Connect with us

Washington

Analysis | A shift in how Democrats talk about Biden’s dropping out

Published

on

Analysis | A shift in how Democrats talk about Biden’s dropping out


No elected Democrats (besides Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas) want to be the ones to tell President Biden that he should step aside after Thursday’s debate. Biden’s campaign insists it’s not even on the table.

“You’ve heard this in his own words,” spokeswoman Adrienne Elrod said Wednesday morning on MSNBC. “He is not considering [it].”

But increasingly, what top Democrats appear to be saying is: Maybe he should.

The shift in tone is subtle, but it’s telling. These Democrats have increasingly treated this as a real possibility in ways you avoid if the name of the game is to batten down the hatches and stand by your man. And this is not coming from pundits, editorial boards or backbenchers; it’s coming from party graybeards and potential leaders.

Advertisement

In the aftermath of Thursday’s debate performance from Biden, former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) defended him. “We see Joe Biden up close; we know how attuned he is to the issues, how informed he is,” she said Sunday on CNN. She added: “It was a bad night. Let’s move on from that.”

But on Tuesday, Pelosi called it a “legitimate question to say is [Biden’s debate performance] an episode or is this a condition” — saying the same of Donald Trump, for good measure — and suggested this was a conversation Democrats needed to have.

“This is not a normal election where you want to win — if you don’t, you cooperate and do the best you can for the country and hope to win the next time,” Pelosi said on MSNBC. “This is something that is undermining our democracy. [Trump] must be stopped. He cannot be president. Therefore, people are very concerned.”

Pelosi added: “It’s going to be up to Joe Biden to do what he thinks is — there’s no more patriotic person in our country than this president of the United States. Nobody less than the former president. But Joe Biden — and so I trust his judgment.”

Rep. James E. Clyburn (R-S.C.), who until recently served as the No. 3 House Democratic leader, went even further in entertaining the scenario.

“Now, Joe Biden may decide otherwise [and drop out],” Clyburn said on MSNBC. “But I think the people that I’ve been around the last three days are dug in, in their support for Joe Biden.”

Clyburn even added that, should Biden drop out, the party should go with Vice President Harris as its replacement.

“I will support her if he were to step aside,” Clyburn said, while emphasizing he wants a Biden-Harris ticket. He added: “No, this party should not, in any way, do anything to work around Miss Harris. We should do everything we can to bolster her, whether she’s in second place or at the top of the ticket.”

Advertisement

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D), one of those speculated on as a possible replacement, went on CNN on Tuesday night and also treated this as an open question.

“Well, Joe Biden is our nominee, and ultimately that decision on continuing or not will fall to him and his family,” Beshear said. “But I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with asking the president to talk to the American people a little bit more about his health or that debate performance.”

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D), another talked-about presidential contender, also seemed to choose his words carefully Tuesday night on CNN.

“Look, right now, Joe Biden is our nominee,” Pritzker said. “And I’m 100 percent on board with supporting him as our nominee, unless he makes some other decision. And then I think we’re all going to be discussing what’s the best way forward.”

Pritzker even entertained alternatives like Harris, asserting that they could have broad appeal.

Advertisement

“I know there are people in the party that want people to just be quiet,” he said. “But the truth is I think people need to express themselves. We’re a party that accepts that. And I’m pleased about that. And then, we’ll come to a conclusion here. Joe Biden will come to a conclusion about it.”

He added: “Right now, unless he makes some other decision, discussing what’s the best way forward, Joe Biden will come to a conclusion about it.”

These are not the kinds of things you say if this isn’t something you want Biden to at least think about. And they are a marked contrast to the Biden campaign’s line that this just isn’t a consideration at all.

These Democrats are careful to caveat their comments by citing Trump and saying they stand by and support Biden if he stays. But these experienced politicians know those comments will only feed questions about whether Biden can or should continue. You don’t entertain those questions unless you think it’s a vital conversation, because the conversation itself could damage Biden by elevating these concerns.

At least for now, they’re keeping that conversation going. And the Biden campaign’s efforts to tamp it down aren’t working.

Advertisement





Source link

Washington

Love Actually? Washington’s current relationship with Britain is more like Contempt Actually | Timothy Garton Ash

Published

on

Love Actually? Washington’s current relationship with Britain is more like Contempt Actually | Timothy Garton Ash


“A friend who bullies us is no longer a friend. And since bullies only respond to strength, from now onward, I will be prepared to be much stronger. And the president should be prepared for that.” Thus spoke Hugh Grant, playing the British prime minister confronting the US president in a famous scene in the romcom Love Actually. Real-life British prime minister Keir Starmer has attempted to stand up ever so slightly to the current bully in the White House over the latest US war in the Middle East. Despite the British government’s right-royal efforts to flatter Donald Trump ever since he was elected US president, his response to Starmer’s little attempt has been a torrent of contempt. So the reality is not Love Actually. It’s Contempt Actually.

Asked about the British government’s subtle distinction between defensive strikes in the Gulf, which it now supports, and offensive ones, which it doesn’t, Maga ideologue Steve Bannon tells the New Statesman’s Freddie Hayward: “That’s diplomatic bullshit. Fuck you. You’re either an ally or you’re not. Fuck you. The special relationship is over.” Ah, the “special relationship”! It must be 40 years since I first heard former West German chancellor Helmut Schmidt say: “The special relationship is so special only one side knows it exists.”

An American critic of Trump recently asked me the obvious follow-up question: “Why does your government keep grovelling?” More fundamentally, we must ask why so much of official Britain, and especially its security establishment, keeps clinging for dear life to the United States, behaving for all the world like someone stuck in an abusive personal relationship.

To be fair, a lot of other European leaders have spent much of the past year sacrificing their dignity as they suck up to Trump, condoning his trashing of everything that liberal Europe has stood for since 1945. Mark Rutte, the secretary general of Nato, would beat Starmer to win Private Eye’s premier satirical medal, the OBN (Order of the Brown Nose). The reasons for this sycophancy are obvious: Europe’s dependence on the US for supporting Ukraine, for our own security in Nato and, to a significant degree, for our prosperity. But there’s a particular, rather pathetic desperation about the way the British cling to Uncle Sam.

Advertisement

The explanation? History, of course. The US founding fathers grew up thinking of themselves as Englishmen. From 1776 to 1917, when the US entered the first world war, this was, as the historian Robert Saunders nicely puts it, not so much a special as a peculiar relationship. The US defined itself historically against Britain, but there was a mutual fascination. Following the brief but important military alliance in 1917-18, and the subsequent peacemaking in Paris, the US withdrew from Europe.

A special relationship really did exist between 1941, when Winston Churchill managed – with a little help from the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor – to bring the US into the war against Adolf Hitler, and 1956, when the US humiliatingly stopped Britain and France from retaking the Suez canal. The UK and the US were not equals, but this was still a real power partnership, jointly shaping Europe, if not the world.

Trump v Starmer: will the special relationship survive? – The Latest

France and Britain drew sharply contrasting conclusions from their humiliation over Suez. France, under president Charles de Gaulle, built its own independent nuclear deterrent and had already identified the goal that the current French president, Emmanuel Macron, calls European strategic autonomy. Britain, after a brief period of angry alienation from Washington, doubled down on prioritising its relationship with the US. If we could no longer be a great power ourselves, we would be “Athens to America’s Rome”.

Unlike France, Britain built a nuclear deterrent that was and remains technologically dependent on the US, and always put Nato before European construction. In many ways, the British-American relationship did get closer: in intelligence and military cooperation, in academia and media, in finance and the economy (today the UK is the top destination of US direct investment, just ahead of the Netherlands). But at the same time, Britain’s political influence in Washington was steadily diminishing. It clung to it all the more.

Advertisement

The late British Labour politician Robin Cook reported in his memoirs how, in a crucial cabinet debate in the run-up to the Iraq war, then prime minister Tony Blair said: “I tell you that we must steer close to America. If we don’t, we will lose our influence to shape what they do.” But how much influence was there really?

Today, Blair’s former chief of staff Jonathan Powell sits at Starmer’s right hand in 10 Downing Street, trying to do the same with the Trumpians. “We have those relationships so we can have those difficult conversations,” says an anonymous Whitehall source. But the conversations are not difficult for Washington. They are for London, because it has so little clout left.

This trend has been exacerbated by two other developments. The first is the decline of Britain’s armed forces. American soldiers who spent years fighting alongside the British now tell me, with something more like pity than contempt: “You barely have an army any more.” In the current conflict, France got a naval ship to Cyprus before Britain did, although it was a British military base on Cyprus that was attacked by Iran. This weakness, too, finds its echo in popular culture. In the latest season of the Netflix political soap The Diplomat, the saturnine US vice-president (brilliantly played by Rufus Sewell) riffs off the children’s book The Little Engine That Could to describe Britain as “the little island that couldn’t”. Ouch.

The second is Brexit. It’s just blindingly obvious that the UK is less important to the US than it used to be because it’s no longer part of a larger bloc. In Blair’s time, for all the long-term waning of influence, Britain still had two relatively strong legs: the transatlantic one and, as a member of the EU, the European one. In 2016, in what we can today see even more clearly was an act of monumental stupidity, Britain chose to cut off its own European leg. Now Trump is cutting the American one.

Here’s the other reason for Britain’s peculiar, rather pathetic desperation. Unlike France or Germany, it doesn’t have another leg to stand on.

Advertisement

For anyone who loves this country, it’s painful to see how it has reduced itself to being an object of contempt – or at best, pity. Fortunately, there is a path back to self-respect and being respected. While keeping the best possible relations with the US, Britain can set a strategic course towards being a core part of a stronger Europe. This means helping to build up European defence, especially through the Europeanisation of Nato, and it means – as London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, has just usefully suggested – rejoining the EU. How this could be done, in a timeframe of five to 10 years, and whether it will be possible politically, on both sides of the Channel, are subjects for further columns. Watch this space.



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Polymarket opening ‘Situation Room’ pop-up bar in DC. See when.

Published

on

Polymarket opening ‘Situation Room’ pop-up bar in DC. See when.


play

Prediction betting market platform Polymarket is opening a “Situation Room” pop-up bar in the nation’s capital that will be “dedicated to monitoring the situation.”

The company announced its latest business endeavor in an X post on Wednesday, March 18.

Advertisement

“Imagine a sports bar… but just for situation monitoring — live X feeds, flight radar, Bloomberg terminals, and Polymarket screens,” the company’s statement said.

The bar opens to the public in Washington, DC, on Friday, March 20, and will operate until Sunday, March 22. The Situation Room will open on 8 p.m. on March 20 and at 11 a.m. on March 21-22, according to Polymarket. The company did not specify how long the bar will remain open; however, Proper 21 K Street, where the pop-up is taking place, closes at 12 a.m. ET Monday-Sunday, according to its website.

Last month, Polymarket opened a free supermarket in New York City to promote free markets. Polymarket donated $1 million to Food Bank For NYC as part of its endeavor.

“Free groceries. Free markets. Built for the people who power New York,” the company said in an announcement.

Advertisement

What is Polymarket?

Polymarket allows users to bet on the outcomes of real-world events, everything from who will win the Academy Award for best actress to when the United States will confirm the existence of aliens.

Top trending bets on the platform on Friday, March 20, included whether the United States would invade Cuba in 2026 and who the 2028 Republican presidential nominee would be, among others.

Betting platform under scrutiny over ‘Situation Room’ name, more

Polymarket has come under intense scrutiny since its launch in 2020. In January, the Nevada Gaming Control Board filed a civil enforcement action against the company. In the complaint, the Board asked the court for a declaration and injunction to stop Polymarket from offering unlicensed wagering in violation of Nevada law.

Advertisement

However, Nevada isn’t the only entity trying to take the platform to court. Brett Bruen, the chief executive of the Global Situation Room, a public affairs agency, called the company out on X for allegedly using the organization’s trademarked name.

“We have @GlobalSitRoom & related terms trademarked (checks notes) …for tracking situations around the globe,” Bruen wrote. “Flattered, really – it’s a great name. But, no, you can’t use it. Yes, my lawyers will be in touch.”

Global Situation Room also sent a cease and desist letter to Polymarket, alleging that the company’s use of the “Situation Room” name gives a false impression that Global Situation Room is “somehow connected or associated with Polymarket’s services,” CNBC reported, citing a letter from the public relations agency.

“Indeed, there are obvious overlaps in the uses of GLOBAL SITUATION ROOM and THE SITUATION ROOM such as both marks include ‘SITUATION ROOM’ and allow consumers to monitor and act on global affairs,” the letter, written by Shane Delsman, an attorney at Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based law firm Godfrey & Kahn, reads. “In fact, the marks are so similar, Global Situation Room has already witnessed actual confusion in the form of press requests to comment on the opening of the new THE SITUATION ROOM bar.”

USA TODAY reached out to Polymarket for comment on March 20.

Advertisement

Michelle Del Rey is a trending news reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at mdelrey@usatoday.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Washington

Devils Head to Nation’s Capital | PREVIEW | New Jersey Devils

Published

on

Devils Head to Nation’s Capital | PREVIEW | New Jersey Devils


THE SCOOP

The Devils opened their five-game road trip with a 6-3 victory at New York’s Madison Square Garden on Wednesday night. New Jersey’s faces Washington on the second leg that includes stops in Dallas, Nashville and Carolina.

New Jersey is now 7-2-0 in its past nine games. The Devils are enjoying an offensive explosion of late. During their past nine games, New Jersey has totaled 4.11 goals per game. And they’ve scored 10 power-play goals on 24 opportunities (42%).  

The Caps head into the back half of their season-long four-game homestand on Friday night when the New Jersey Devils make their second visit of the season to DC. Washington has earned at least a point in each of the first two games of the homestand, taking a 3-2 shootout loss to the Bruins last weekend before beating the Senators by a 4-1 count on Wednesday.

Wednesday’s win still leaves the Caps with less than a 10-percent chance of slinking their way into the Stanley Cup playoffs. With just 13 games remaining on the season, the Caps will likely need to win at least nine – and likely 10 or 11 – of those games to have a viable chance of getting in.

Advertisement

Rookie Cole Hutson, who made his NHL debut Wednesday night, also picked up his first career NHL goal with an empty-netter. Hutson was a second-round pick (43rd overall) in 2024.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending