Friday Talking Points -- Jim Crow For The 21st Century

[ChrisWeigant]

[Program Note: Yesterday, my ISP had massive problems with the server that my website actually lives on. So all day, all you could get was "403 -- Forbidden." As you can see, it has now been fixed and is up and running once again. I just wanted to let everyone know that: (1) the problem was external and beyond my control, and (2) no, I wasn't "forbidding" anyone from accessing the site. As usual, I apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks to everyone for their patience.]

We're going to start off in a rather inane fashion today, by noting that we were slightly confused at one point during President Joe Biden's first formal press conference yesterday. Biden was speaking about the alarming movement in over 85 percent of the states to curtail voting rights. But he tried to introduce a new term or metaphor and we have to admit we're still not sure what he really meant. Here's what Biden said about the voter-suppression efforts: "This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle." Which begs the question: is "Jim Eagle" a good thing or a bad thing?

Perhaps we're being overly pedantic (certainly a possibility), but when we first heard it, we thought Biden just tangled his metaphor a bit. Usually in the construction of "makes X look like Y" comparisons, the Y is something tame and harmless, like: "a walk in the park," or: "a picnic." So we thought maybe Biden should have said something like: "What's happening now is like Jim Eagle -- Jim Crow's bigger and meaner cousin." After all, Biden followed that line with: "I mean, this is gigantic what they're trying to do, and it cannot be sustained." But that's all assuming "Jim Eagle" is a bad thing. But perhaps instead of "bigger and deadlier," Biden really meant some sort of reference to a noble and patriotic image, the bald eagle? In that case "Jim Eagle" would be a good thing, perhaps the nemesis of Jim Crow? You can see why we're confused. (Last week, this column suggested using "Jim Crow 2.0," since we're firm believers in political slogans being adopted faster when they rhyme.)

And we have to admit: isn't it nice to be able to split hairs about what a president said to the press without being disgusted by his language or demeanor? This, America, is the boredom you voted for -- and we certainly welcome the change.

Of course this is all pretty silly, since what's crystal-clear is that Biden is so obviously against all of the new Jim Crow measures. After Biden concluded his press conference, the state of Georgia passed (and the governor signed) a sweeping rollback of voting accessibility designed to disenfranchise as many possible Democratic voters as they thought they could get away with. Biden put out a statement today denouncing the changes, in which he introduced a better Jim Crowism:

Yet instead of celebrating the rights of all Georgians to vote or winning campaigns on the merits of their ideas, Republicans in the state instead rushed through an un-American law to deny people the right to vote. This law, like so many others being pursued by Republicans in statehouses across the country is a blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience. Among the outrageous parts of this new state law, it ends voting hours early so working people can't cast their vote after their shift is over. It adds rigid restrictions on casting absentee ballots that will effectively deny the right to vote to countless voters. And it makes it a crime to provide water to voters while they wait in line -- lines Republican officials themselves have created by reducing the number of polling sites across the state, disproportionately in Black neighborhoods.

This is Jim Crow in the 21st Century. It must end. We have a moral and Constitutional obligation to act. I once again urge Congress to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act to make it easier for all eligible Americans [to] access the ballot box and prevent attacks on the sacred right to vote.

Biden made news during the press conference by cracking the door open to supporting the elimination of the filibuster, and his strongest statement came when he was talking about passing these voting rights measures. After expressing his support for going back to the Mr. Smith Goes To Washington talking filibuster (which, Biden waggishly pointed out, was in place when he "came to the Senate 120 years ago" ), Biden warned he might also be open to bigger changes when it came to voting rights legislation:

So I strongly support moving in that direction [talking filibuster], in addition to having an open mind about dealing with certain things that are just elemental to the functioning of our democracy, like the right to vote -- like the basic right to vote. We've amended the filibuster in the past.

. . .

I -- we're going to get a lot done. And if we have to -- if there's complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster, then we'll have to go beyond what I'm talking about.

This last bit was a subtle theme that ran throughout the press conference, that the inside-the-Beltway political press has largely missed. Biden sold himself as a pragmatist. A realist. And that is indeed an enormous political draw to a large part of the country. While pundits tie themselves in knots over the arcane nature of parliamentary procedure and the eternal elections horserace, the average voter just turns away in disgust. What they want to see, at the end of the day, is that something got done. And that's exactly what Biden swears he's going to make the focal point of his presidency.

He returned to this subject numerous times, in fact:

I got elected to solve problems.

I've been hired to solve problems -- to solve problems, not create division.

But here's the deal: As you observed, I'm a fairly practical guy. I want to get things done. I want to get them done, consistent with what we promised the American people.

Successful electoral politics is the art of the possible. Let's figure out how we can get this done.

I mean, look, this is -- the way I view things -- I've become a great respecter of fate in my life. I set a goal that's in front of me to get things done for the people I care most about, which are hardworking, decent American people who are getting -- really having it stuck to them.

All of this made us wonder whether Biden will be able to pull off a rather remarkable feat. Unlike Donald Trump, Joe Biden authentically does know what middle-class families go through in life. And so far he's been doing a pretty good job of communicating that consistently and directly to the American people. There's a reason why Biden's job approval rating is higher than Trump's ever was right now -- a lot of people who didn't vote for him are giving him the benefit of the doubt. Biden delivered on the COVID-19 relief bill, vaccinations are accelerating, schools are reopening, and $1,400 checks are arriving. And as Biden announced during the press conference, his next big agenda item will be to pass a massive infrastructure bill. These used to get bipartisan support in Congress (because it's hard to be against such a job-creating bill), but Republicans might withhold their support out of spite. In which case, it certainly sounds like Biden won't have any problem passing it the same way he passed the pandemic relief -- with only Democratic support. Because Biden rightly knows that the American public is only really going to care whether it happens or not -- they could care less how it happens. Biden knows this to his core, but the pundits (who swim in the waters of Washington infighting daily) haven't really come to grips with it yet.

That's a little unfair, though, because some do. Here's an extremely clear-eyed look at how Joe Biden plans to lead his party in the near future:

This is the Democrats' basic plan: Propose something ambitious with benefits spread throughout the public, meant to achieve ends even Republicans say they want. Invite the opposition to help, and listen to their ideas. But rather than chasing them for months, make visible but finite efforts to negotiate with them, while assuming that in the end they won't support the bill. Do whatever is necessary to pass it, then take all the credit.

That sounds like a recipe for success, to us.

Biden did make some other news during his press conference. He opened it by doubling his original goal for vaccinations -- Biden is now aiming for 200 million shots in his first 100 days in office. And now that an average of 2.5 million shots are going into arms each week, it looks like he'll make it. When Biden entered office, around 15 million people had gotten at least one vaccine shot. That number just hit 90 million, with over half of them (46 million) fully vaccinated. This is over one-fourth of the population of the entire country. Even better, it is one-third the number of people eligible (children so far have no approved vaccine, and will be the last people vaccinated). We've still got a long way to go, but we're getting there a lot faster now.

Astoundingly, there was not a single question from the media on the pandemic at all. None of the journalists thought it was worth bringing up the number one issue the public cares about right now. Perhaps this is due to the fact that even Republicans still haven't found a way to attack Biden's American Rescue Plan politically. After all, it is wildly popular -- and what, exactly, are they going to complain about? People getting vaccinated faster? Main Street -- not Wall Street and giant corporations -- actually getting some government money for a change? Biden's handling of the pandemic response so far is going so smoothly and efficiently that the White House press corps didn't have a single thing to ask Biden about. That's either a condemnation of the vapid nature of the reporters or it's a big vote of confidence for Biden's first big success story.

Biden revealed two other newsworthy items as well: he's committed to getting all our soldiers out of Afghanistan this year (although he'll miss the upcoming deadline), and he has every intention of running for re-election.

The other big news Biden made this week was when he reacted to the mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado by calling for an assault weapons ban. This may be too ambitious for Congress to accomplish, however. But it's good to see Biden tackling the most contentious part of the gun safety debate, at least. We saw one headline this week that should be appearing in lots of Democratic campaign ads soon, because it is such a perfect way to sum up where the two parties are: "Republicans Want To Make Voting Hard And Gun Ownership Easy." It also has the benefit of being true.

In other political news, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy introduced his plan to save the United States Postal Service this week, which consisted of promising slower delivery, higher prices, and shorter hours at the post office. Because that's sure to get people to use the U.S.P.S. more, right? In response, House Democrats filed a bill named the: "Delivering Envelopes Judiciously On-time Year-round Act," or (you guessed it), the "DEJOY Act." But it's not actually a bill of attainder (which would be unconstitutional) but a way to force the post office to keep their current standards long enough for the postal governing board to get rid of DeJoy.

Also in the House, Nancy Pelosi announced she'd be moving forward with a House investigation into the 1/6 insurrection attempt, since she got tired of Mitch McConnell stalling on the plan to form a joint (independent) investigation instead. This means Democrats will control the entire proceedings, of course, so maybe they can actually get to the bottom of what happened and what went so very wrong in the police response.

Our final item this week isn't normally thought of as being an extension of voting rights, but it really is. The push to make almost all of Washington, District of Columbia into a new state is growing fast. It's easy to see why -- they have more people than several existing states, and yet they cannot control their fate or have the same representation in Congress that every state-residing American citizen does. The mayor couldn't call out the D.C. National Guard during the insurrection, for instance, because she does not have that power (as all the state governors do). There really are all kinds of reasons why D.C. statehood is an idea which is long overdue, but the biggest one may be how high a proportion of Black voters live there. Why should they not have the same voting rights (in Congress) that everyone else has?

Of course, this terrifies Republicans. Adding a single seat to the House wouldn't be that big a deal, but adding two senators would. Think about it -- if the bill were to pass and the new state of "Washington, Douglass Commonwealth" (the name they have selected) were created, it would almost guarantee two more Democratic senators. The makeup of the Senate would go from 50-50 to 52-50 immediately. Democrats could then even lose one of their votes and still manage to pass legislation.

Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota tweeted his fears:

The Founding Fathers never intended for Washington D.C. to be a state. #DCStatehood is really about packing the Senate with Democrats in order to pass a left-wing agenda.

Twitter users then swiftly educated Rounds about all the other things the Founding Fathers never intended, such as Black people being free or having the right to vote. Another fun theme was to point out that the Founders never intended South Dakota to be a state, either.

But the real irony is that South Dakota was created specifically to pack the Senate with more Republicans. This is historical fact. The Dakota Territory was split in two precisely so Republicans could pick up four easy Senate seats instead of just two. The St. Paul Daily Globe, pointed this out, in 1885: "There is no such territory as South Dakota. It is a fiction. South Dakota is a mythical political organization and for all practical purposes may as well be called the territory of Timbuctoo as to speak of it as the Dakota state or territorial government." In the election before the Dakotas (as well as Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming) became states, the Republicans took the Senate, but only with a 39-37 majority over the Democrats. When the states were allowed to join, the GOP added all twelve new senators, to achieve a much more robust 51-37 split. Nine out of those twelve seats are still reliably Republican, it's worth mentioning.

So a senator from a state created solely as a power grab in the Senate now has the temerity to complain that Democrats are doing the same thing? Sorry, Senator Rounds, but you don't really have a leg to stand on for this particular issue.





Well, whichever House staffer that came up with the "Delivering Envelopes Judiciously On-time Year-round Act" certainly deserves at least an Honorable Mention award. [Full disclosure: we are suckers for amusingly-named bills].

But this week the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award goes to Georgia state representative Park Cannon, who tried to attend the governor's signing of the new Jim Crow 2.0 law the legislature had passed, and was subsequently arrested and reportedly charged with a felony. For the crime of knocking on the governor's door.

So while the Georgia governor signed the bill surrounded solely by other White men, a Black woman legislator was unceremoniously hauled off to jail for knocking on his door. That's a pretty good way to sum up the new law, at least visually. At least she did manage to disrupt his signing ceremony's media coverage.

Cannon is also the youngest state legislator (at 24), and one of only three openly gay members of the House. After her release Cannon responded that she was not the "first Georgian to be arrested for fighting voter suppression. I'd love to say I'm the last, but we know that isn't true." She also compared the law to the recent Atlanta shooting spree, stating they "are both products of a white supremacist system. Different tactics, same goal. We will not live in fear and we will not be controlled. We have a right to our future and a right to our freedom. We will come together and continue fighting white supremacy in all its forms."

Senator Raphael Warnock visited Cannon in jail and stated: "she did not deserve this. I want to know what makes her actions so dangerous. [It is a] very sad day for the state of Georgia and a very desperate attempt to lock out and squeeze the people out of their own democracy."

The daughter of Martin Luther King Junior called the arrest "despicable." Chuck Schumer tweeted:

Since 2012 -- the GA GOP has closed more than 200 polling places. Voters in mostly Black precincts now wait 8X LONGER to vote than voters in mostly white precincts. Now the GOP makes it a crime to give water to people standing in long lines THEY CREATED. Despicable! We will act.

In other words, as political theater, it was all an enormous success. The way Republicans have been allowed to get away with all the voter suppression laws they've been passing over the past two decades (and more) is that each one of them makes no more than a tiny splash in the national political dialog. This time around, however, their overreach -- the sheer number of states (43) and bills (253) they've introduced -- have drawn outsized attention on these moves. And the Democrats are fighting back at the national level. It's going to be a lot easier to succeed in this effort if each of these laws is given national prominence when passed. These aren't just small outrages, in other words, it is the ongoing gigantic outrage of Jim Crow 2.0.

Cannon showed how to highlight the injustice. For doing so in dramatic fashion, she is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week. Keep fighting the good fight, Representative Cannon!

[Congratulate Georgia state Representative Park Cannon on her official contact page, to let her know you appreciate her efforts.]





We tried to swear off giving the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, on the grounds that we had already given him enough of them for his ongoing two scandals (the nursing home COVID numbers fiasco and the growing number of sexual harassment claims against him), just because it was getting so repetitive.

But this week a brand-new crisis erupted:

As the coronavirus pandemic swept through New York early last year, Gov. Andrew Cuomo's administration arranged for his family members and other well-connected figures to have special access to state-administered coronavirus tests, dispatching a top state doctor and other state health officials to their homes, according to three people with direct knowledge of the effort.

As part of the program, a state lab immediately processed the results of those who were tested, the people said, even as average New Yorkers were struggling to get tested in the early days of the pandemic because of a scarcity of resources. Initially, the lab was capable of running only several hundred tests a day for a state with 19 million residents.

This is a clear abuse of power, if true. It sounds like a minor thing, but in terms of political liability it is not. Family and friends of the governor get to go to the front of the line during a pandemic that affects everyone? That is cronyism, or nepotism, or favoritism (take your pick). It is despicable, in fact.

But, really, is it surprising? When the news broke, our reaction was: "Because of course he did," personally. You can totally see someone like Cuomo demanding access for his buddies and abusing his governmental power to make sure it happened.

First there was only one woman accusing him. That number has hit at least eight (we haven't checked today, perhaps it has gone even higher...), so far, and he still won't even consider resigning. But now even the number of scandals is increasing.

Hey hey, ho ho, Cuomo's got to go.

[Contact New York Governor Andrew Cuomo on his official contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]




Volume 611 (3/26/21)

As we sometimes do (when Democrats are in the White House), we're going to pre-empt our own talking points this week, to instead examine some excerpts from Joe Biden's press conference (from the official White House transcript).

These aren't all the most important quotes, and we certainly had to leave a lot of subjects that Biden covered out (it's long enough as it is). Instead these were the quotes that just kind of struck us for one reason or another.

If you're interested, yesterday we wrote up a general overview of the press conference right after it happened. But for now, we'd like to concentrate on both what Biden had to say, and how he chose to say it.

The president surprised us by only giving very brief introductory remarks -- most presidents take at least three or four times that long (since they've got a captive audience and they know that any time spent tooting your own administration's horn is time they don't have to spend answering questions). So the questions began almost immediately after Biden appeared.

His first answer was pretty obviously rehearsed, and could have been given in answer to a number of different questions. The actual question he got was: "How far are you willing to go to achieve those promises that you made to the American people?" Biden took the opportunity to lay out his priorities and how he thinks he'll achieve them:

When I took office, I decided that it was a fairly basic, simple proposition, and that is: I got elected to solve problems. And the most urgent problem facing the American people, I stated from the outset, was COVID-19 and the economic dislocation for millions and millions of Americans. And so that's why I put all my focus in the beginning -- there are a lot of problems -- put all my focus on dealing with those particular problems.

And the other problems we're talking about, from immigration to guns and the other things you mentioned, are long-term problems; they've been around a long time. And what we're going to be able to do, God willing, is now begin, one at a time, to focus on those as well, and — whether it's immigration or guns or a number of other problems that face the country.

But the fundamental problem is getting people some peace of mind so they can go to bed at night and not stare at the ceiling wondering whether they lost their health insurance, whether they're going to lose a family member, whether they're going to be in a position where they're not going to be -- they're going to lose their home because they can't pay their mortgage, or that millions of people are going to get thrown out of their homes because of the inability to -- to pay their rent.

So we're going to move on these one at a time, try to do as many simultaneously as we can. But that's the reason why I focused as I have.

And here's the deal: I think my Republican colleagues are going to have to determine whether or not we want to work together, or they decide that the way in which they want to proceed is to -- is to just decide to divide the country, continue the politics of division. But I'm not going to do that; I'm just going to move forward and take these things as they come.

Biden was prepared for questions about the border, and answered the first one by fact-checking the way that the media has been portraying things. Republicans have pushed the "crisis at the border" line hard, so it was good to see Biden pushing back on the narrative. He started by launching off part of the journalist's question ("the perception of you that got you elected -- as a moral, decent man -- is the reason why a lot of immigrants are coming to this country and entrusting you with unaccompanied minors" ) to compare his record to Trump's:

Well, look, I guess I should be flattered people are coming because I'm the nice guy; that's the reason why it's happening -- that I'm a decent man or however it's phrased. That -- you know, that's why they're coming, because they know Biden is a good guy.

The truth of the matter is: Nothing has changed. As many people came -- 28 percent increase in children to the border in my administration; 31 percent in the last year of -- in 2019, before the pandemic, in the Trump administration. It happens every single, solitary year: There is a significant increase in the number of people coming to the border in the winter months of January, February, March. That happens every year.

In addition to that, there is a -- and nobody -- and, by the way, does anybody suggest that there was a 31 percent increase under Trump because he was a nice guy and he was doing good things at the border? That's not the reason they're coming.

. . .

And those who are coming across the border, who are unaccompanied children, we're moving rapidly to try to put in place what was dismantled, as I said. For example, of all the children who are coming across the border, over 70 percent are either 16 or 17 years old. We're not talking about people ripping babies from mothers' arms or little three-year-olds standing on the border. Less than -- I think it's one and a half percent fall in the category of the very young.

So what we're doing is we're providing for the space, again, to be able to get these kids out of the Border Patrol facilities, which no child -- no one should be in any longer than 72 hours.

And today, I went to -- for example, I used all the resources available to me, went to the Defense Department, and -- and the Secretary of Defense has just made available Fort Bliss -- 5,000 beds be made easily available. Five thousand beds on the Texas border.

So we're building back up the capacity that should have been maintained and built upon that Trump dismantled. It's going to take time.

We talked about this earlier, but here was Biden's full answer the first time he was asked about the filibuster:

Filibuster. Filibuster. You know, with regard to the filibuster, I believe we should go back to a position on the filibuster that existed just when I came to the United States Senate 120 years ago. And that is that -- it used to be required for the filibuster -- and I had a card on this; I was going to give you the statistics, but you probably know them -- that it used to be that, that from between 1917 to 1971 -- the filibuster existed -- there was a total of 58 motions to break a filibuster that whole time. Last year alone, there were five times that many. So it's being abused in a gigantic way.

And, for example, it used to be you had to stand there and talk and talk and talk and talk until you collapsed. And guess what? People got tired of talking and tired of collapsing. Filibusters broke down, and we were able to break the filibuster, get a quorum, and vote.

So I strongly support moving in that direction, in addition to having an open mind about dealing with certain things that are -- are just elemental to the functioning of our democracy, like the right to vote -- like the basic right to vote. We've amended the filibuster in the past.

But here's the deal: As you observed, I'm a fairly practical guy. I want to get things done. I want to get them done, consistent with what we promised the American people. And in order to do that in a 50-50 Senate, we've got to get to the place where I get 50 votes so that the Vice President of the United States can break the tie, or I get 51 votes without her.

. . .

I -- we're going to get a lot done. And if we have to -- if there's complete lockdown and chaos as a consequence of the filibuster, then we'll have to go beyond what I'm talking about.

Biden pushed back on the notion that immigration policy under Donald Trump was somehow better, framing it in moral terms:

Well, look, the idea that I'm going to say -- which I would never do -- "if an unaccompanied child ends up at the border, we're just going to let him starve to death and stay on the other side" -- no previous administration did that either, except Trump. I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to do it.

On the question of when our troops will completely exit Afghanistan, Biden was vague, but he did make a (sort of) commitment at the very end of the exchange:

[PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN:] But it is not my intention to stay there for a long time. But the question is: How and in what circumstances do we meet that agreement that was made by President Trump to leave under a deal that looks like it's not being able to be worked out to begin with? How is that done? But we are not staying a long time.

[Q:] You just said "if we leave." Do you think it's possible that we–

[BIDEN:] We will leave. The question is when we leave.

[Q:] Do you -- sorry -- do you believe, though, it's possible we could have troops there next year?

[BIDEN:] I -- I can't picture that being the case.

Biden got most animated when expressing his disgust at the assault on voting rights state-level Republicans are in the midst of. Once again, Biden turns it into a moral argument.

What I'm worried about is how un-American this whole initiative is. It's sick. It's sick. Deciding in some states that you cannot bring water to people standing in line, waiting to vote; deciding that you're going to end voting at five o'clock when working people are just getting off work; deciding that there will be no absentee ballots under the most rigid circumstances.

It's all designed -- and I'm going to spend my time doing three things: One, trying to figure out how to pass the legislation passed by the House, number one. Number two, educating the American public. The Republican voters I know find this despicable. Republican voters, the folks out in -- outside this White House. I'm not talking about the elected officials; I'm talking about voters. Voters.

And so I am convinced that we'll be able to stop this because it is the most pernicious thing. This makes Jim Crow look like Jim Eagle. I mean, this is gigantic what they're trying to do, and it cannot be sustained.

I'm going to do everything in my power, along with my friends in the House and the Senate, to keep that from -- from becoming the law.

Biden's final word on the filibuster was interesting, but we'll have to see just exactly what "the abuse" really means to him, and how far the Republicans will have to push him before he decides enough is enough:

Successful electoral politics is the art of the possible. Let's figure out how we can get this done and move in the direction of significantly changing the abuse of even the filibuster rule first. It's been abused from the time it came into being -- by an extreme way in the last 20 years. Let's deal with the abuse first.

The funniest thing Biden said (other than that quip about arriving in the Senate 120 years ago) was when he was asked again about re-election. Specifically, whether he thought he'd be running against Trump again.

Oh, come on. I don't even think about -- I don't -- I have no idea. I have no idea if there will be a Republican Party. Do you? I know you don't have to answer my question, but, I mean, you know, do you?

"No idea if there will be a Republican Party" -- that's an interesting way to put it, but not completely farfetched, when you consider how low they've now sunk.

Biden made a very historical argument in the middle of a very long answer on what his China policy will be. This will likely be remembered, at least by historians (one would assume):

Look, I predict to you, your children or grandchildren are going to be doing their doctoral thesis on the issue of who succeeded: autocracy or democracy? Because that is what is at stake, not just with China.

Look around the world. We're in the midst of a fourth industrial revolution of enormous consequence. Will there be middle class? How will people adjust to these significant changes in science and technology and the environment? How will they do that? And are democracies equipped -- because all the people get to speak -- to compete?

It is clear, absolutely clear -- and most of the scholars I dealt with at Penn agree with me around the country -- that this is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies.

If you notice, you don't have Russia talking about communism anymore. It's about an autocracy. Demand decisions made by a leader of a country -- that's what's at stake here. We've got to prove democracy works.

And finally, at the very end of the presser, Biden put the entire immigration experience in very personal terms. In fact, we kind of wonder why he didn't lead with this, because it truly is a great point:

When my great grandfather got on a coffin ship in the Irish Sea, expectation was: Was he going to live long enough on that ship to get to the United States of America? But they left because of what the Brits had been doing. They were in real, real trouble. They didn't want to leave. But they had no choice. So you got -- we can't -- I can't guarantee we're going to solve everything, but I can guarantee we can make everything better. We can make it better. We can change the lives of so many people.

Thus endeth the first Joe Biden press conference, and this column as well. See you all next week....



Chris Weigant blogs at: ChrisWeigant.com
Follow Chris on Twitter: ChrisWeigant
Full archives of FTP columns: FridayTalkingPoints.com