“If Americans send me a Congress that supports the right to choose, I promise you: I will restore Roe v. Wade as the law of the land again,” the president said, with Supreme Court justices in attendance for this address to Congress.
That isn’t the same thing as what I said. Biden is taking a passive position of support. In the same way that the administration might write a budget, Biden’s office can propose legislation they would like taken up. He could work with house members to do so tomorrow. He can make this a priority of the administration.
The key difference I’m seeing that you dont is that passive support isn’t equivalent to actively fighting for something. I’m making a commitment that if Biden takes this on as a “active fight”, in contrast to something they “passively support”, I will to.
As far as I know, working with the house to get a bill to encodify a right to an abortion is not a campaign promise Biden has made. He’s offered passive support that if someone else does the work, he would support it. These two things are not equivalent.
The house did pass a bill codifying Roe v Wade with Biden’s support during his first two years when dems still controlled the house. Biden tried to get the senate to overturn the filibuster to get the bill through. The first president to support overturning the filibuster for something in over 100 years to the best of my knowledge (I think Wilson was the last one to make an attack on the filibuster, but that was just to get it to our present day rules from an even worse version). And I already linked many active ways his administration has supported abortion rights and reproductive rights more generally throughout the first term. Sorry but I don’t think there’s any point in continuing the discussion any longer, because I think your mind is made up and no matter what I point out the goal posts will be shifted again.
Ok, point made. I owe you ten. I’d still like to see Biden “actively supporting”/ “actively promoting” the a woman right to choose in his 2024 campaign language, but if he’s working to push both the American people and congress to do so, that is specifically what I asked for.
Thank you, and to be clear I totally agree with you, this needs to be shouted from the rooftops as a central part of his and many other democrats campaign
Holy crap you’re awesome! A president supportive of abortion rights isn’t a guarantee of getting something through, but it’s definitely a whole lot easier than trying to get something through with a president that doesn’t support them.
Well its like I said. I need Biden to advocate for them, not to be supportive of them.
Its a fundamental and important difference. I really think Biden could win if he makes this the “issue of the election” and uses it to distinguish himself from Trump. Passively saying “Well if the American people want it enough, I’ll support it” isn’t good enough. He needs to advocate for it; to get onto TV and media and present people with why this is such an important issue and why it should be the case.
He doesn’t get anything ‘passively supporting’ the issue.
I think that’s a misreading of one statement, I think in context he’s communicating, the president cannot pass laws. He’s done everything he can within the powers of the executive branch to support reproductive rights. Without a congress that is willing to pass a law he can sign (including senators willing to overturn the filibuster), there is not much more he can do at this point.
I guess you could say maybe he could veto all legislation unless they pass something codifying Roe v Wade? But I think that would backfire, as people begin suffering from massive government shutdowns and a few people just splinter to start voting with Republicans to over ride the vetos and effectively the Republicans are in control now and Roe v Wade still isn’t codified.
In the end Biden is right, at least with this form of government and this Supreme Court, a pro choice president isn’t enough no matter how ferverent (though I would argue Biden has been the most ardent pro choice president there’s ever been). We need a pro choice congress too, and senators with the courage to scrap the filibuster to protect a fundamental right and pass a law. Or a congress that is willing to pass a bill to expand the supreme court. It’s just not something the president can do on his/her own.
He’s done everything he can within the powers of the executive branch to support reproductive rights.
Like, I just don’t agree with that. I have to push back there because I do think Biden has a job to do that he isn’t doing here.
The role of president or any political leader is always more than to just be reactive to what the other branches of government do.
Their role is to lead and to provide guidance, not for what congress wants, but for what they the president believe the right thing to do is.
Obviously a president can’t pass laws unilaterally; that was never suggested. But look at how presidents who have been effective at getting an agenda passed have done the work. They get out there and they make the case to the American people for a given thing. Their job is rhetorical. They have to make and sell the case, and convince the American public to support a thing. Its a matter of who is operating on who. Is the president being operated on by forces or is the president operating on those forces?
Examples of this being done effectively:
Roosevelt (FDR): During the Great Depression, FDR used “Fireside Chats” to speak directly to the American people, what the impact of the economic measures he wanted to take would be. His first Fireside Chat in 1933, he detailed why a “bank holiday” was necessary to prevent a banking crisis, helping the public understand and support the government’s intervention.
Eisenhower: Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System. He signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956… Eisenhower promoted this project as essential for US security. He used the cold theCold War and the need for efficient military transport to gain public and congressional support. He didn’t have support begin with. He had to use rhetoric to draw people to this cause.
Obama: Obama’s efforts to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 serve as a prime example of presidential advocacy. He frequently addressed the public and Congress, explaining the benefits of the ACA. He used speeches, press conferences, and town hall meetings to directly engage directly with peoples’ concerns. He used media coverage of these events to promote the ACA. I mean the guy practically went door to door to get the thing passed and he made a show of it. And it worked.
So there are plenty of ways to fry a catfish here, but the point that I’m highlighting is that it shows a lack of leadership when you supposedly ‘support’ a policy, but wont get out there and do the on-the-ground work of advocating for that policy to get it passed.
I’ve never seen Biden use the bully pulpit, but its precisely the role of the President to do so. And its not Congress he needs to be working on, its the American people. You move the people and you move congress.
That isn’t the same thing as what I said. Biden is taking a passive position of support. In the same way that the administration might write a budget, Biden’s office can propose legislation they would like taken up. He could work with house members to do so tomorrow. He can make this a priority of the administration.
The key difference I’m seeing that you dont is that passive support isn’t equivalent to actively fighting for something. I’m making a commitment that if Biden takes this on as a “active fight”, in contrast to something they “passively support”, I will to.
As far as I know, working with the house to get a bill to encodify a right to an abortion is not a campaign promise Biden has made. He’s offered passive support that if someone else does the work, he would support it. These two things are not equivalent.
The house did pass a bill codifying Roe v Wade with Biden’s support during his first two years when dems still controlled the house. Biden tried to get the senate to overturn the filibuster to get the bill through. The first president to support overturning the filibuster for something in over 100 years to the best of my knowledge (I think Wilson was the last one to make an attack on the filibuster, but that was just to get it to our present day rules from an even worse version). And I already linked many active ways his administration has supported abortion rights and reproductive rights more generally throughout the first term. Sorry but I don’t think there’s any point in continuing the discussion any longer, because I think your mind is made up and no matter what I point out the goal posts will be shifted again.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-says-he-supports-exception-to-filibuster-to-codify-roe-v-wade-into-law-11656596123
Ok, point made. I owe you ten. I’d still like to see Biden “actively supporting”/ “actively promoting” the a woman right to choose in his 2024 campaign language, but if he’s working to push both the American people and congress to do so, that is specifically what I asked for.
Thank you, and to be clear I totally agree with you, this needs to be shouted from the rooftops as a central part of his and many other democrats campaign
Well I’ve already got two commits from NC to get registered and vote.
Holy crap you’re awesome! A president supportive of abortion rights isn’t a guarantee of getting something through, but it’s definitely a whole lot easier than trying to get something through with a president that doesn’t support them.
Well its like I said. I need Biden to advocate for them, not to be supportive of them.
Its a fundamental and important difference. I really think Biden could win if he makes this the “issue of the election” and uses it to distinguish himself from Trump. Passively saying “Well if the American people want it enough, I’ll support it” isn’t good enough. He needs to advocate for it; to get onto TV and media and present people with why this is such an important issue and why it should be the case.
He doesn’t get anything ‘passively supporting’ the issue.
I think that’s a misreading of one statement, I think in context he’s communicating, the president cannot pass laws. He’s done everything he can within the powers of the executive branch to support reproductive rights. Without a congress that is willing to pass a law he can sign (including senators willing to overturn the filibuster), there is not much more he can do at this point.
I guess you could say maybe he could veto all legislation unless they pass something codifying Roe v Wade? But I think that would backfire, as people begin suffering from massive government shutdowns and a few people just splinter to start voting with Republicans to over ride the vetos and effectively the Republicans are in control now and Roe v Wade still isn’t codified.
In the end Biden is right, at least with this form of government and this Supreme Court, a pro choice president isn’t enough no matter how ferverent (though I would argue Biden has been the most ardent pro choice president there’s ever been). We need a pro choice congress too, and senators with the courage to scrap the filibuster to protect a fundamental right and pass a law. Or a congress that is willing to pass a bill to expand the supreme court. It’s just not something the president can do on his/her own.
Like, I just don’t agree with that. I have to push back there because I do think Biden has a job to do that he isn’t doing here.
The role of president or any political leader is always more than to just be reactive to what the other branches of government do.
Their role is to lead and to provide guidance, not for what congress wants, but for what they the president believe the right thing to do is.
Obviously a president can’t pass laws unilaterally; that was never suggested. But look at how presidents who have been effective at getting an agenda passed have done the work. They get out there and they make the case to the American people for a given thing. Their job is rhetorical. They have to make and sell the case, and convince the American public to support a thing. Its a matter of who is operating on who. Is the president being operated on by forces or is the president operating on those forces?
Examples of this being done effectively:
Roosevelt (FDR): During the Great Depression, FDR used “Fireside Chats” to speak directly to the American people, what the impact of the economic measures he wanted to take would be. His first Fireside Chat in 1933, he detailed why a “bank holiday” was necessary to prevent a banking crisis, helping the public understand and support the government’s intervention.
Eisenhower: Eisenhower and the Interstate Highway System. He signed the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956… Eisenhower promoted this project as essential for US security. He used the cold theCold War and the need for efficient military transport to gain public and congressional support. He didn’t have support begin with. He had to use rhetoric to draw people to this cause.
Obama: Obama’s efforts to pass the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 serve as a prime example of presidential advocacy. He frequently addressed the public and Congress, explaining the benefits of the ACA. He used speeches, press conferences, and town hall meetings to directly engage directly with peoples’ concerns. He used media coverage of these events to promote the ACA. I mean the guy practically went door to door to get the thing passed and he made a show of it. And it worked.
So there are plenty of ways to fry a catfish here, but the point that I’m highlighting is that it shows a lack of leadership when you supposedly ‘support’ a policy, but wont get out there and do the on-the-ground work of advocating for that policy to get it passed.
I’ve never seen Biden use the bully pulpit, but its precisely the role of the President to do so. And its not Congress he needs to be working on, its the American people. You move the people and you move congress.