Skip to main content

Could His Fellow Senators Be A Bit Tired of Joe?

As if Joe hadn't already (only-half-jokingly) complained about what increasingly looks like his bit player role in the Obama administration....("Since the race is over, no one pays attention to me at all.")

Now
this...


"The new Congress will reassert its constitutional independence from the White House by barring the vice president from joining in internal Senate deliberations, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in an interview with The [Las Vegas] Sun.

The move is intended to restore checks and balances to a system that tilted heavily toward the White House in the Bush presidency.

By giving Vice President Dick Cheney regular access to Senate Republican caucuses, at times with White House advisers in tow, party unity became more important to many Republicans than upholding their responsibilities to provide legislative oversight of the executive, experts say.

Asked if Vice-President Joe Biden will be allowed to attend Senate Democratic caucus meetings, Reid said: 'Absolutely not.'

So much for senatorial courtesy...

I do applaud Reid for his purported 'restore checks and balances' assertion, but let's be real -- I suspect they don't want Joe Biden interfering, especially now that he will be looking for ways to stay relevant...or at least stay in the media spotlight.

To his credit Biden is certainly no Dick Cheney. But then Biden will never possess much less wield anything resembling the power Cheney did. That Harry Reid seems to think so is rather laughable.

Bottom line : Joe's no longer in the club and he will have to get used to being constantly on the sidelines. Perhaps Biden may come to regret leaving the Senate. But I doubt it.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Maybe I'm just stating an obvious point, but isn't this pretty much how it's supposed to be? It seems to me that this is just an effort to correct an inconsistency in how the government was running, rather than a slight on Biden.
Anonymous said…
Hmmmm, Joe. A Democratic Senator is elected Vice-President and the first thing his own party's Senate leader says is that he will "absolutely not" be permitted in caucus.

I think this rather stark public statement is as much about Biden as it is about separation of powers. I am not saying it's a slight, just a tacit statement that they don't want Biden meddling - which I gather they believe would be the case.
Anonymous said…
I seriously doubt that this is the first thing Reid has said about Biden's election!

I agree that he is being firm in his conviction, but I don't think it's for the reason that you state. I would think it's because the Dems want to make certain that they will not carry on the Rs new tradition, whether the Veep is Biden or not.

Good on 'em! I don't want Biden in there either, whether he plans on meddling or not.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...