Emanuel explained.

    Who is spending that money also matters. The government sponsors roughly one-third of clinical cancer research, according to Emanuel. Industry accounts for the remaining two-thirds of funding. “It’s good that they’ve got a lot of drugs that they’re testing. What’s bad is having industry shape the clinical research agenda, because industry has a bias.”

    Emanuel’s solution: stronger government leadership and more non-industry sponsors.

    “The NCI [National Cancer Institute] is the biggest NIH institute,” Emanuel said. “It’s not exactly like they’re starving.”

    [ad_2]
    #Bidens #moonshot #examined #Researchers #cancer #cure #long #ways
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • What climate law? Voters clueless about Biden’s top achievement

    What climate law? Voters clueless about Biden’s top achievement

    [ad_1]

    biden detroit auto show 81570

    The sales pitch for Biden’s signature legislation would be crucial to any reelection effort he wages in 2024. But polls show that few Americans are aware of the climate law and how it could benefit them — creating a political challenge that the president’s Democratic allies acknowledge.

    “If we can’t figure out how to sell that story over the next two years, we should find a different job,” Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Tom Carper (D-Del.), whose committee wrote a sizable chunk of the law, said in an interview. “And I don’t have any plans to find a different job.”

    It won’t be an easy task.

    A third of registered voters have heard “nothing at all” about the climate law, while another 24 percent heard “a little” and 29 percent heard “some,” according to a Yale Project on Climate Change Communication poll conducted in December. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday found that 62 percent of Americans thought Biden had accomplished “not very much” or “little or nothing.”

    “I really feel sympathy with the president,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) told POLITICO. “You do really important things that might have an impact and there’s a day or two of news coverage. If important political points are not getting out to the public, it’s not just the politicians’ fault.”

    Republicans are offering no condolences — including lawmakers whose districts are poised to host many of the jobs the legislation would create. They contend that the law, H.R. 5376 (117th), has stoked inflation that is burdening households with high gasoline, food and home-heating prices.

    “It has made the lives of American people, American families more difficult and it doesn’t matter how much spin the president puts on it — it’s been two years of failure,” said House Agriculture Chair G.T. Thompson of Pennsylvania, who like every other congressional Republican opposed the measure.

    The Biden administration is employing two approaches to sell the law’s benefits to a largely unaware public — an effort that will take officials on the road and into people’s homes.

    Biden, a self-professed “car guy,” has promoted the law and its tax credits for electric vehicles at public events such as the North American International Auto Show in Detroit and in appearances on Jay Leno’s Garage. On Wednesday, Biden spoke at a Laborers’ International Union of North America training center in Deforest, Wis., about new manufacturing jobs.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited Ultium Cells in Spring Hill, Tenn., on Wednesday to champion new domestic battery manufacturing sparked by the climate law. EPA Administrator Michael Regan headed to Wabaunsee, Kan., that same day to talk electric school buses. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm is on a three-state swing through Friday across Utah, Nevada and Massachusetts.

    Granholm also made Thursday’s announcement of the $2 billion battery-materials loan, which will come from a 2007 DOE program that got additional funding and authority from Biden’s climate law. The company, Redwood Materials, said the loan would fund projects creating jobs in Nevada and Kansas.

    “We have a lot of work to do and not a lot of time to do it,” said Casey Katims, executive director of the U.S. Climate Alliance, a coalition of 24 U.S. governors working to help the administration slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in half from 2005 levels by the end of the decade.

    The focus on the middle of the country is intentional. The Biden administration championed the climate law as a jobs boon for blue-collar workers that will ease consumers’ financial burden during the country’s transition to clean energy.

    “We’ve already created 800,000 manufacturing jobs even without this law. With this new law, we will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs across the country,” Biden said in the State of the Union speech, noting Intel’s plans to build a semiconductor factory outside Columbus, Ohio. That project will bring jobs that pay workers $130,000 a year, including for many positions that don’t require a college degree, he noted.

    Since Biden signed the law in August, 100,000 new job postings sprouted across 31 states and 94 clean energy projects have drawn $89.5 billion in new investment, according to an analysis by Climate Power, a coalition of environmental groups. Biden administration officials and Democrats widely promoted the study, which was released Monday.

    Many of those jobs are in districts represented by GOP lawmakers who opposed the legislation.

    Among other political headwinds, though, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said many Americans are simply exhausted from years of crises such as the coronavirus pandemic, the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, two impeachments of former President Donald Trump and protests about police brutality and racial justice.

    “To the extent that the mood improves — and I think it is and it will continue to — I think that overwhelmingly benefits the party that has the White House,” Kaine said in an interview.

    Meanwhile, Biden and his team are working to inform people about the economic gains the climate law promises. They’ve also added a consumer outreach official who is tasked with making it easier for the average American to take advantage of the law’s rebates, tax credits and other incentives.

    Many of the law’s tax benefits, such as rebates for home improvements and appliance upgrades, won’t be felt until a year from now when Americans file their 2023 returns. Lawmakers, regulators and U.S. allies are still fighting over which electric vehicles should qualify for a $7,500 credit.

    Joshua Peck, senior policy adviser on the White House implementation team for the climate law, said it’s not essential for Americans to know the legislation’s name — but they “need to see and feel benefits, and know that they are part of the president’s agenda.”

    “Over the next year or two, so many of those accomplishments will be happening on top of each other,” Peck said.

    Don’t expect splashy public service announcements or advertising. Peck and his team are working behind the scenes organizing businesses, trade associations, equipment manufacturers and state energy offices to bring awareness to the opportunities the law affords.

    The idea is to spread the word that more energy efficient, cleaner options are available, which begins with educating people like heating and cooling contractors, tradespeople and electric utilities about ways they can inform customers of savings.

    The White House’s environmental allies are also looking to help.

    “It was just signed into law a matter of months ago. It’s a big, complex law,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, senior vice president of government affairs with the League of Conservation Voters. “It’s incumbent on all of us to make clear to people all across the country the ways that — not the ins and outs or getting into the weeds of the legislation — but how does it benefit them? How does it save them money on their monthly energy bills? What are the rebates for making their home more efficient or electrifying the homes?”

    Of course, that message runs up against Republican warnings that Biden is out to abolish traditional touchstones of Americans’ lives — including gas stoves along with older, inefficient, toilets, dishwashers, showerheads and incandescent light bulbs.

    Rewiring America, a nonprofit whose work has been influential within the White House Climate Policy Office, has partnered with Redfin and Airbnb to get the message out to 10 million Americans about the benefits of converting appliances and homes to run off electric power rather than gas — tasks the climate law will make more affordable.

    People already are curious: 400,000 people have used a tool on the website of Rewiring America run by a green advocacy group that calculates potential savings from the law. Those visitors all came to the tool by word of mouth and news articles, said Ari Matusiak, CEO of Rewiring America.

    “If the policy is effective it is going to be embedded in the transactions that people are making and these electric machines are increasingly going to become the default,” Matusiak said. “That’s the actual goal — that it becomes the kind of no-brainer decision.”

    [ad_2]
    #climate #law #Voters #clueless #Bidens #top #achievement
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden’s about to have a Cabinet opening. Asian American lawmakers have a favorite.

    Biden’s about to have a Cabinet opening. Asian American lawmakers have a favorite.

    [ad_1]

    This time, they’re hoping they can avoid a fight.

    “It’s the first administration in 20 years without an [Asian American Pacific Islander] Cabinet secretary … This is the first chance they have to diversify the Cabinet,” Duckworth said. “So I’m waiting to see. Hopefully they will nominate her or an AAPI.”

    The Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus is already weighing in and endorsed Su Wednesday. In a statement, the caucus members presented her potential nomination as an opportunity for Biden “to better realize the ‘most diverse Cabinet in history.’”

    Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.), who helped lead the Asian American caucus’ push for Su last time, called her a “no-brainer choice” for Biden.

    Walsh is the first of Biden’s Cabinet secretaries slated to leave, creating a high profile vacancy for a Senate-confirmed position that’s already spurring intense behind-the-scenes jockeying. With a 51-seat majority in the upper chamber, Democrats can confirm whomever Biden nominates without needing GOP votes.

    When it comes to GOP support, however, Su demonstrably lags Walsh, who got 18 Senate Republican votes when he was confirmed in March 2021. No Republicans voted to confirm Su to her current position, making her a likely more contentious pick if she’s tapped.

    Su’s proponents argue that she’s most qualified to take the reins at the department, especially given her tenure there. And they tout her years of experience in high-ranking labor positions in California, as well as her earlier work representing low-wage and immigrant workers — including at a Los Angeles legal aid organization.

    But during her confirmation hearing for deputy labor secretary, she faced questions about addressing fraud while she oversaw California’s unemployment insurance office, as well as her implementation of a controversial state law that redefined many gig workers as company employees.

    Three Asian Americans currently serve in Cabinet-level positions for Biden: Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai and Arati Prabhakar, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. But advocates for stronger Asian American representation emphasize that a Cabinet secretary role is different.

    “We want to acknowledge that the Biden administration, by almost every measure, has been fantastic when it comes to AAPI inclusion within his administration,” said Gregg Orton, national director of the National Council of Asian Pacific Americans. “The one sort of glaring area for improvement is the fact that there isn’t an AAPI Cabinet secretary … This is a genuine opportunity to correct for that.”

    For now, the Biden administration isn’t commenting on a Labor Department successor. Asked Wednesday about a potential replacement for Walsh, Senior Liaison Erika Moritsugu told reporters that Walsh had been tweeting during Tuesday’s State of the Union — where he stayed back as the “designated survivor” — and added: “We don’t have a vacancy at this moment. Nothing further on that.”

    Su wouldn’t be the first Asian American woman to head up the Labor Department. Elaine Chao became the first female Asian American Cabinet secretary in 2001, leading the department for all eight years of George W. Bush’s administration. (Chao also later served as transportation secretary under former President Donald Trump.) Chris Lu, who was deputy labor secretary during President Barack Obama’s administration, was the first Asian American in the department’s number-two slot.

    Su is widely viewed as the frontrunner, and her supporters include union leaders like American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten.

    Another potential boost for Su: Biden may be reluctant to replace one white male secretary with another, given his administration’s stated commitment to diversity and the likelihood that such a move would rankle Senate Democrats. That amounts to a hurdle for union-friendly figures like Rep. Donald Norcross (D-N.J.) and former Rep. Andy Levin (D-Mich.), both of whose names were floated during the presidential transition in 2020 and who could get reconsidered now.

    In addition, Levin is angling to become ambassador to Haiti, according to two people familiar with the situation who spoke candidly on condition of anonymity. Rep. Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), a former labor lawyer, has also been floated for the Labor job, according to two different people familiar who also sought anonymity to speak candidly.

    Walsh’s resume was a major selling point ahead of his initial selection, and some want Biden to consider other union leaders for the job. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who would helm any confirmation hearing for Labor Secretary, named Association of Flight Attendants-CWA President Sara Nelson or Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich as potential candidates he would support.

    But Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), both an Asian American caucus member and the top Democrat on the Education and Workforce Committee, said Su “would be good.”

    “She’s done well so far,” he added.

    Sarah Ferris and Eleanor Mueller contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]
    #Bidens #Cabinet #opening #Asian #American #lawmakers #favorite
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Opinion | Why Biden’s Speech Worked

    Opinion | Why Biden’s Speech Worked

    [ad_1]

    20230207 sotu biden 9 francis 1

    But other moments stood out to me.

    Early on, we got one of the rarities of such a speech: a solid laugh line. In talking about the bipartisan infrastructure act, he thanked the Republicans who voted for it, and then added this: “And to my Republican friends who voted against it but still ask to fund projects in their districts, don’t worry. I promised to be the president for all Americans. We’ll fund your projects. And I’ll see you at the ground-breaking.”

    There was as well, the trumpeting of the economic news that has turned brighter in recent months — record low unemployment, an easing of inflation — and with a nationalist take on his economic agenda that may have made Donald Trump jealous.

    “‘Buy American’ has been the law of the land since 1933,” Biden said. “But for too long, past administrations, Democrat and Republican, have fought to get around it. Not anymore. … On my watch, American roads, bridges and American highways will be made with American products.”

    The meat of the speech, however, was a series of assaults on the forces that were costing Americans money — a group that included not just familiar villains of the progressive left, but those that likely never have been called out in a State of the Union speech before.

    Yes, there was the specter of the ultra-wealthy who paid little or no taxes.

    “I’m a capitalist. But pay your fair share. I think a lot of you at home agree. … Look, the idea that in 2020, 55 of the largest companies in America, the Fortune 500, made $40 billion in profits and paid zero in federal taxes? Zero? Folks, that’s simply not fair.”

    Yes, Big Oil was in the dock again, with Biden blaming them for the spike in energy costs.

    “Last year, they made $200 billion in the midst of a global energy crisis,” he said. “I think it is outrageous. Why? They invested too little of that profit to increase domestic production.”

    But Biden also reached down into much more quotidian matters. Look at the examples he used:

    “We’re making airlines show you the full ticket price upfront and refund your money if your flight is canceled or delayed. We’ve reduced exorbitant bank overdrafts, saving consumers more than $1 billion a year. We’re cutting credit card late fees by 75 percent, from $30 to $8. Junk fees may not matter to the very wealthy, but they matter to most folks in homes like the one on your bill. … The idea that cable, internet and cell phone companies can charge you $200 or more if you decide to switch to another provider. Give me a break.”

    I suspect this part of the speech will be mocked in many corners, for the small-bore nature of the topics. But it was striking for referencing the kind of daily outrages that burden ordinary life at the drug store, the airport or at the kitchen table as the bills pile up. They are in sharp contrast to the State of the Union speeches weighed down with Washington-speak that makes eyes glaze over by the millions.

    Biden sounded genuinely outraged, and that’s something people respond to.

    When and if he kicks off his reelection campaign — and tonight’s speech made the “when” way more likely than the “if” — expect to hear a lot more like this from Biden from now until November 2024.

    I still think the conventional wisdom is right — that these moments rarely if ever affect the political terrain. But the president and his team deserve some credit for trying to speak more plainly and clearly to the country.

    [ad_2]
    #Opinion #Bidens #Speech #Worked
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • The debt moment when Biden’s State of the Union turned spicy

    The debt moment when Biden’s State of the Union turned spicy

    [ad_1]

    20230207 sotu biden 6 francis 1

    Republicans are insisting on spending cuts and potentially other concessions as Congress girds for a fight over the imminent need to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, while Biden’s party pushes for a clean increase. And the scene in the House chamber grew more tense as, in a nod to those nascent negotiations, Biden said some GOP lawmakers were playing with fire on the nation’s bills.

    “Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some Republicans … want Medicare and Social Security to sunset,” Biden said, to more sustained boos from GOP lawmakers.

    Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), sitting in the far back of the chamber and dressed in a white fur coat, leaped to her feet and appeared to yell, “Liar!” (A shout of “bullshit” was also audible from the floor during the debt back-and-forth, though it was not clear whether that came from Greene or another member.)

    In response to the frustration, Biden acknowledged that Speaker Kevin McCarthy and others in the GOP have declared they won’t touch entitlement programs during the debt talks — in fact, the California Republican delivered a preliminary rebuttal to the president’s speech that pointedly stated as much.

    But Biden went on to reiterate that other Republicans have sent a different message, viewing changes to Social Security and Medicare as up for discussion. As he quipped to Republican lawmakers that “so, we agree” on not touching either program, some GOP members appeared to cheer in affirmation.

    Asked after the speech about the cry of “liar” toward the president, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) pointed to “a number of things” Biden said as underpinning it. “He tries to keep spreading this false narrative about getting rid of Social Security and Medicare,” Scalise said.

    Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) described the combative episode more bluntly: “The president was trying to score political points, despite the fact that Republican leadership has made it clear that Medicare and Social Security benefits are off the table. Republicans made clear their dissatisfaction with his ploy.”

    And soon after Biden left the chamber, he tweeted what appeared to be a fresh challenge to Republicans on Social Security and Medicare, as the GOP prepares its fiscal blueprint: “Look: I welcome all converts. But now, let’s see your budget.”

    Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report.



    [ad_2]
    #debt #moment #Bidens #State #Union #turned #spicy
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • The state of Biden’s union with a GOP Congress: It’s tense

    The state of Biden’s union with a GOP Congress: It’s tense

    [ad_1]

    20230207 sotu biden 21 francis 1

    “This is not the House of Parliament. I wish there were more decorum, but it seems like we just keep going further downhill every State of the Union,” said Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), who set off a different kind of political storm after telling disgraced Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) that he didn’t “belong” in the chamber for the speech. (Romney later called the serial fabricator’s behavior, including an attempt to shake hands with Biden, “an embarrassment.”)

    After McCarthy promised before the speech that his members would avoid “playing childish games,” the State of Union highlighted yet again just how tough it will be for him to corral his fractious Republicans on any given day. And for Biden, the evening demonstrated that his heady days of accomplishment during the last Congress have abruptly come to a close.

    The theatrics began midway through Biden’s speech, as he scolded Republicans about their past interest in cutting the nation’s biggest entitlement programs in a bid to set the stakes for the upcoming debt limit battle. As the jeers escalated from the opposition, Biden began battling the GOP in real time — ad-libbing his own prepared remarks to challenge Republicans who were shouting at him from the chamber floor.

    “Republicans want Medicare and Social Security to sunset,” Biden said as the GOP side of the chamber erupted in boos. It was a reference to Sen. Rick Scott’s (R-Fla.) proposal last year to wind down all laws after five years, an agenda that split Scott’s party and that Biden has attacked repeatedly.

    Then, veering from his own remarks, Biden attempted to clarify — “I don’t think it is a majority of you” — though he could barely be heard above the GOP outcry on the floor. “So folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare, off the books now, right?” Biden said.

    Republicans had hoped McCarthy’s Tuesday pledge that the GOP wouldn’t touch the two programs in the debt limit fight would keep the president from hitting them on it, despite the fact that some of them remain broadly interested in changing the popular entitlements. They were livid.

    “The president was trying to score political points, despite the fact that Republican leadership has made it clear that Medicare and Social Security benefits are off the table,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.). “Republicans made clear their dissatisfaction with his ploy.”

    The tensions only grew from there. Biden’s back-and-forth on the debt battle seemed to embolden his critics — chief among them, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, sitting in the far back row in a stark white, fur-lined jacket. As the Georgia Republican sat, she rarely looked up from her phone except to occasionally shout at Biden.

    “Liar!” she shouted at first, in response to Biden’s accusation of GOP cuts to Social Security and Medicare. “Bullshit!” she called later. And when Biden called for action on the deadly drug fentanyl — one of the GOP’s biggest priorities — Greene shouted: “It’s coming from China.”

    She was hardly alone: Dozens of other Republicans joined in with chants to “secure our border” as Biden spoke of the need for an immigration overhaul. Several other Republicans called out “liar,” and at least one shouted “it’s your fault” as Biden touted efforts to lower fentanyl deaths.

    “That’s just not acceptable in the type of country we are and the leader of the free world,” Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) said of the ruckus. “Might be accepted in a Third World country. But not here.”

    But Republicans weren’t done after the speech. Scott fumed of Biden afterward: “He’s been lying about me for a year. He’s a liar.”

    The tenor of the speech, at times, clashed with the pomp and circumstance of one of Congress’ biggest nights. Ahead of the address, Capitol hallways were packed with the return of lawmakers’ State of the Union guests — a tradition that got nixed during the height of the pandemic.

    Other parts of Biden’s remarks, though, went just as expected.

    He received standing ovations on bipartisan issues like support for veterans exposed to toxic burn pits while serving. Republicans cheered when Biden lamented that the U.S. would be “on oil and gas for a while” — a nod to Manchin, who chairs the Energy Committee and hails from a deep-red fossil-fuel state.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), as well as Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), remained seated when Biden mentioned McCarthy’s name for the first time.

    But for Democratic leaders, the speech was just what they were looking for: combative at times, heavily focused on economics and not filled with lofty rhetoric. As Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) dipped into an elevator to head home for the night, the back-and-forth between Biden and Republicans did little to dampen his good mood.

    Americans thought “he’s talking right to me,” Schumer said of the presidential address. “My needs, my dreams, my hopes. It wasn’t high-falutin’, it wasn’t high up in the stratosphere. It was aimed right at them.”

    [ad_2]
    #state #Bidens #union #GOP #Congress #tense
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • Biden’s Top Covid Adviser Wishes He Had Tangled With Tucker Carlson

    Biden’s Top Covid Adviser Wishes He Had Tangled With Tucker Carlson

    [ad_1]

    ledeoverride kessler

    Kessler: A lot of things contributed to people’s feelings about the virus and the vaccines. I don’t think we should underestimate the effect that the last several years has had on all of us. It was a major upheaval for society and there’s not a family that’s not been affected. Anything that is that traumatic, it’s going to produce very strong feelings.

    The fact is that 226 million people received their primary series, and 94 percent of people over 65 got vaccinated. When’s the last time 226 million people agreed on anything, did anything?

    We have to be realistic on what people are going to do. There are a lot of things in public health we wish people would do that they don’t. Taken as a piece, we did pretty well, considering the extent of the upheaval caused by this pandemic.

    Cancryn: What about these politicians, lawmakers and pundits who have made it their brand to question that progress, to question the vaccines and the need for there to be a continued response?

    Kessler: Here’s the hard part. Questioning is an inherent part of science. Questioning is always important to learn and improve what we do.

    But there’s a difference between questioning and undermining the basic facts. Creating enough doubt so people go, well, maybe I don’t need to do this.

    I’ve lived this before. In 1952, with the first data that smoking caused cancer. The mantra of the industry was, “not proven, not proven, not proven.” It created enough doubt that it gave people a crutch who didn’t want to quit. It gave them a reason to continue to smoke.

    These vaccines are not perfect. But certainly, if you’re over 50, if you have any risk factors, the benefit/risk [ratio] is just overwhelming. So yes, ask questions. But please make sure that people who need this, whose lives are really at risk, take advantage of a very important potentially lifesaving tool.

    Cancryn: That’s interesting that you’re seeing parallels to the playbook from tobacco.

    Kessler: I don’t think that’s intentional. I just think that one has to be careful when one injects doubt in people’s minds. If you inject that doubt, it just makes the job that much harder to get people to do stuff when it’s already hard to get people to do things that are in their health interest.

    Cancryn: The difference this time around is that a lot of those injecting that doubt are now the leaders of one of the two main political parties.

    Kessler: There are certainly those who are using it for whatever rhetoric, but I think a majority of the country will push that aside. The fact is, 226 million people got the primary series. Push comes to shove, many of those who are being critical of vaccines, I think quietly they’ve gotten the vaccine.

    Cancryn: So you feel some level of optimism that when it comes to public health and science, most of us are still operating with the same set of shared facts.

    Kessler: The last three years have been so intense, the stakes have been so high, we’ve learned so much. We made mistakes. I just think, give it time. But no doubt we have to do a better job on disinformation, because this virus is not done with us yet.

    Cancryn: Do you feel like there’s an identifiable solution to that disinformation? Take Tucker Carlson, for example, who has a big audience and has proven willing to question and inject doubt into just about anything. It doesn’t worry you that he has a platform to take things that should be scientifically settled, bring them up and question them again?

    Kessler: I saw my job as making sure if you wanted a vaccine, if you wanted an antiviral, it was there, it worked, you didn’t have to live in fear that you were going to die from this disease. I did very few public appearances; others did that.

    But very early on I said to someone I’m close with that I really wished I could go on Tucker Carlson and have that conversation.

    [ad_2]
    #Bidens #Top #Covid #Adviser #Wishes #Tangled #Tucker #Carlson
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )

  • State of the Union 2023: What to know ahead of Biden’s speech

    State of the Union 2023: What to know ahead of Biden’s speech

    [ad_1]

    state of the union 03176

    Since the speech is delivered during a joint session of Congress, all members of the House and Senate are invited – though not required – to attend. Last year, several GOP lawmakers boycotted the event because of the coronavirus testing requirement. And in 2020, a number of Democrats did not attend former President Donald Trump’s speech as he faced an impeachment vote in the Senate.

    The president and first lady Jill Biden can invite family members and other guests, who sit with the first lady in her box in the balcony. The White House has yet to announce who will attend, but guests will likely help the president highlight some of the points in his speech. Last year’s guests included the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S., Oksana Markarova, and Biden’s sister, Valerie Biden Owens.

    Members of Congress can also invite guests this year, after coronavirus protocols prevented them from doing so last year. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, invited RowVaughn and Rodney Wells, the mother and stepfather of Tyree Nichols, the Black man who was beaten to death by Memphis police officers earlier this month. And CNN has reported that Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) will bring Roya Rahmani, former Afghanistan ambassador to the U.S., as his guest to draw attention to Biden’s controversial withdrawal of troops from the country.

    [ad_2]
    #State #Union #ahead #Bidens #speech
    ( With inputs from : www.politico.com )