Joe Biden, Senator from Citibank (oops, DELAWARE), to Run for President

hmm, amazing that Biden passed over Barbara Lee and Ro Khanna for SecDef

Fingers crossed for Larry Krassner as AG though!

Yeah who’d’ve guessed Biden wouldn’t be tapping the Congressional Progressive Caucus’ leadership for cabinet posts

how many progresso cans in the lazy susan, though

looking on the relative bright side:

Lloyd Austin has a troubling record of not wanting to incinerate civilians, critics sayhttps://t.co/XY4payMe87 pic.twitter.com/YT0C2GbAXc

— Eric Levitz (@EricLevitz) December 8, 2020

Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:16 PM (three weeks ago):

- Richmond's hiring was lauded by South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, the most senior Black Democrat in the House and one of Biden's key allies during the 2020 campaign. "I think everybody knows I've been pushing him for this administration forever," Clyburn said. "I think it's very good for both the administration and him."

...

- During his 10 years in Congress, Richmond has received roughly $341,000 from donors in the oil and gas industry — the 5th highest total among House Democrats. That includes corporate political action committee donations of $50,000 from Entergy, an electric and natural gas utility; $40,000 from ExxonMobil; and $10,000 apiece from oil companies Chevron, Phillips 66 and Valero Energy.

Richmond has raked in that money while representing a congressional district that is home to 7 of the 10 most air-polluted census tracts in the country.

Richmond has repeatedly broken with his party on major climate and environmental votes. During the climate crisis that has battered his home state of Louisiana, Richmond has joined with Republicans to vote to increase fossil fuel exports and promote pipeline development. He also voted against Democratic legislation to place pollution limits on fracking — and he voted for GOP legislation to limit the Obama administration’s authority to more stringently regulate the practice.

Posted: Dec 5, 2020 / 09:19 AM CST / Updated: Dec 5, 2020 / 09:19 AM CST (two days ago):

Only 25 congressional Republicans out of 222 have acknowledged President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 Presidential Election, a new Washington Post survey finds.

December 7, 2020, 6:32 PM PST Updated on December 7, 2020, 7:01 PM PST (two hours ago):

The Biden administration plans to create a position to find common ground with conservatives, said Louisiana Congressman Cedric Richmond, a senior adviser and director of the Office of Public Engagement for the president-elect.

...President-elect Joe Biden named Richmond, a campaign co-chair, to head the Office of Public Engagement last month. On Monday, Biden appointed him as one of five co-chairs of his inaugural committee.

...Richmond, who will resign his seat representing most of New Orleans in Congress, also said that part of his mandate would be “private sector engagement” and to serve as a “conduit straight into the White House” for chief executive officers.

“Nobody’s going to persuade me that somehow, some way that CEOs in this country are bad people,” he said.

So “office of public engagement” is a euphemism for “graft department” I see

part of his mandate would be to serve as a “conduit straight into the White House” for chief executive officers

This is one of those salutary effects of Trump's norm-breaking: there's no longer an obligation for the "good guys" to bother pretending that yr not there explicitly to serve corruption at the expense of the population, before you even get to plug the phone in at yr new office.

office of public(ly traded company) engagement

of course he's not going to come out and support that because it sounds to the entire country like "getting rid of all police" which is not going to have broad support. Say 'demilitarize" and "redirect funding to education and social programs" and maybe more people will understand. But I'm of the opinion that 'defund the police' is a messaging fail.

― akm, Tuesday, June 9, 2020 7:07 AM (six months ago)

Nearly 37% of respondents were in favor of completely dismantling the police department to give more financial support to local programs, while 63% opposed that idea. Respondents were more split on the general idea of “defunding” police, with 47% in favor and 53% opposed.

Respondents heavily supported the idea of individuals in crisis being met with teams of first responders that included police and nonpolice responders, particularly when the incidents were described as nonviolent.

idk seems like, six months in, this is a popular policy with convincing messaging. it's lightly plausible that it would do even better if treated sensibly by mass media, instead of as an insane and unworkable proposition.

the question is whether to win over to this moderate, centrist position 2% of the people who've been told it's insane, or all 37% of the total that are "fuck it, abolition"

at least Richmond will be out of congress I guess?

At least he didn't name Richmond head of the EPA.

Yet

Nearly 37% of respondents were in favor of completely dismantling the police department to give more financial support to local programs

sic, to be fair, this is 37% of people who live in Los Angeles; I completely believe that Joe Biden could swing behind a full police abolition program and still win LA. But it's not evidence that police abolition is nationally popular.

he could win nationally on the platform of abolishing the LAPD in particular

Miami did one of those there surveys too!:

The poll, conducted by the firm Bendixen & Amandi International for The United Faculty union of Miami Dade College, did offer this surprise: Though Blacks, Hispanics and whites differed in many beliefs, the biggest divide wasn’t race. It was age. People polled under the age of 30 believe more than their elders that there are racists in police departments, that money should be siphoned from law enforcement and poured into social services and that this summer’s Black Lives Matter protests were justified.

There were, however, several areas of almost universal agreement. A large percentage of all the groups agreed that Black parents are forced into the unjust burden of having to teach their children how to interact with police, for their own safety. They all overwhelmingly agreed on the need for civilian oversight, increased hiring standards, better training and body cameras for all police.

And most people questioned also said that while they don’t believe police departments should be financially hamstrung, reallocating a percentage of law enforcement funds to social services and economic development is the best use of tax dollars.

“What this shows is that the public values law enforcement, but recognizes there are issues that need to be resolved to strengthen the trust and relationship between police and the public,” said Fernand Amandi, president and chief executive of Bendixen & Amandi.

“What this shows is that the public values law enforcement, but recognizes there are issues that need to be resolved to strengthen the trust and relationship between police and the public,” said Fernand Amandi, president and chief executive of Bendixen & Amandi.

Fernand Amandi then noted that his firm was paid a very hefty fee to conduct the survey and write the accompanying report in support of these platitudes and he smiled broadly enough to split his face.

.@JoeBiden @Transition46 is set to choose Tom Vilsack as his ag secretary, despite concerns from Black leaders. "too little was done during his tenure to address the long legacy of discrimination against Black farmers." https://t.co/zeKLRS5Msm

— Kari Hamerschlag (@KariHamerschlag) December 9, 2020

https://prospect.org/cabinet-watch/biden-selection-process-veering-off-course-fudge-hud/

good writeup on the vilsack pick

good piece, thanks

he could win nationally on the platform of abolishing the LAPD in particular

I'm fine if he starts by saying that the police should only shoot protestors in non-West-Coast states, and the ones with radical left-wing governors should have their forces defunded

That's a terrific piece. I'm dispirited but unsurprised, especially the Defense Secretary pick (another military dude requiring a waiver?!). A quibble:

Impressions are being given that HUD and Interior are not important federal agencies but political chits to be handed out

Presidents have treated federal agencies and postings like political chits since Washington.

HUD and Interior are run by political appointees because they are politically important. The non-political expertise they need is already baked into the civil service staffing of those agencies.

Vilsack’s fuck-up re:Shirley Sherrod should disqualify him from any leadership post.

The non-political expertise they need is already baked into the civil service staffing of those agencies.

― Respectfully Yours, (Aimless), Wednesday, December 9, 2020 1:33 PM (three minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Er, about that...

"politically important"

ffs once you have this job you *become* politically important. Is there no aspect of this utterly broken backroom order that you won't stooge for?

knowing how it's done

how it works in D.C.

s/he understands the system

etc.

like non-lifer/lobbyist candidates would just be airlifted into these jobs from way off grid somewhere

Why not appoint someone from high up the civil service chain and give them a speechwriter

ffs once you have this job you *become* politically important. Is there no aspect of this utterly broken backroom order that you won't stooge for?

ffs, get a grip. you are just knee-jerking.

politics and policy are joined at the hip. when I say a cabinet level department is "politically important" it is because that department is charged with carrying out the administration's policies. those policies can be corrupt or simon pure, but either way, the policies are political in nature.

xp I love this idea tbh, and I'm not even sure the speechwriter is required. Have YOU ever heard a speech from the secretary of agriculture? (Oh wait, yes, here in Wisconsin the current SecAg gave a speech where he said small farms were probably doomed and big agribusiness was the future, so maybe this proves even a speechwriter isn't enough)

silby otm

just this prevailing weird fetishization of "players" in the capitol like there's some rarified hermeneutics of taking campaign donations in exchange for shit legislation

Why not appoint someone from high up the civil service chain and give them a speechwriter

When you are president you appoint whoever you want. If you want a colorless functionary, you appoint one. If you prefer a hack, you appoint a hack. But the fact that the position is filled by appointment makes it political no matter how you slice it.

there's a lot of colorful functionaries out there I'm pretty sure

When you are president you appoint whoever you want

wait...WHAT?!

like poll some GS-12s for who they want as their boss

wait...WHAT?!

Are you playing games here? Cabinet level officials are nominated by the president, and are subject to senate confirmation. But the senate can't appoint anyone. Only the president can.

Sorry, yes, games. I am sometimes triggered by your relentless pedandtry.

it's pedantry

loool

I was hoping for an Aimless correction :(

haha sorry I couldn't possibly resist that

it was a meatball tbf

First you jump all over me and call me a stooge, while totally missing the point of my post. Then when I tell you what you got all wrong, I am a relentless pedant. You're an ass.

eh, go curl up w/ your West Wing box set

anyway I was making a joke, Captain Obvious

jokes usually incorporate wit or humor

have you see Kevin Hart

I can't think of a single reason why I should.

drilcorncobtweet.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZIwwf1onKM