Joe Biden Archives - Loonie Politics

Former U.S. President Donald Trump beat Democratic Vice-President Kamala Harris in the Nov. 5 presidential election. He won the all-important electoral college by 312 to 226 votes, his biggest margin of victory in three elections. Trump will also win the popular vote for the first time, and likely end up a whisker above or below 50 percent.

Several political commentators have suggested this year’s presidential election signalled the end of the era in U.S. politics. They claim it brought down the curtain on former President Barack Obama’s influence – and, in effect, current President Joe Biden, who served as Obama’s Vice-President. There’s certainly something to this analysis, although it’s probably too early to make this pronouncement.

One thing does seem clear. Trump’s victory is a powerful repudiation of the Democratic Party shifting way to the left.

James Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist, blasted his party for succumbing to “wokeism” – or, as he prefers to call it, “identitarianism.” He told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd in a Nov. 9 interview that voters started to perceive “identity is more important than humanity.” He believes this was a fatal error in political judgment.

“We could never wash off the stench of it,” Carville said, specifically describing the strategy to “defund the police” as the “three stupidest words in the English language.” As he amusingly told Dowd, “it’s like when you get smoke on your clothes and you have to wash them again and again. Now people are running away from it like the devil runs away from holy water.”

There’s also Doug Schoen, another longtime Democratic strategist who regularly appears on Fox News. In a Nov. 6 op-ed for its website, he wrote that Trump’s election win was a “repudiation of the Democratic Party, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. There is no other way to see it. With over a 2 to 1 advantage in financial resources, the office of the vice presidency and the support of financial and political elites across the country, the fact that Donald Trump has won a convincing victory, in spite of a campaign that clearly got distracted in the last week, speaks volumes about the message the American electorate was sending in this election.”

Schoen provided some additional forward-thinking analysis. “Put another way, voters want a new economic policy that emphasizes smaller government, deregulation and lower taxes,” he suggested. “They want the wall completed and illegal immigration eliminated as much as possible. And they want the crime problem addressed fundamentally and systemically. The election results also suggest the limitations of the abortion issue as a motivating force. Put simply, the fact that the Democrats put virtually all their firepower behind the choice issue suggests the weakness of that appeal.”

This reminded me of Schoen’s 2007 book, The Power of the Vote: Electing Presidents, Overthrowing Dictators, and Promoting Democracy Around the World. A campaign consultant for over 40 years, he’s critiqued the Democratic Party’s leftward tilt for decades. Through the teachings of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, he came to understand that George McGovern lost the 1972 presidential race to Richard Nixon not due to “race hatred,” but rather because the former “had run a terrible general election campaign” and “abandoned the center.”

He was also concerned about the rise of left-wing populist politicians like Howard Dean. The Democrats had become vulnerable against the threat of the left, and the main support base was with liberal voters and little else. He was equally critical of Al Gore’s 2000 and John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaigns, the latter of which he felt was a repudiation of the party by the voters for this leftward drift.

The Power of the Vote suggested a path to avoid defeat in 2008. “Democrats must face a hard truth: we do not have a natural majority coalition in American politics,” he wrote, and they must work hard to regain their old political coalition. He wanted to see a return to centrist Democratic positions with three mainstream political values: “opportunity (giving every American a chance to succeed), responsibility (the duties we owe to each other), and community (preserving and promoting families).”

Obama, as we know, won the 2008 election. He was a politician of the left, but masked his deficiencies by implementing Schoen’s language and values in his platform. It’s unclear whether this was an intentional strategy, or he and his team accurately read the political tea leaves. Either way, it helped him beat John McCain, a maverick Republican with moderate conservative policies.

Biden moved away from his more natural home in the political centre during his one term in office. His administration attempted to appease progressives and far-left activists at every turn. It weakened his public image, and his poor health and weakened state would have led him down the road to defeat against Trump had he stayed in the race.

Harris’s failed 2024 campaign was similar to McGovern’s failed 1972 campaign. Her deficiencies were far worse, however.

She was a “lousy candidate,” as I pointed out in a Nov. 8 National Post column, who was politically vapid and struggled mightily to explain her policies during tough and friendly interviews. Harris looked out of her element time and time again. Meanwhile, her campaign with Tim Walz “may very well be the most left-leaning ticket the Democrats have ever put forward in a presidential election,” as I noted in an Aug. 23 National Post column.“Harris’ political ideology is also more left-wing than Biden’s ever was on his worst day. She’s pro-abortion, pro-affirmative action, supportive of strict gun-control legislation, a defender of sanctuary cities, believer in restrictive environmental protection laws and one of 10 senators to oppose the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement because it didn’t tackle climate change. She’s a progressive’s progressive.”

Roger Kimball of The New Criterion went even further. He stated in an Oct. 25 Daily Telegraph op-ed that Harris was “the single worst candidate for president from any party in the history of the Republic.” It’s hard to argue with this astute assessment.

To quote an old proverb, “the more things change, the more they stay the same.” Case in point, the Democratic Party and its far-left tendencies. Senior leadership needs to listen to Carville, Schoen and others and shift back to the political centre. If not, they face the grim prospect of repeated defeats in future presidential elections.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of our publication.

Click here for more

U.S. President Joe Biden announced he was dropping out of the presidential race and endorsing Vice President Kamala Harris on July 21. All hell broke loose shortly thereafter.

Why?

The Aug. 19-22 Democratic National Convention in Chicago was less than a month away. Biden had secured 3,905 of the 3,949 pledged delegates during the presidential primaries. These delegates were now free to support Harris or another candidate. Furthermore, there could theoretically be candidate nominations and direct challenges to Harris’s candidacy from the convention floor. Right in front of the TV cameras, radio microphones and every handheld device known to mankind.

It appears this scenario won’t materialize.

Harris quickly acquired the support of 3,083 delegates who were originally pledged to Biden. This, along with 8 pledged uncommitted delegates and 4 delegates pledged to a long shot candidate, Minnesota Representative Dean Phillips, gives her a grand total of 3,095. That’s well above what the Vice President needs to become the Democratic presidential candidate.

ABC News noted on July 23 that she’s not the presumptive Democratic nominee just yet. This is a term “used to describe a candidate who has won the support of the majority of delegates through primary elections and is thus expected to become the party’s nominee at the convention, presuming those delegates honor their pledged votes.” That’s correct. As long as these delegates follow up on their pledge to support her, any potential challenge from the remaining 854 delegates (and others) will be minimal at best.

The fact that Biden’s delegates are enthusiastically lining up behind Harris doesn’t say much about today’s Democratic Party. She’s a one-term California Senator of little importance who ended up with 0.76 percent of the vote when she ran in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries. Her tenure as Vice President hasn’t exactly been showered with glory, either – including the revolving door of staffers who’ve left her office.

In fairness, there were only 106 days left in the campaign when Biden resigned. The available options were few and far between. Biden’s endorsement of Harris, along with Hillary and Bill Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and others was more than enough to move the political needle in her direction. It’s difficult to fathom that it would suddenly fall apart.

Still, would an open convention have been a mistake for the Democrats? I don’t think so.

It’s been a long time since there was an open national convention in U.S. politics. The last time it happened for both the Democrats and Republicans was the 1968 presidential election.

Richard Eyre, an author and political consultant, attended the Republican convention that nominated former Vice President and California Senator Richard Nixon over his preferred candidate, New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. “1968 was…the year of voting reform that allowed potential draftees to vote for the first time,” he wrote in a Deseret News op-ed on July 22. “Both conventions marked a turning point where previously uninvolved groups such as youth and minorities became more involved in politics and voting.” He witnessed an intriguing political content on the Republican side as Nixon won the convention comfortably. Democratic Vice President Hubert Humphrey, on the other hand, secured his party’s nomination after President Lyndon Johnson stepped aside, former Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated after winning the California primary and Vietnam War protestors disrupted the party convention in Chicago.

“From the 1968 Republican convention,” Eyre wrote, “we can conclude that the candidate with momentum (Nixon) will usually beat another candidate (Rockefeller) despite not doing as well in head-to-head polls with the opposite party’s nominee.” Conversely, the 1968 Democratic convention showed that “we can guess that the vice president of a stepping-down president will likely prevail as the party’s nominee, and we can take warning that the volatile situation of picking a candidate outside of normal party procedures can further polarize people and potentially lead to protests and violence.”

While no-one would want a repeat of the violence that happened during 1968 Chicago, imagine what could have potentially happened if an open national convention had materialized in 2024 Chicago.

Politicians could have thrown out their names as potential presidential candidates, either individually or a proposed ticket with a running mate. There could have been some interesting debates, discussions, alliances and maneuvering on the campaign floor. The political wheeling-and-dealing would have been enjoyable to watch on television. And if there had been a few tense moments, political analysts and commentators could have chalked it up to emotions running high and encouraged cooler heads to prevail.

Harris would have still been the favourite to win the Democratic presidential nomination. If she had been able to earn the support of ex-Biden delegates at the convention against several high-profile opponents, rather than receiving them by proxy or default, it could have created more legitimacy for her presidential campaign. And while she didn’t go through the 2024 presidential primaries, winning a majority of delegates in a mini-primary (of sorts) is far better than receiving them as a handout.

What if Harris had lost? It would have been unfortunate and embarrassing, but that’s part of the risk you take when you run for politics. Since she wasn’t pushing strongly for an open national convention next month, her preferred route to the nomination was clear.

Michael Taube, a longtime newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more Canada

This content is only available to our subscribers!

Become a subscriber today!

Already a subscriber?

Subscriber Login

This content is restricted to subscribers

Click here for more

One year into his presidency, Joe Biden took questions from reporters for over an hour and a half.

Like his first year in office, it was an uneven performance, but it was also several things at once: it was calm and professional, a bit folksy, a bit in the weeds, even sometimes a bit blunt. He flashed anger at disingenuous questions, cracked jokes and flashed a big grin. He joked if reporters wanted to “go another two hours” and at one point let journalists ask questions by passing the microphone down the row of chairs.

His withdrawal from Afghanistan was a humanitarian, geopolitical and PR nightmare, but he defended the decision in a convincing way that there was never going to be a good time to leave, but leave he must with Americans unwilling to risk more lives and spend indefinite sums.

He made news, saying he would be open to splitting his signature Build Back Better bill into individual packages, prioritizing the half-trillion dollars for climate action, and trying to make progress on early childhood education.

His American Recovery Act was a massive stimulus and public health bill, larger than anyone thought could pass. His bipartisan infrastructure deal also was not only more money than anyone thought would happen, but passed with real bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans – something no one thought could happen.

On COVID-19, he brought reasonableness and a general sense of science guiding decisions, after the chaos of the Trump years. He prioritized vaccines and got them out the door. He failed to anticipate the anti-vaxxer extremists would self-sabotage their own health, and wasn’t prepared for the variants. But, there is a sense that he at least put a lid on the pandemic after a year of Trumpian disaster.

His efforts on voting rights and fair elections came belatedly, but forcefully. He needs to find a way to get something done on this, come hell or high water. Executive action if congress fails to act. Narrow efforts if he can’t get the whole package – but not just about how to count the votes after they’re cast. He also has to ensure the rules of the game are fair. This is about America’s original sin of a racial caste system as much as it is about democracy. It is too big to ignore.

He’s taken the politics largely out of the justice system, though it would be nice to see more forceful prosecution of the January 6^thinsurrection. Perhaps his Attorney-General is on it, and he as president is removed from it. That’s as it should be, but it’s unsatisfying, I suppose.

He’s also a typical Democratic president when it comes to Canada: friendly, but in it for his country, not for our interests.

He is ultimately stymied by his narrow margins in the Congress, a victim of the big-ten nature of his party, with senators and congressmen who’d be moderate Tories in Canada made to caucus with young socialists. I still don’t understand why he didn’t offer a few Republican senators an ambassadorship to (at least temporarily) boost his margin in the senate, but maybe that’s why I did the comms, not the legislative strategy.

The press conference – both in style and length – was a fitting rebuttal to the notion that he’s lost a step. His forcefulness of late has shown he has the energy to lead – he just needs the wins to prove it.

His consistent refrain, and probably best political point, was to challenge the Republicans for not only being the Truman “do nothing Republican congress”, but taking it even further, repeatedly asking, “What are they even for?” Calling out the performative vacuousness of his opposition has legs. “What would even be the Republican platform right now?” he asked. It’s a line that hits the mark. “I honest to God don’t know what they’re for.” Indeed.

The first year can best be summed up as a decent start, with room to improve. After four years of Trump, that’s pretty reassuring.

Click here for more

U.S. President Joe Biden’s first anniversary in the White House is mere days away. When that moment arrives on Jan. 20, he and his Democratic staffers may opt to toast each other (in a virtual space, one assumes) for a job well done.

In reality, they should keep the champagne on ice for a bit longer. Much longer, in fact.

Biden’s left-leaning support base was obviously thrilled when he took office, and Donald Trump left the White House. They were pleased when he cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline, returned the U.S. to the Paris Agreement, withdrew the nation’s military forces from Afghanistan and halted the construction of his Republican predecessor’s border wall with Mexico. They supported his announcement of several stimulus bills and infrastructure projects to help individuals, families and businesses. They cheered when he increased the number of COVID-19 vaccinations across America.

Then, reality began to set in.

The Taliban took control of Kabul, meaning the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan had been done in a rushed, ineffective manner. COVID-19 cases surged this past summer due to the Delta variant, leading some Americans to start doubting the effectiveness of the vaccines and whether herd immunity was achievable.

As for the $3.1 trillion in stimulus spending, it was gradually viewed as expensive and wasteful by conservatives and some progressives. In turn, the Build Back Better Act, which was supposed to cost $3.5 trillion and was lowered to $2.2 trillion last November, may not pass at all. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin has refused to sign the bill unless the amount is dropped to $1.75 trillion and Biden’s signature social policy and climate change bill are eliminated. Manchin’s heroic stance in support of some fiscal prudence in these difficult times has been praised by most Republicans, and predictably condemned by his colleagues.

That’s why Biden’s approval ratings have slid from 53-36 percent on the plus side (Jan. 23, 2021) to 43.2-51.5 percent on the negative side (Jan. 12, 2022), according to FiveThirtyEight.com. This has been a fairly consistent pattern since Aug. 30, 2021, and it takes into account polling data from firms like YouGov, Rasmussen Reports/Pulse Opinion Research, Ipsos and IBD/TIPP.

Gallup has shown a similar trend. Biden’s latest job approval rating is 43 percent, which covers the period of Dec. 1-16, 2021. This drop has been consistent since Sept. 1, 2021, and his first year term average is 49 percent. This isn’t necessarily the end of the world. Trump’s average was lower at 36 percent, while Reagan (49 percent), Obama (50 percent) and Clinton (53 percent) were about the same. Nevertheless, his dip from a high of 57 percent (Jan 21-Feb 2 and Apr 1-21, 2021) is notable, and he’s only slightly above his lowest recorded job approval rating of 42 percent (Oct 1-19 and Nov 1-16, 2021).

Everything is working against Biden. If the Omicron variant keeps surging this winter, or if his domestic and international agenda continues to tank, so will his numbers.

This partially helps explain why Biden went on an aggressive attack against Trump during his Jan. 6 speech. On the first anniversary of the storming of the U.S. Capitol, he used fiery language against Trump and his supporters, claiming it was a “dagger at the throat of American democracy.” Biden also said, “The former president of the United States of America has created and spread a web of lies about the 2020 election. He’s done so because he values power over principle, because he sees his own interests as more important than his country’s interests and America’s interests, and because his bruised ego matters more to him than our democracy or our Constitution. He can’t accept he lost.”

The political left was euphoric. They seemed ready to celebrate in the streets with COVID-19 masks and proper social distancing. Once again, they should keep that cork in the champagne bottle.

Biden’s speech played right into Trump’s hands. He used the language, tactics and mannerisms the former President worked to his advantage in 2016. It helped create an “us vs. them” environment and “me vs. you” image of a political showdown, which is exactly what Trump was hoping for. It also shifted the image of Biden from political conciliator to a partisan firebrand, which is neither wise nor politically viable for his re-election bid.

Trump is gearing up for 2024. He has a 43 point lead (54-11) over Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as the choice of Republicans to be the party’s presidential candidate, according to a recent Reuters/Ipsos poll. His press releases remain tough-nosed, but his media appearances are significantly different. For instance, he confirmed that he received a COVID-19 booster last month during a tour with Bill O’Reilly. In a One America News interview on Jan. 11, he said that “vaccines saved tens of millions throughout the world” and his opponents don’t want to say whether or not they got the booster “because they’re gutless.”

Things can change in politics overnight. We know this. Nevertheless, the more reasonable that Trump sounds, and the more irrational that Biden sounds, will work to the former’s advantage. If the latter maintains his newfound persona, the door to a second Trump presidential term could potentially open up more widely.

Let’s see what Year 2 of the Biden presidency brings.

Michael Taube, a long-time newspaper columnist and political commentator, was a speechwriter for former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper.

Click here for more

This past November 18 the presidents of the United States and Mexico and the prime minister of Canada met in Washington for the first time in five years.

In Canada there was some initial hope for a return to enthusiasm about North American free trade. But this was soon followed by an anxious debate in the mainstream media.

The main concern is a Buy American tax incentive in the Build Back Better bill just passed by the House of Representatives — worth up to $12,500 to a buyer of a new electric vehicle (EV).

In the true north there are fears that this kind of US Buy American incentive could “kneecap Canada’s auto industry,” still concentrated in Ontario.

What, for example, would such a US tax incentive mean for current struggles to secure the future of a new electric automobile industry north of the Great Lakes? (And note Premier Ford has just announced “a plan” for Ontario to build 400,000 electric vehicles by 2030!)

Whatever else, there are many caveats in all this. To start with, as President Biden has noted, the Buy American EV tax incentive in the Build Back Better (BBB) bill is not law yet. It must still survive the US Senate.

Democratic Senator Joe Manchin is also said to have problems here. The Senate could send a version of BBB with the current Buy American EV tax incentive removed back to the House.

As President Biden has noted again : “There’s a lot of complicating factors.” .

The production of a North American automobile today, for example, can involve parts crossing the Canada-US border several times (and then there’s Mexico) — to the point where it’s unclear which country the vehicle was made in.

Similarly, even former President Trump did not seriously implement today’s potent political symbolism of Buy America practically, because this flies in the face of so much that has happened to a globalizing corporate America over the past half century.

There also seems some evidence that the Biden administration has no serious interest in actually trying to do what Donald Trump wisely evaded.

Yet the extent to which even the current White House feels driven to celebrate the symbolism of Buy America is suggested in a November 20 tweet from Vice President Kamala Harris.

It reads : “With the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, we’re going to build electric vehicles—and the batteries and parts that go in them—in the United States, instead of relying on other countries … The future will be made in America.” (Note also that, unlike Build Back Better, Bipartisan Infrastructure is already the law of the land!)

The prospect that the Biden administration might somehow find itself unwisely trying to implement the symbolism of Buy America, practically, points to an ultimate observation from Canadian finance minister Chrystia Freeland.

Economic nationalism of this sort could become “the dominant issue” of the Canada-US relationship over the next few years.

Yet again, even if this happens — and the latest evolution of corporate America is turned inside out — that could prove healthy for a more self-reliant Canadian economy, already not quite as dependent on US markets as it was once. (Recent Canadian exports to the United States account for about 74% of all Canada’s goods exports outside the country, down from a high of 84% in 2002.)

If push does come to shove for a new nationalistic era of North American trade, what can Canada do?

From the start Hollywood has regarded Canada as part of the US domestic movie market. Some (central?) Canadian voices would like to see something similar for the automobile industry today.

Alternatively, if even Joe Biden’s democracy does implement a Buy American tax incentive worth up to $12,500, Canada could just copy US policy (as it sometimes has in the past).

To indulge in a little crazy talk, the federal Parliament could legislate a “Buy North American” EV tax incentive (for up to 15,000 US$ say) — in a quest to secure a share of North American automobile manufacturing in the new electric age, roughly equivalent to Canada’s share of the North American automobile consumer market.

The time for quite this kind of crazy talk has not come just yet. Patience with the Biden administration and the US Congress probably remains the best current counsel.

But it is also worth starting to think about the potential longer term prospect that Canada has already entered some more aggressively protectionist era of “North American free trade,” regardless of who is president.