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.
December 7, 2008 at 8:30 AM
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.
December 7, 2008 at 5:03 PM
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.
December 8, 2008 at 5:43 PM
Post a Comment

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 — ...
44 comments
Read more

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...
22 comments
Read more

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...
31 comments
Read more