Nothing illuminates the difference between the current United States president and the former one as much as how they respond to a misstatement. President Joe Biden, speaking recently about his dreams for American infrastructure improvements, said the following:

We're going to talk about commercial aircraft flying at subsonic speeds -- supersonic speeds. Be able to, figuratively, if you may -- if we decided to do it, traverse the world in about an hour, travel 21,000 miles an hour. So much is changing. We have got to lead it.

There's only one problem with this: physics. Because that is just way too fast, Joe. Divided out, 21,000 miles per hour is 5.8 miles per second, which is significantly faster (roughly ten times faster) than the fastest airplane ever built. The supersonic Concorde only managed Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound), or a little under 1,400 miles per hour. The record-holder is the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, which flew at Mach 3.5, or a top speed of almost 2,200 miles per hour (although there is evidence it may have flown a lot faster, in emergencies). Whatever the actual numbers are, though, Biden plainly misspoke.

So far, the White House has not corrected the number Biden gave yesterday. But you know what? We are fully confident they will do so, by soon issuing a clarification. Because they not only believe in science, they also believe in telling the truth.

Consider, however, what would have happened if Donald Trump had made the same claim. Right now, levers of the government would be moving feverishly to pressure scientists to back up this obviously way-too-optimistic presidential statement (remember "Sharpiegate"?). There would be so-called "experts" out there on Fox News calmly discussing the probability that American passengers would soon be flying from New York to Los Angeles in less than ten minutes. Trump would insist that he had been right, and everyone around him would also have to agree that the emperor's new clothes were gorgeous.

The House of Representatives this week began revealing just how pernicious this political interference under Trump actually was, during the start of the coronavirus pandemic. Political flunkies did pressure epidemiologists and other government doctors and scientists to continually downplay reality, in order to match up better with Trump's rosy-tinted view of how minor COVID-19 really was. Opening the economy was far more important than allowing the American people to hear the unvarnished truth. And now 550,000-plus Americans are dead from the virus.

That's why we fully expect a correction or retraction of Biden's statement soon. Because Joe Biden is not an egomaniac who demands unswerving loyalty to anything that comes out of his mouth. Which, obviously, is a big relief.

We noticed something else during Biden's presentation that few others picked up on. Biden was asked about bipartisanship, he answered (in part) by reviewing what happened during the negotiations for the American Rescue Plan, which wound up with a price tag of $1.9 billion (exactly what Biden asked for):

But the last plan I laid out what was available, what I was suggesting, and how I'd deal with it. And a bipartisan group came to see me. And then a Republican group came to see me. And they started off at $600 billion, and that was it.

If they come forward with a plan that did the bulk of it and it was a billion -- three or four, two or three -- that allowed me to have pieces of all that was in there, I would have been -- I would've been prepared to compromise, but they didn’t. They didn’t move an inch. Not an inch.

That's from the official White House transcript. But it's misleadingly punctuated, and (to add to the confusion) Biden misspoke. He obviously meant "trillion" not "billion" at the start of that second paragraph. So it should really read: "a trillion-three or -four, -two, or -three," or, in numeric form: "$1.3 trillion or $1.4 trillion, $1.2 trillion or $1.3 trillion." Biden was signalling to the Republicans in Congress that they could have talked him down significantly and he would have gone along with it. Instead, since they weren't interested in bargaining, Biden got his original ask, $1.9 trillion. But he would have accepted anything in the range of $1.2 to $1.4 trillion -- roughly one-third lower than his original bid. Compromise was possible, Biden was saying, but only if you play the game correctly.

What this means, which has almost universally been ignored in the media, is two important things: (1) Biden does actually want to have such negotiations, but will play total hardball if they don't happen; and (2) Biden is padding his requests by around a third, in preparation for such negotiations. Both of these are interesting, although so far the GOP doesn't seem exactly eager to take him up on what is actually a pretty generous offer. We'll see -- especially on the infrastructure bill -- whether this actually comes to pass or not. Since Biden has asked for $2.3 trillion in infrastructure, will he happily settle for something on the order of $1.5 trillion? The ball is in the Republicans' court, really.

In other news from the Republican side of things, Mitch McConnell is tying himself in knots, trying to simultaneously threaten corporate America while also defending their right to keep giving Republican politicians vast sums of money. McConnell, and the rest of the merry GOP gang, are just outraged at Major League Baseball and Delta and Coca-Cola and a bunch of other corporations for speaking out about what they perceive as injustice and racism. Here was the end of McConnell's opening salvo, in response:

It's jaw-dropping to see powerful American institutions not just permit themselves to be bullied, but join in the bullying themselves. Wealthy corporations have no problem operating in New York, for example, which has fewer days of early voting than Georgia, requires excuses for absentee ballots, and restricts electioneering via refreshments. There is no consistent or factual standard being applied here. It's just a fake narrative gaining speed by its own momentum.

Our private sector must stop taking cues from the Outrage-Industrial Complex. Americans do not need or want big business to amplify disinformation or react to every manufactured controversy with frantic left-wing signaling.

From election law to environmentalism to radical social agendas to the Second Amendment, parts of the private sector keep dabbling in behaving like a woke parallel government. Corporations will invite serious consequences if they become a vehicle for far-left mobs to hijack our country from outside the constitutional order. Businesses must not use economic blackmail to spread disinformation and push bad ideas that citizens reject at the ballot box.

However, he soon realized he had gone just a wee bit too far. Here he was later, speaking to reporters: "My warning to corporate America is to stay out of politics." He said this right before he qualified it: "I'm not talking about political contributions." Of course not! How could anyone even think such a thing?!? He was also quoted saying exactly the same thing to a different question: "I found it completely discouraging to find a bunch of corporate CEOs getting in the middle of politics. My advice to the corporate CEOs of America is to stay out of politics. Don't pick sides in these big fights." Later, he admitted he was trying to walk his initial statement back: "I didn't say that very artfully yesterday.... They certainly are entitled to be in politics.... My complaint about the CEOs is they ought to read the damn bill."

In other words, corporate free speech is fine and proper when it takes the form of untold millions of dollars to Republican politicians and causes, and speaking out is just dandy for CEOs to do when they support our side (you'll note no Republican denounced the My Pillow guy when he was spreading insane conspiracy theories over Trump's loss in the 2020 election), but when they have the temerity to side with our political opponents, then they must be threatened with swift retribution.

There's just no other way to read it. Just for a laugh, here's what Mitch McConnell said when the Citizens United case was decided:

For too long, some in this country have been deprived of full participation in the political process. With today's monumental decision, the Supreme Court took an important step in the direction of restoring the First Amendment rights of these groups by ruling that the Constitution protects their right to express themselves about political candidates and issues up until Election Day.

By "some" and "these groups," Mitch meant: "corporations." And First Amendment rights mean protecting everyone from government influence on free speech -- such as, for instance, passing bills to punish certain corporations for taking one political position or another. Which is exactly what the Republicans (both in Georgia and nationally) are now advocating. As I said: just tied in knots.

OK, this is running long already, so we just have a few other random political notes to get through, then we'll move on to the awards.

President Biden unveiled his first budget request today, so go ahead and take a look and see what's in it. Presidential budgets never emerge from Congress unscathed, of course, but it's interesting to see his priorities (spoiler: Education Department gets the biggest boost).

Biden nominated a gun control advocate to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives this week, which was a welcome change (but he will now face a very tough confirmation fight in the Senate, of course).

Biden also rolled out his Supreme Court reform commission, which will have (!) 36 members on it. This could be a recipe for not getting much done, perhaps, but we'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

The Senate parliamentarian officially agreed that Chuck Schumer can use budget reconciliation for any number of bills, so instead of having only maybe one or two more bites at the reconciliation apple this year, Schumer now will have unlimited bites. This could be good news indeed, since it'll allow him to keep things separate rather than having to cram everything into one gigantic bill. Again, we'll see how it goes.

And finally, John Boehner has an amusing tell-all book out. Here are a few choice excerpts, to end on:

Trump incited that bloody insurrection for nothing more than selfish reasons, perpetuated by the b------- he'd been shoveling since he lost a fair election the previous November.

We're assuming that bowdlerization is for "bovine end product," but maybe not. Here's another one:

[W]hen I took the Speaker's gavel in 2011, two years into the Obama presidency, I became [Crazytown's] mayor. Crazytown was populated by jackasses, and media hounds, and some normal citizens as baffled as I was about how we got trapped inside the city walls. Every second of every day since Barack Obama became president I was fighting one bats--t idea after another.

Boehner saves his strongest language for one particular Republican, however:

There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless a**hole who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. Ladies and gentlemen, meet Senator Ted Cruz.

And the audio book is reportedly even worse!

We're not sure we've ever given out a joint award (pun intended) to such an odd couple before. Because this week's winners of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award are Chuck Schumer and Snoop Dogg. We'll just allow everyone a moment, to let that sink in.

Both are worthy of praise for working from very different directions on the same issue. And it will surprise precisely no one to hear that that issue is the legalization of marijuana.

First, Chuck Schumer. In an interview with Politico this week, Schumer spoke (unprompted) about his commitment to bringing a legalization bill to a vote in the Senate. Here is the exchange:

[Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer: In 2018, I was the first member of the Democratic leadership to come out in support of ending the federal prohibition. I'm sure you ask, "Well what changed?" Well, my thinking evolved. When a few of the early states -- Oregon and Colorado -- wanted to legalize, all the opponents talked about the parade of horribles: Crime would go up. Drug use would go up. Everything bad would happen.

 

Was there a specific moment or a specific experience that you can point to and say, "This is when I started to see this issue differently?"

A while back -- I can't remember the exact year -- I was in Denver. I just started talking to people, not just elected officials, but just average folks.

[They said] it benefited the state, and [didn't] hurt the state. There were tax revenues, but people had freedom to do what they wanted to do, as long as they weren't hurting other people. That's part of what America is about. And they were exultant in it.

 

What difference does the fact that the Senate is now controlled by Democrats make for legalization, and is 51 votes enough to pass the bill that you're about to propose?

Probably the most important power of the majority leader is the ability to put bills on the floor. And the fact that I am introducing a bill, and the fact that people will know that there will be a vote on this sooner or later -- that's the big difference.

Even when states were for this, if [then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch] McConnell wouldn't bring the bill up, their senators were never challenged: "How are you going to vote?" And they could say, "Well... I don't know." They don't have to say anything. And so the fact that every member will know once we introduce this legislation -- not only that it has my support, but that it will come to the floor for a vote -- is going to help move things forward in a very strong way.

Schumer went on to hope that Joe Biden will likewise evolve his thinking enough to support the effort, but warned even if that didn't happen, "at some point we're going to move forward, period" with a floor vote.

There was one other relevant exchange worth quoting:

You said during the 2020 election that McConnell's opposition to cannabis policy was the primary thing holding it up. But do you know of or believe there are other Republicans who do support removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act?

Yes. What we want to do is first introduce our comprehensive bill, and then start sitting down with people who are not for this in both parties, and A) try to educate them, B) see what their objections are, and if they have some modifications that don't interfere with the main thrust of the bill -- we'd certainly listen to some suggestions if that'll bring more people on board. That is not to say we're going to throw overboard things like expungement of records -- [things that are] very important to us -- just because some people don't like it.

Schumer then went on to hedge a bit on whether the bill will fully deschedule marijuana or not ("You'll have to wait and see") and refused to commit to bringing the bill to the floor in the next two weeks ("I'll stick to what I said: soon"), but even so it's a pretty strong indication that the Senate is no longer going to get to sit back and avoid going on the record.

Which brings us to Snoop Dogg. Who had a very interesting (and productive!) Zoom meeting recently:

What do you get when weed-loving rapper Snoop Dogg, right-wing billionaire Charles Koch and criminal justice reform advocate Weldon Angelos walk into a Zoom room?

The Cannabis Freedom Alliance, a new coalition launching Tuesday that could change the dynamics of the marijuana legalization debate, as first reported by Politico.

The organization includes Americans for Prosperity, the political advocacy group founded by the Koch brothers; the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank; marijuana trade organization the Global Alliance for Cannabis Commerce; and The Weldon Project, a nonprofit that advocates for the release of individuals incarcerated for marijuana offenses.

The movement for marijuana legalization has long been dominated by left-leaning organizations like the Drug Policy Alliance and the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. And despite a handful of congressional Republicans supporting the issue, most legalization proponents in Congress are Democrats.

"We can't cut with one scissor blade. We need Republicans in order to pass [a legalization bill]," said Angelos, founder of the Weldon Project. Angelos served 13 years of a 55-year sentence for marijuana trafficking charges, and got a full pardon from former President Donald Trump last December.

. . .

Angelos connected with the Koch network for its help in advocating for legalization at the federal level, which he believes is now more important than ever with Democrats in control of Congress. Prior to flipping the Senate, then-Majority Leader Mitch McConnell was a barrier to any marijuana legislation coming to the floor. But now with Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pushing the issue as a priority, a marijuana bill could very well come up for a vote.

"We need 10 to 12 Republican senators," Angelos said. "With Koch's influence, I think that's likely a possibility."

He's right. And he's also right about the help that someone like Charles Koch can bring to the effort. And with Snoop on board, it shouldn't be hard to see this as a true bipartisan effort.

Of course, we have no idea what the prospects for success are. But the fact that it even has a chance is a welcome change indeed. As well as the fact that there are already groups who realize that getting Republican support is going to be key.

All around, this bodes well. No guarantee of victory, but still, at least people are taking the effort seriously. And two of the biggest drivers behind this right now are none other than Snoop Dogg and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. Which is why we're giving them both the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award.

[Congratulate Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on his Senate contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts. Snoop Dogg is a private citizen, and our standing policy is not to provide contact information for such persons, but here is the Cannabis Freedom Alliance contact page, if you'd like to send a message to Snoop through them.]

We don't have an actual award for a Democrat this week. Oh, sure, Joe Manchin continues to flex his "you absolutely need my vote for anything" muscles, but that's pretty run-of-the-mill by now, so we're just largely ignoring it for now.

The truly disappointing thing that happened this week was political in nature, but not precisely partisan and there is no politician involved, so no award is even possible. But we were very disappointed to see the results of the efforts to Unionize an Amazon facility in the Deep South. The vote wasn't even close -- "no Union" beat "Unionize" by better than 2-to-1.

That's disappointing. But not entirely unexpected, considering the lengths Jeff Bezos and his company went to in their efforts to squash the Union effort. This was perhaps the highest profile Union effort in the past few years, which made the news even more disappointing (since if it had been successful, it might have inspired other Amazon facilities to follow in their footsteps).

But, as we said, no actual politicians were involved, so no award is possible. So we'll put the MDDOTW on the shelf until next week.

Volume 613 (4/9/21)

Before we begin, we must mark the passing of Representative Alcee Hastings. With his absence in the House, Nancy Pelosi will be down to a razor-thin majority for the next few months, until a number of special elections can be held to fill empty seats (some of which are empty because the Biden administration raised them up to higher jobs). So it may be a tense next few months in the House.

Here are this week's talking points, a rather mixed bunch. As always, use responsibly.

   The only reason why

We have to attribute this idea to seeing Rahm Emanuel last weekend on ABC's Sunday morning political chatfest show. Just to give credit where it is due, for framing it so perfectly.

"There is one reason and one reason alone why the Georgia Republicans passed a voter-suppression law right now. That reason is that Donald Trump lost Georgia. Does anyone really think the state would have moved so quickly and so drastically if Trump had actually won there? Because I don't. Take the example of Kentucky, to prove this. Trump won handily in Kentucky, and so did Mitch McConnell. And you know what their Republican legislature and their Democratic governor just did? They expanded voter access and made it easier for people to vote. You know why Republicans in Kentucky did this? Because they are still confident they can win elections there. In Georgia, that wasn't true -- so they had to try to rig the system before the next election. The motivation is so blatant and obvious, it's really impossible to deny."

   The other thing that Georgia law does

Republicans are usually all for this... until they're against it.

"You know how Republicans used to care about 'local control' of things? You know how they used to argue that the closer the government was to the actual people, the better it was? That state governments were better at deciding things for their citizens than Washington? And that local cities and towns were even better than the state governments? Well, that all goes straight out the window when they don't approve of those local decisions. One provision of the new Georgia law that most people haven't even noticed is that the law allows the Georgia legislature the power to appoint the State Election Board, who will now be able to remove local election boards and replace them with a person of their choosing. Imagine how the 2020 election might have played out in Georgia if all those inner-city election boards had been forcibly replaced right in the middle of counting the votes. This didn't used to be legally possible -- but now it is. And that should scare people, because it was put into the law for a reason."

   Brigade? Army?

They're just letting it all hang out in the breeze, now, it seems.

"A man identifying himself as a Republican county official in Texas was recently filmed urging the public to join in an 'election integrity brigade' as part of a 10,000-person 'army' of poll-watchers with the 'confidence and courage' to go to Black and Brown neighborhoods in Houston during an election, because 'this is where the fraud is occurring.' I mean, they're not even trying to hide their racism any more. Or even their threats of violence. I mean... brigade?... army?... with the courage to do what, exactly?"

   Don't never not uncheck this box!

Step right up, folks!

"It was revealed this week that Donald Trump's campaign apparatus successfully grifted a gigantic loan to itself from it's most digitally-unaware online donors. By adding a pre-checked box that turned a one-time donation into a monthly automatic recurring donation (and then, later, a weekly recurring donation), Trump fleeced his followers out of multiple tens of millions of dollars in the closing weeks of the presidential campaign. Tens of thousands of them protested and demanded their money back -- including plenty of people who really couldn't afford even the one-time donation they sent in. By just handing the money back after the election, Team Trump successfully got a loan of the money in the most critical election period. In fact, this was seen as such a success that the Republican Party is now getting in on the action, by warning their online donors that if they do actually uncheck the recurring donations box, they would, quote, have to tell Trump you're a DEFECTOR, unquote. P.T. Barnum was right. There's a sucker born every minute... and another one to take him."

   Haters gotta hate

The Washington Post ran an interesting article which had a massively extensive list of everything and everyone the Republican Party now hates. Their enemies list has grown considerably since the advent of Donald Trump, of course, but now it seems to be all they have left. Haters gotta hate, and all that. The conclusion (after that monster list) was worth repeating here:

Not only have Republicans jettisoned policy and governance for cultural memes, but they seem to have decided that what binds them together is a list -- a really, really long list -- of common enemies. It is hardly surprising that a party dedicated to reverting to a time when White males dominated every aspect of society resents or even detests much of the modern world. It's hard to miss what they mean when they declare they do not "recognize" America any longer.

Just about anything and anyone that reminds Republicans that much of society no longer shares their worldview and that they cannot rely on systematic advantages of race and gender to maintain power becomes their enemy. In turn, they cast themselves as the victims of all these "radical" people, forces, ideas and institutions. Hence, they retreat to a parallel media and political universe free from facts. (And many educated in elite universities who believe none of this hogwash have figured out how to gain fame and fortune pandering to those who do.)

   The world's tiniest violin

To quote the esteemed philosopher and ethicist Nelson Muntz: "Haw haw!"

"Seems that all the high-ranking ex-officials from Donald Trump's cabinet are having an awfully hard time getting the usual cushy sinecure 'jobs' (if you want to call them that) on corporate boards -- where they essentially go to a meeting once a year and vote the way someone tells them to in exchange for lavish salaries and perks -- because the Trump brand is so toxic to corporate bigwigs right now. What goes around comes around, eh? Please raise your hand, everyone who feels sorry that Elaine Chao now can't get a high-paying corporate board gig (or three)? No one? Yeah, I thought not."

   Gaetz-gate

We certainly can't claim we came up with that one, all the credit goes to Stephen Colbert.

"It's tough to keep up with all the developments in the ever-growing scandal surrounding Matt Gaetz. Just made public were some Venmo receipts showing how Gaetz paid off girls to have sex with him. It was also hinted that he took a few to the Bahamas, which would be a serious violation of federal law if true. It was also reported that his buddy who procured the women (and who Gaetz funnelled the money through) is about to cop a plea and flip on Gaetz. As the alleged procurer's lawyer put it: 'I am sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today.' It was also reported that Gaetz sought a blanket pre-emptive pardon at the end of Donald Trump's time in office, which would make a lot of sense, if true. Oh, and that he was one of only two people in the Florida legislature who voted against an anti-revenge-porn bill to make sharing intimate photos of ex-partners illegal without both parties' consent, because, as one of his fellow Republicans put it, Gaetz 'was absolutely against it. He thought than any picture was his to use as he wanted, as an expression of his rights.' The Republican Party as a whole -- except for one brave congressman who still apparently has some sort of conscience -- is silent. These are the same folks who were loudly calling on Andrew Cuomo to resign, just a few weeks ago, mind you. Now? Crickets. To show exactly what they think of Gaetz -- you really can't make this stuff up, folks -- he is going to give a speech at a prominent Republican gathering tonight to a group of Republican women. Hoo boy. Talk about your 'family values'!"

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground