Biden: Work to Compromise with GOP, or Might as Well 'Go Home' or Start 'Real Physical Revolution'

[BeyondGeography]

Vice President Joe Biden has talked on the campaign trail about working with Republicans, and during the Poor People’s Summit today, he defended his position as he acknowledged people consider it naive.

MSNBC’s Joy Reid, one of the moderators, told Biden at one point the initiatives he’s proposing would wind up in the Senate, currently run by Republicans. She asked, “How would you get past either a majority-Republican Senate in which Mitch McConnell was determined to kill all of these ideas or even a Mitch McConnell in the minority who repeated the consistent filibustering you had when you were vice president?”

“Joy, I know you’re one of the ones that thinks it’s naive to think we have to work together,” Biden responded. “The fact of the matter is if we can’t get a consensus, nothing happens except the abuse of power by the executive.”

“You have to go out and beat these folks if they don’t agree with you by making your case,” he continued, saying the president should be able to persuade the public.

“If you start off with the notion there’s nothing you can do, well, why don’t you all go home then?” Biden said. “Or let’s start a real physical revolution if you’re talking about it. Because we have to be able to change what we’re doing within our system.”

“You can shame people to do things the right way,” he added.

More at https://www.mediaite.com/tv/biden-if-we-cant-work-to-compromise-with-gop-we-might-as-well-go-home-or-start-real-physical-revolution/

Alrighty then.

Video at link.

[vlyons]

1. It's not that we can't work with them

More that they refuse to work with us. Perhaps you noticed that GOP Senate don't even respect us enough to bring up the bills that we have passed in the House. The solution is to simply vote their rotten asses out in 2020.

[BeyondGeography]

2. He said that, among other things

Not what I would call a very coherent response.

[Skya Rhen]

4. His response was very clear to me. Let's dump the RW talking points.

[BeyondGeography]

6. This Republican epiphany thing is going to keep coming up

Maybe Team Biden can tighten those remarks up a little.

[Kahuna7]

74. Let's also dump the left wing talking points. nt

[LanternWaste]

70. We often blame the speaker for our inability to listen.

[BeyondGeography]

73. lol...ok

I organize conferences for a living. I can hang in there listening to meandering speakers with the best of them. As a moderator, I can even occasionally enjoy long-winded answers because they fill time. This wasn't that kind of event; there was a four-minute time limit and Biden didn't get everything in. That's one way of saying he wasn't prepared.

If you read the WaPo review I posted down below, I wasn't the only one panning Biden's answers.

[qazplm135]

7. so there are two alternatives

1. We win both houses of Congress in which case everyone will agree we don't have to work with them. That's not Biden's or Joy's hypo here.

2. They keep the Senate, in which case NOTHING gets done without at least a handful of republicans signing on.

So what is the solution then? Because "vote their asses out" is great and all, but if we fall short of voting enough "asses out" then that solution doesn't work anymore.

[MarcA]

10. FWIW an "abusive" aka strong President ala LBJ. n/t

[The Liberal Lion]

11. Amen

[pangaia]

26. YES, and SHAME THEM, BLACKMAIL THEM.. I don't care. !

[marylandblue]

43. This.

[BeyondGeography]

15. Win the Senate and kill the filibuster eom

[qazplm135]

16. so you want to criticize

a hypo you wont even recognize.

Got it.

[BeyondGeography]

17. No, just filling out your incomplete list of alternatives

[qazplm135]

22. Lol

So when I say win the Senate and we don't have to work with them you see what exactly?

The need to be repetitive? Lol

[dsc]

29. actually part of the hypothetical was McConnell in the minority and filibustering

[qazplm135]

32. pretty sure

the President has no control over how the Senate does their business. So whether or not the filibuster survives is dependent on who is in charge. If Dems are in charge, then they can get rid of the filibuster if they want to. But that's not going to be a Biden choice, it's going to be the choice of the Majority Leader and the rest of the caucus.

[BeyondGeography]

35. There's no mystery what would happen if Warren won and we had the Senate

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/05/elizabeth-warren-filibuster-2020-election-1259196

[qazplm135]

87. sure there is

if she wins, and we have the Senate, then we will have a Senate Majority Leader.

That person, and we all have a pretty good idea who that will be, will make the decision on the filibuster, not the President.

We have a President right now who wants to kill the filibuster and a ML who in every other aspect kowtows to him and still won't do it.

[BeyondGeography]

88. Lol...Warren might have a little more credibility than Trump

If she wins handily on her agenda she will do whatever it takes to get things done. That's one reason why her numbers are rising.

[qazplm135]

90. with the republican party??

Really?

Trump has 100 percent credibility with the Republican party.

Ultimately, the Senate Majority Leader is going to run the Senate the way he or she (Chuck Schumer) wants to run it. And if they don't want to get rid of the filibuster, Warren or no one else is going to make that happen.

[FloridaBlues]

58. The only way any policy's get past including warrens is to eliminate the filibuster otherwise nothin

Happens

[Recursion]

68. You're saying there's literally nothing we can offer any Republicans to play ball?

Nothing at all?

Then, yes, nothing happens, and that's what we deserve, if we literally can't think of anything to trade for our agenda.

[shanny]

80. Yes--nothing!

unless you want to offer up cuts to SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc etc etc...and even then there is no guarantee they will get on board.

The only thing we can trade for our agenda...is our agenda.

p.s do you recall Obama's efforts to forge a grand bargain? do you recall his effort to trade a corporate tax cut for infrastructure spending? do you recall the results?

[Recursion]

81. I do. It is possible for a discilpined minority to stop almost all legislation. We're doing it too.

And if that's how the Republicans are going to be there's no real point even asking what positions our candidates have.

[shanny]

84. if we keep the filibuster, that is true.

if we don't (and sorry, Harry Reid, but we should have dropped it in 2009) then the minority can go pee up a rope

Sorry, but I am sick to death of "minority rules."

[Recursion]

67. Oh hell no. The filibuster is why we still have the ACA

Not in a million years.

[BeyondGeography]

69. It's also why we have the ACA without a public option

[crazytown]

71. No. The skinny repeal of the ACA was a regular vote.

[Recursion]

72. And it lost because McCain objected to the irregularity of the order

He only voted no because he thought it was an end-run around the filibuster rather than a legitimate reconciliation bill

[demmiblue]

3. The whole thing was off-putting.

His rushed and robotic intro remarks, laying hands on Rev. Barber, getting a little too far into Joy's space... etc.

It wasn't his best day.

[BeyondGeography]

14. He got right in her face at the beginning there

Ridiculous.

[Demit]

21. He uses that line about the example of our power/power of our example at every event.

And he stumbles over it every time. It's clever wordplay, and he's so enamored of it that he works it into any speech no matter who the audience is he's addressing—here, in a response to a question that it has no relevance to—but it's just not working for him. Yes, he's robotic and he tumbles through his ideas with such speed that you're left with the (accurate) impression that it's all canned.

[BeyondGeography]

23. If Bernie got in Joy's face the way Biden did the anti-Berners would be shouting game, set, match

[melman]

25. You got that right

There would be never-ending outrage. So many threads the server would crash.

[shanny]

56. He's not a good campaigner.

That's why he is limiting his appearances. In his two previous campaigns he withdrew in the fall in the first, and after Iowa in the second ( with 1% of the vote iirc)

[Demit]

61. I'll say.

I frankly don't remember anything about his campaign in 2008, it was so short, and very little about his campaign in 1988 except that he was shamed into withdrawing. But I think if you were to put it in sports terms, he's lost a little off his fastball in the years since, to say it in the most charitable way.

[shanny]

65. +1

[Voltaire2]

75. He is notorious for self destructing his presidential campaigns.

Which is why I find the “our only hope” argument disturbing.

[shanny]

77. Same here.

Fortunately, public awareness of our other possibles is rising, as is reflected in the polls: all five of our top candidates--including two women, a "socialist" and the gay mayor of a small Midwestern city--are polling higher than tRump. And it is early days yet.

[BlueMTexpat]

5. STILL NOT my

first choice ... !

[MarcA]

8. I do hope we can get a Strong Dem Senate field organized for 2020. n/t

[dalton99a]

9. The epiphany will happen if we try hard enough

[floppyboo]

50. yes - try harder and don't forget the thoughts and prayers! ;)

[LonePirate]

12. Why does he not realize they have zero interest in compromise and cooperation?

This sort is stupidity on his part has disqualified him from receiving my vote during primary season. I will vote for him in the general if he is our nominee but my primary vote is going to a candidate who truly understands the selfish intransigence and nihilism on the right.

[loyalsister]

41. Obama was optimistic about working with republicans

He was talking bipartisanship a lot during his campaign. When he was in the senate, he worked with Fred Lugar on decreasing our nuclear arsenal. Then, he got elected to the presidency and republicans accused him of not keeping his promise to work with them when they blocked everything.
I know it's good politics to talk bipartisanship, but they have used it against us and were rewarded. None of us had a closer view than Biden. It baffles me that he would make bipartisanship anything more than a throwaway line.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

48. Because he has had great success working with them in the past.

Raising social security retirement age
Civil asset forfeiture
The Crime Bill
Restrictions on federal funding for abortion
Bankruptcy Bill
Iraq War

[LonePirate]

49. Touche!

[floppyboo]

51. AMEN

[Voltaire2]

76. Bingo.

[Otto Lidenbrock]

13. .

Link to tweet

[earthshine]

18. Biden is signalling his willingness to compromise with them, even though he knows they won't.

We can do better than Biden.

"Dick Cheney is a nice guy. I get along with him." -- Biden

[Skya Rhen]

19. Why Bernie Sanders Loves the Most Conservative Man in the Senate

The socialist firebrand named climate change-denying Sen. James Inhofe as his favorite Republican. What’s behind this odd attraction?


https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-bernie-sanders-loves-the-most-conservative-man-in-the-senate

[earthshine]

20. Your post has nothing to do with mine.

It's a useless whataboutism.

[Skya Rhen]

24. Really...

Biden's quote:

"Dick Cheney is a nice guy. I get along with him." -- Biden


Bernie's quote:

“Jim is a climate-change denier. He is really, really conservative, but you know what, he is a decent guy and I like him, and he and I are friends,” Sanders told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

[Autumn]

28. "First of all, I really like Dick Cheney, for real. I get on with him, I think he's a decent man,"

That's Bidens quote. Dick Cheney was the architect of war crimes, but yeah he's a decent man as far as Biden is concerned. Biden went on to say that Cheney was 'extremely helpful' about the 'legal parameters' of the VP office.

?

Link to tweet

[earthshine]

31. I don't think there is a comparison.

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/12/biden-plans-to-work-with-republicans-former-obama-aides-say-thats-delusional/

“With Trump gone you’re going to begin to see things change,” Biden said during a fundraiser Monday. “Because these folks know better. They know this isn’t what they’re supposed to be doing."

Obama aides who lived through eight years of obstruction by Mitch McConnell and company rejected Biden’s comment as naive.

“Fuck no,” a former senior Obama aide told The Daily Beast when asked if Republicans would be willing to work with the former veep.

Biden will compromise himself to make deals with them, and they are not going to give him an inch.

[Politicub]

33. See, Sanders and Biden are exactly the same. /sarc

I’m not even sure what your post is supposed to mean.

[Skya Rhen]

36. Oh - Biden and Sanders are definitely not the same - one is winning!!!

[peggysue2]

34. Sorry, there's nothing here to back up your claim

In fact, this statement:

“You can shame people to do things the right way,” he added.

and/or the strategy of beating the opposition by the strength of a president's argument to the public is exactly the opposite of what you're asserting. Biden is reminding people that 'getting things done' is not a matter of a president snapping his/her fingers. It takes work and political smarts/savvy to push things through to completion. Because there is always fierce opposition to change whether it be good or not.

The hard work is a requirement not a choice. Otherwise, we might as well just go home and give it up. Or burn it all down, the way some people would like.

[earthshine]

39. You mean like the way they met Obama halfway?

You can shame people to do things the right way,” he added.

Not republicans led by McConnell, or his predecessor Frist.

[Honeycombe8]

40. "Shaming McConnell" ?

The man whose main goal in the Senate is to ensure a Democratic President doesn't have a second term. The man who relished saying "No...we're not even going to talk to your Supreme Court nominee. We'll wait for a Republican President...because of the Biden rule." Then says, if the situation is reversed, of COURSE we'll confirm the Republican Justice appointee...we will disregard the Biden rule. What are you going to do about it?" and smiles while he says that.

Yeah, he can be "shamed." (not)

That really is such a ludicrous statement that it would be funny, if Biden hadn't been serious about it.

[saidsimplesimon]

27. Reminds me of something

Rahm Emanuel would try(“You can shame people to do things the right way,” he added).

[Politicub]

30. I don't think Joy Reid is the naive one in this exchange.

We need to flip the senate. Fuck this conciliatory bullshit.

Yes, work with them if they will work with you. But don’t think you can shame a shameless party into doing anything.

[beachbum bob]

37. We saw here in Illinois some state GOP'ers working with a newly elected democratic governor, a

welcome change of the previous 4 years of trump-lite Rauner.

We will never have a majority of GOP ever helping but a few is way better than Zero

[Honeycombe8]

38. O M G. Words fail me. Say it ain't so that you said these things, Joe. nt

[randr]

42. Some think it important to listen to their POV

FUCK their POV. They have never ever listened to or respected ours

[Kaleva]

44. There is contemporaneous evidence that supports Biden

"The House Foreign Affairs Committee is quietly amassing documents on allegations of politically-motivated retaliation at the State Department; it’s looking into whether Trump has violated foreign emoluments and conflict of interest rules; and lawmakers are working to find out more about the president's relationship with Vladimir Putin and how he leads American foreign policy behind the scenes — all without the fanfare associated with the other committees’ work.

The panel has secured wins on a number of fronts, and aides and lawmakers alike attribute that to the under-the-radar support they’re getting from Republicans, many of whom have grown exasperated with the president’s decisions on foreign policy and national security issues. It’s also a historically bipartisan committee that boasts a strong relationship between the top Democrat and Republican on the panel."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/17/house-foreign-affairs-panel-oversight-trump-1365840

[zipplewrath]

53. But what's the result

we've seen 18+ years of absolute obstructionism on the part of the GOP and you want to point to some vague "under the radar" actions that have no consequence? They've actually "done" nothing. They are stacking the courts. They have filled the agencies with their "under the radar" civil servants. They have allies in every department who will out live this administration in civil service jobs. Where is this "evidence" of which you speak in anything other than wishful thinking of a guy that reminisces for a time that is long past?

[Kaleva]

59. The First Step Act was a bipartisan effort.

Same with the the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment (SUPPORT) for Patients and Communities Act.

[zipplewrath]

60. Good

Now, how about anything that will contain real conflict between the two parties?

[Kaleva]

79. Never in our history have the two parties agreed most of the time.

We wouldn't have a two party system if that was the case. But the argument that Dems and Repubs never work together in recent times is easily proven to be false.

[defacto7]

45. Forget it, Joe. Shame is not in their vocabulary.

The GOP needs to be made redundant or irradicated. It's not a political party, it's an ideology for the overthrow of the government. The grand old party died decades ago.

[marylandblue]

46. Congressional Democrats and Republicans mostly agree.on foreign policy.

And the President is the main driver anyway.

The big fights are over domestic policy.

[BeyondGeography]

47. WaPo's review: Biden gets muted reception at poverty-fighting event

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/biden-gets-muted-reception-at-poverty-fighting-event/2019/06/17/c2f275ba-9116-11e9-aadb-74e6b2b46f6a_story.html?utm_term=.1d8f8163ec8e

[kimbutgar]

52. McConnell has no shame

[Raven123]

54. I would be interested in knowing how a Biden Presidency would differ from

Obama/Biden in this regard. I am one the skeptical people who needs a bit more convincing.

[shanny]

55. You can't shame people who have none.

Sorry Joe.

[floppyboo]

57. full Biden appearance.

comments not too positive. Oh oh
edit: no wonder there is zero coverage of this on msnbc so far, even though Joy Reid is one of the moderators.

[thesquanderer]

62. That was depressing. I'm not sure he could hold up against Trump in a debate.

I hate to say it but, like Trump, half his sentences end up unfinished or borderline word salad. But in a way worse because he also slurs his words and often sounds defensive. He needs to slow down, speak with clarity and confidence, and choose what to emphasize instead of falling into these long undifferentiated run-on stream of consciousness answers. Even the prepared opening statement was no better, maybe worse. As bad as Trump's delivery is, I'm afraid it's better than Biden's. At this point, I'd worry that Biden could be a disaster on the debate stage against Trump. That said, if this is what he sounds like in the Dem debates, I don't think he'll get as far as a Trump debate so the problem may take care of itself. His nearest competitors, Sanders, Warren, Harris, Buttigieg all present better (and within those four, I'd probably rank their deliveries in the opposite of the order that I listed them). Biden's best shot may be simply that the non-Biden vote gets split too many ways. But honestly, while he was not my choice, I was at least comfortable with his ability to win. Not anymore. Not if people are going to start seeing performances like this.

[dalton99a]

63. Perfunctory - "let's get it over with", "I wanna get the hell outta here"

[Hassin Bin Sober]

64. Oh my.

[myohmy2]

66. consensus?

"...if we can’t get a consensus, nothing happens..."

...compromise sounds great except republicans don't compromise...

...President Obama spent 8 years (you were there) trying to compromise with republicans and came up short...

...we compromise, they don't...

...winning the House, Senate and Presidency is the 'consensus' we need...

...

[stonecutter357]

78. good let's go Joe !

[Skid Rogue]

82. No one will win...

the votes of independents, (I don't like it, but we may need them) on a "refuse to compromise" platform. Average Americans, swing state Americans, hate deadlocked government. The fact that Trump refuses to deal with the Democrats in congress, and therefore can get nothing done, is one of the many reasons he's polling so low.

I'm sure Biden would love it if we handed him a majority in the house and senate along with the Presidency, but he can't count on that. If we don't take the Senate then he'll HAVE to work with the jerks.

[Voltaire2]

83. Oddly enough Trump won the votes of

independent voters in key battleground states while doing just that.

The Republican Party swept the federal elections in 2016 while demonizing the opposition and pushing a radical rightwing agenda.

So no, your assertion doesn’t fit the data.

[Skid Rogue]

86. Well, you've got...

a point about Trump in 2016, but that attitude hasn't played well for him since. I'm also not sure it would work for us in 2020 for all the same reasons I mentioned before.

[G_j]

89. After eight years under Obama

this is what you learned?