WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Did Joe Biden undercut Harry Reid?

Ever since the fiscal-cliff budget deal emerged from those negotiations between Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, a narrative has been evolving among some liberals / progressives:

That the Dems could've gotten a BETTER deal (from the liberal / progressive point-of-view) had Joe Biden stayed OUT of the process.

Or put in another way, McConnell could dis Senate Majority leader Harry Reid because the Vice President was available (with President Obama's acquiescence). If McConnell could not pursue that alternative channel, he'd have to deal with Reid.

Of course, another outcome might have occurred: We'd be that much further off the fiscal cliff, and Wall Street would have indeed dived off the cliff in the New Year.

Anyway, here's a NEW REPUBLIC analysis suggesting how the Vice President's role undercut Harry Reid's game plan...


Posted at 8:20am on January 9, 2013 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 8:39am

But then, when dealing with Congress, sometimes things are not as simple as they originally seem....

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 10:36am
One theory might be that Obama is not as far left as the progressives in his party, and he intentionally sent Biden there to have a more centrist deal that could be sold to Republicans and the public at large. Maybe Obama did not want a far-left, progressive package and therefore sent Biden to accomplish this goal.

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 5:44pm
Doing nothing would have caused a recession: The CBO estimated that a 5% drop in GDP would occur, once the taxes erased by Bush kicked back in. Since we are up 2% now, that drop would have been sustainable economically, (we'd be under by 3%), it would not be sustainable politically.

We forget in our political battles, that the president's prime job is create opportunities for us to promote our own general welfare. Because of the hit to the economy, letting the cuts simply expire, then reinstating those below $250,000, did not do that....

When seen in view of decreasing the deficit, this compromise bill could have done much more. But when seen from the viewpoint of political ramifications, and that is exactly how both Democrats and Republicans both saw it, this compromise bill was a must for both parties....

I subscribe to the theory that the reason our Congress is so dysfunctional, is because of Tea Party Republicans won't deal. They are nuts. The bill needed to pass the House in such a way that enough Republicans would side with the Dems to make it happen.

Mitch McConnell was the key. With his reputation of being a skilled negotiator, if it were viewed that he was dealing with the President directly, and that he won a number of concessions so that moderate Republicans were comfortable to vote for it, when the House froze, the Senate bill could be put to vote at the last hour, and enough Republicans would only then, cross over to make it happen.

Mitch very much needed this win or appearance of one, because he is supposedly up against Ashley Judd this next race. Celebrities just have to show up to win elections, especially in rural Southern thinking states, where the population could care less who their representatives are. So he is worried.

In thanks, he let Harry Reid, push through all Obama's appointees before the end of the year...

One has to wonder, if Obama is really that smart, and puts all these pieces together exactly right like in a string of dominoes, since if any other way they'd fail it would fizz out, or if God, Himself, is looking over his shoulder, and is moving the pieces for him... Either way, we are blest that miracles transpire.

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 7:07pm
Well, everything Joe Biden sticks his nose into gets a lot of snot blown on it. Always has, always will.

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 8:59pm
...did Harry Reid undercut Obama?


Video: Secret gun-rights provision in ObamaCare?
posted at 8:01 am on January 9, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

By golly, Nancy Pelosi was right — they didn’t know what was in ObamaCare until it passed! Of course, in this case all she needed to do was ask her buddy Harry Reid, who apparently sandbagged his party’s gun-control wing by inserting an interesting clause in the 2800-page bill that no one in Congress bothered to read before voting on it. CNN’s Jim Acosta reveals the restriction on firearms-registration data collection built into the 2010 law:

The reason Reid inserted this clause was to make the NRA “benign” in the ObamaCare fight — and to push back against “conspiracy theorists” who claimed that the bill would allow Barack Obama to start grabbing guns.

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 9:23pm
Well, if that ain't of the devil then I don't know what is!

Wed, Jan 9, 2013 9:54pm
mrpizza: I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Senate amendment 3276, Sec 2716, part c was placed into the Obamacare legislation as a means to appease lobby groups such as the NRA from fighting against passage of national healthcare. Four years after its passage, this little rider in the 2800 page bill could hinder the President in what actions he can impose, or summarily enact, should he choose to follow Vice-President Biden's suggestion of issuing an Executive Order on gun control.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Jan 9, 2013 11:13pm
If I understand what is being said, it sounds like Obama has done the gun/rifle owners of America a big favor. Of course you'll never hear that on Rush/Beck/Hannity/Jensen. But it sure sounds like Obama has compromised with the gun lobby so our 2nd amendment rights to own a gun/rifle is preserved as a part of Obamacare if they went along with Obamacare.

Not bad for an "evil liberal" who wants to destroy America.

Thu, Jan 10, 2013 12:04am
Good. Time now for him to compromise with Republicans on spending. The debt ceiling should be lowered, not raised.

As for gun control, it'll never work until we first have criminal control. They could start by getting rid of the ACLU.

Thu, Jan 10, 2013 3:49am
Don't get too excited. That legislation means doctors cannot disclose gun ownership under HIPAA regulations, just like they can't discuss other private medical conditions. It limits the law's jurisdiction to just those entities in the medical field, presided by the Secretary of Health.

Which means: the Justice department can still keep a record, the FBI can still keep a record, and the NSA can still keep a record of who, and who does not, have guns in their house....

However, medical officers cannot.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Jan 10, 2013 9:01am
Kavips: Thanks for the clarification.

Thu, Jan 10, 2013 9:14am
kavips...do you know if HIPAA covers the mental health records too?

Thu, Jan 10, 2013 2:23pm
Yes, HIPAA covers mental health as well.

Thu, Jan 10, 2013 3:02pm
...isn't that counter-productive then?

Thanks to HIPAA and HIPPA neither the Newton nor Colorado killers were stopped! Rather than protecting law-abiding citizens and our precious children, our laws are protecting the mentally-disturbed murderers.

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach