The Biden Presser – 25 march 2021

I solicit your opinions with regard to this event. pl

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

57 Responses to The Biden Presser – 25 march 2021

  1. Jose says:

    cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs

  2. Eric Newhill says:

    Calmest, most orderly, most organized press conference EVER. Gee, I’d almost say “choreographed” in every detail – and with the press treating Biden with kid gloves. No questions at all from right leaning press members (if such a thing exists at all anymore).

    I suspect they were worried that the normal level of ambient noise and competitive shouting of questions would throw Old Joe into a mental tail spin.

    Bottom line – obviously totally fake nonsense staged for us by the ruling elites. Waste of time.

  3. elaine says:

    Breit Baier, of Fox cable news described it in part “as getting lost in a rhetorical
    cul-de-sac”; it’s hard to beat that description. The biggest fib was claiming the vast majority of Republican voters approve of Biden’s agenda according to a recent poll.
    What poll???

  4. Polish Janitor says:

    I’m sure the Bidonians and especially the wife are having a sigh of relief for seeing old Joe getting through with his first presser largely untouched. The media did not throw hardball questions, and it seemed as though it was choreographed carefully so that Joe would not mess anything up like he tends to naturally do so.
    I wonder what Joe thinks of the fact that most observers (on both side of the isle) know he’s not the one in charge and he’s just keeping the seat warm for Kamala, heck even foreign leaders know this and call Kamala more often than they call Joe.

    Now with Kamala’s new assignment in “managing” the southern border crisis , her role become even more prominent and ascendant than Joe’s. It is no secret that the Border Patrol and ICE can do only so much and it is in fact the cartels and their ‘men on the ground’ who are calling the shots. Even the governments of the ‘Triangle’ can’t handle the situation and are both corrupt and incapable of stopping the flow of +4 million migrants heading north. Kamala to the rescue! with foreign aid is what I think as the most plausible course of action.

    • Martin Oline says:

      I think Harris’ assignment to the border serves two purposes for the Biden administration.
      1 – It insulates him from any responsibility when the media finally discovers the kids in cages.
      2 – It set up Kamala to fail. I don’t see any win in it at all.
      Who stands to benefit most from her failure? Is it the hands of Michele Obama I see behind the curtain?

  5. Pat Lang says:

    I am a bit puzzled by Joe’s thinly veiled threat to abolish the cloture rule in the senate (the filibuster). He voiced a menace about doing away with the cloture rule if he does not get all there is in his revolutionary agenda. Pilgrim Turcopoles. If I understand the senate’s rules it would require 60 votes to begin debate over whether or not the cloture rule should be abolished. Once that debate began it would take only 51 votes to abandon the cloture rule. My question – where would he get the 60 votes?

    • The Twisted Genius says:

      He’s probably thinking about how McConnell abolished the rule for judicial appointments. When McConnell found the filibuster blocking his judicial strategy, he got it abolished in a heartbeat.

      • Pat Lang says:

        you mean things are not always fair? I ask again – where will the Dems get 60 votes to begin debate on abolishing the cloture rule? Debate was already underway when both Harry Reid and McConnell took big bites out of cloture on appointments. This would not be the case in this instance.

        • The Twisted Genius says:

          Ah, it wasn’t just McConnell’s doing. It was Reid who ended the filibuster for Presidential appointments. McConnell argued against it at that time. McConnell then ended the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees. I found nothing about getting 60 votes to begin debate on either vote. I’m not sure it’s required for rule changes in the Senate.

          • Pat Lang says:


            Debate had already begun in the cases cited involving Reid and McConnell. Debate will not have begun when the Republicans have their chance to block it. See my response to you about this above.

        • Pat Lang says:

          “The most straightforward way to eliminate the filibuster would be to formally change the text of Senate Rule 22, the cloture rule that requires 60 votes to end debate on legislation. Here’s the catch: Ending debate on a resolution to change the Senate’s standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the members present and voting. Absent a large, bipartisan Senate majority that favors curtailing the right to debate, a formal change in Rule 22 is extremely unlikely.”

        • scott s. says:


          Reading the Standing Rules of the Senate, Rule XXII “… submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: ‘‘Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?’’ And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative
          by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting”

          so I guess in this case, the 2/3 rule applies.

          • Jose says:

            Gentlemen, I believe that when the issue came up with Harry Reid, the Dems simply ignored the rule and keep the debate/votes going to establish a new precedent.

            I believe McNoddle, simply used the new precedent of the Senate for the Supreme Court.

            Both, IMHO, violated Senate Rule 22.

      • AK says:


        This contention is disingenuous. McConnell didn’t abolish the cloture rule for judicial appointments by himself. Harry Reid got that ball rolling in 2013. And McConnell warned him at the time that it would come back and bite him. McConnell simply used the rule put in place by a then-Democratic majority to expand it to SCOTUS picks in 2017, once he held the majority.

        This is the Dems’ Achilles heel – their vision only extends as far as the expediency of the current political moment. They have no talent for extrapolating precedent into future situations, largely because they don’t believe in precedent, for the reason stated above. It’s only about the immediate advantage. As soon as they’re on the ass-end of the consequences of a rule (even one they argued for and implemented), they cry about it. How many times did they filibuster legislation during the Trump era? They even did it with a police reform bill put forth by a black GOP Senator in the midst of the BLM riots, because they could not countenance anything that could remotely be seen as a legislative advance or achievement from the other side.

        There is a litany of statements from Dem Senators (including Biden) on record supporting the filibuster, when they needed it of course. Now, however, abolition is very convenient in the moment. And I think it’s patently obvious that the reason they’re arguing for it now is that they think they can ensconce themselves in permanent power if they get it. That’s what they’re after. They believe if they do this now, they will not suffer repercussions in the future, because they will own the future, permanently. Perhaps they’re right on that assumption, but perhaps not…

        Was McConnell’s ploy in 2017 cynical? Maybe, probably, but he didn’t pull it out of nowhere. Would you contend that the Dems won’t take full advantage of the new SCOTUS cloture rule if they opportunity arises? If Breyer kicks the bucket or steps down, do you think they’ll court 10 GOP Senators’ approval as a nod to the good ol’ days of comity and decorum?

        • The Twisted Genius says:

          AK, my original comment wasn’t disingenuous, just flat assed wrong. Reid started down that slippery slope in 2013. McConnell just went a little further down that slope and now it doesn’t appear there is a way back up the hill. I agree both Republicans and Democrats will now shamelessly take advantage of these filibuster changes whenever the situation benefits them.

      • Bubba Schwartz says:

        Dear Twisted,

        Methinks you are not so genius, for your statement is grossly inaccurate.

        It was Harry Reid who nuked the filibuster in 2013. As McConnell noted, the Senate had never invoked a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee in the past, and he extended Reid’s removal of the filibuster option to those appointees as well.

        When the dims were demanding 30 hours of debate on every judicial appointment, to slow-roll POTUS 45 DJT The Magnificent’s nominees, Reid reduced the time allotted for debate. Perhaps that’s to which your hazy memory refers.

    • Polish Janitor says:

      Yes, an important but somewhat subtle takeaway from the recent presser was the topic of filibuster. I think the Senate’s recent confirmation sessions of Biden’s cabinet picks provide a possible insight into how successful would Biden admin’s effort to abolish filibuster be. Add the recent 1.9$ trillion Covid-19 relief bill which was passed with zero Republican vote and with the help of a tie-breaker to this and what you have is a very slim chance of even reaching it to the 60 vote threshold of starting the debate. Time is also running out for the Biden admin to pull this off with so much other crucial matters to focus on. I can’t see how the Biden admin, even with the help of commie ‘activists’, could pull off such a hard task.

      • Pat Lang says:

        Polish Janitor

        Commencement of debate over a permanent change of a senate rule would not be subject to “reconciliation.” Approval of a president’s appointments is a matter of courtesy with exceptions like some of Biden’s hyper-radical nominees like Tanden.

  6. Mark Gaughan says:

    Some what off topic, but…

  7. akaPatience says:

    The reporters/questioners were obviously (and unbelievably!) pre-selected, since Biden called on them as he read their names from a list. What other purpose would this contrivance serve than to limit it to softball or even rehearsed questions and answers? And in spite of that, he STILL responded most of the time with campaign-like political rhetoric that he’s likely memorized from decades as a professional politician. There was very little actual substance – he hedged and blathered like a pro. The scant media pool was seated far away — was this to prevent them from detecting any surreptitious audio coaching?

    Having said all of that, he hung in there for an hour, which was a surprise. He only dementedly wandered away from the podium and then back again once, near the end.

    • Pat Lang says:

      Biden seems to have his Irish (5/8ths) ancestry as a backdrop for his “thinking” on the SW border. He actually mentioned one of his immigrant ancestors today.

      • jerseycityjoan says:

        Thank you for reminding me of that. I remember being briefly alarmed by what he said then I forgot about it.

        Irish Central has more but here’s what got to me:

        “When my great-grandfather got into a coffin ship in the Irish sea, expectation was – was he was 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 trouble, they didn’t want to leave, but they had no choice.

        “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.”

        He is 100% putting himself in the position of the immigrant here. He is saying that people are coming here because they must and he is making absolute commitments to all the world’s poor and frustrated in that final, very frightening paragraph.

        I cannot imagine any other president has made such a sweeping statement about immigration for over 100 years, or ever. He has a moral commitment to open borders and to sharing all that we have with billions so their lives can be improved. Does he or the people who agree with him even realize the scope and consequences of what that last paragraph says? I doubt it. They are so caught up in their utopian fantasies that there’s no room for realities.

        • Fred says:

          “He is 100% putting himself in the position of the immigrant here. ”

          Unlike when he was in the US Senate and opposed allowing the Vietnamese fleeing the communist takeover of South Vietnam to enter the United States.

        • Deap says:

          When you can’t make sense of any Democrat statement, policy or program, just ask what government employee union does this benefit? The common thread then becomes obvious.

          Open borders benefits the teachers unions.

          Health care for all benefits the nurses unions. Free college benefits the instructors unions.

          Eliminate immigration’s no public charge requirement benefits SEIU social service workers union…………..

  8. Artemesia says:

    Nancy Cordes from CBS sounded like Jamie Raskin wrote her talking points, about “Republicans’ “pernicious . . . sick . . . unAmerican . . . worse than Jim Crow” efforts to “suppress voting rights.” (Raskin, who managed the 2nd, failed, Trump impeachment, has been at the vanguard of changing the way votes are counted in the electoral college system.

    Biden was exercised about this topic and pledged to do all in his power to influence legislation in Dem’s favor; to “educate” voters; and also that he had secret strategy to ensure that the same mail-in fiasco as prevailed in 2020 will be enshrined as voting business-as-usual.
    Whenever I hear “educate the people,” tiny neck hairs twitch.

    Shur would like to know what’s in Biden’s pharma cocktail, and also what whiz-bang technology he’s wired to.

    • Deap says:

      One illegally cast vote is th worst voters suppression of all, since it has the power to 100% nullify my one cast legal vote.

  9. Lars says:

    VP Kamala Harris can declare the rule about the filibuster unconstitutional and it will take a majority in the Senate to overrule it. Richard Nixon, VP, did it and it stuck.

    • carl says:

      Might the Senate Parliamentarian have something to say about that, either way?

    • AK says:


      Harris cannot simply declare the filibuster null and void. I suspect you’re referencing the following LA Times op-ed:

      From what I read here and elsewhere (if I read it correctly), in 1959 Nixon issued “advisory opinions,” literally referred to as such in the op-ed above, that pertained only to the mechanisms for changing the filibuster rule, i.e. in order to change the rule for the two-thirds majority legislative filibuster, only a simple majority should have to vote for the change, rather than the same two-thirds requirement for legislative action. This does not imply that Nixon’s opinions in any way nullified the legislative filibuster itself, only the rule change requirement. He based this “ruling” on the opinion that the Senate was not a “continuing body” bound by the rules of the previous Senate and should instead agree upon the rules via simple majority vote after the swearing in of each new Senate.

      What I don’t understand and what the authors do not clarify is the “advisory opinion” nature of the VP’s rulings. I take “advisory opinions” to be just that — pieces of non-binding advice. I could be wrong, and I would be eager to hear Robert Willman’s take on this.

      So on to Harris. From what the authors argue, she can declare the 60 vote cloture rule in regards to changing the filibuster itself unconstitutional, thereby allowing a simple majority vote on changing the filibuster rules, as opposed to requiring a 60 vote threshold on the rule change itself. But this does not imply that she can simply declare the legislative filibuster itself unconstitutional and move the Senate right along towards simple majority passage of all forthcoming legislation. The body would still have to vote on changing the rule itself. With Manchin and Sinema declaring their support for the rule, that’s no guarantee. The authors of the op-ed make the point, in discussing the prospects for a simple majority vote rule change, that “Sen. Joe Manchin, and a Republican senator or two, might well care about ensuring that no state is deprived of ‘equal suffrage’ under the Constitution,” meaning they might care enough to vote to change the rule, thus securing a simple majority. They’re referring here to the crux of their case, which is essentially the re-hashed gripe of the coastal statist elites that because smaller states seat the same number of Senators as larger states, this is inherently unfair, and the filibuster only makes it more unfair by violating the “equal suffrage” clause in the Constitution. Again, Willman’s take would be welcome here as well. I look forward to it.

  10. Fred says:

    My summary: Joe can remember the campaign slogan sound bites. Immigration and essentially immediate citizenship is the top agenda item for the left. The good little Baizo ladies of the left, aided by POC Yameeche and POC allies, kept the poor little children front and center; With a please please let us in to take pictures of the kids in cages so we can craft the narrative and destroy your reputation, like with did with Trump, (Stand by Kamala, you’re up next).

    Next, just to highlight the most free and fair election in American history that swept Joe into power, such a consensus that Republican voters (he repeated that about a dozen times) support him, we need sweeping election reform that will put the federal governement in charge of elections because of Jim Crow laws. Oh, and the filibuster is a legacy of Jim Crow (laws enacted by Democrats but don’t mention that) too. It took 45 minutes for someone to mention China, but hey, Biden knows Xi and he’s going to get them to play fair, and follow international norms, and blah, blah Uyghurs, slave labor, blah blah. Will you impose more traffifs? Uhm, Ah. Change of subject.

    There was only a half hearted effort on guns, but the news crafted narrative that hasn’t lasted 48 hours doesn’t say ‘white supremecist’ like the narrative requires. So he’ll get something going to control those pesky criminals, maybe.

    He said a great deal about infrastructure, including schools – which can all open because of that hundred million innoculations – and did you catch how they are unsafe because of lead pipes and asbestos? Yep, he actually said that too. But that infrastructure that will create all those good jobs? Well, that includes raising roads three feet because apparently we already sank because of climate change.

    Thank goodness he ran to restore the soul, dignity, honor, honesty and transparency of US political system. (Yes he actually said that today). I don’t know who put in the lines about the war between democracy and autocracy, he’s right, but with him in place we are most royally screwed.

  11. Peter+VE says:

    The only times he seemed to be completely coherent was when he was delivering campaign speeches. Even when reading from his notes, the answers tended to degenerate into word salad.
    Special bonus for Andrew Cuomo: the presser will ensure the MSM ignores the story about using NY DOH resources to get family and donors special access to Covid tests last spring.

  12. John Merryman. says:

    I suspect many in his administration don’t want Harris taking over anytime soon and that he made it through this one standing has pushed that day of reckoning back over a few hills.

  13. Deap says:

    Photos of the actual cheat sheets Biden used for his “press conference” – both answers he read off, and photos of circled reporters to call on…….or avoid:

    Missing link: were the questions prepared up front too? Or were general topics revealed before the cameras started rolling, but in time to make those very lovely topic bullet points for the Office of the President. Discoverable now under a FOIA request?

  14. elaine says:

    I also enjoyed the nuanced reference to the forthcoming infrastructure bill
    (that’ll only cost an estimated 3 Trillion dollars) He’s “going to raise all the roads by 3 ft.”
    Guess I’ll have to build a ramp to back out of my driveway.

    And I really would like to see that “Republican poll” wherein the majority of Repubs
    approve of his agenda. Who conducted this poll? When was it done? Certainly there must be some news organization that’ll put in a Foia to get us more info…

    • Fasteddiez says:

      Here it is:
      I only trust the Rasmussen polling outfit because of their +/- 2 or 3 margins of error which were featured in the Trumpster vs. the Hildabeast election. This made all of the other pursed-lipped, flamboyant, light in the loafer hipster people, who work at the other polling firms had the Hilda in a landslide, look like the pathetic oxygen thieves that they were. Ha, Ha, A landslide is Nixon who won 49 states. This won’t happen again if all the country produce is human garbage like in the near past. I voted for Mister “That great sucking sound you hear is jobs leaving America.”

  15. English Outsider says:

    Well, Colonel, there are a surprising number of people in England who thought Trump was the goods. I’m one of them. I ‘m never going to look at President Biden without wishing he wasn’t there.

    But setting that aside I was impressed by that press conference. There was an authority and confidence there that compelled respect. They say he’s frail but I disregard that. Juncker, not my favourite European politician, was frail but still operated effectively. Hell, I’m frail at the moment. I’ve twisted my ankle and won’t be matching TTG’s exploits with the chainsaw or axe any time soon. But the fact that I’m not dancing around doesn’t make my brain work any slower and as far as Biden’s intellectual and political faculties go he looked all present and correct to me.

    Good. There’ve been suggestions he wasn’t up to the job and on this performance he is. Well up to it. And he has a trick sometimes of shutting up when he’s made his point. Rare in a politician and very effective.

    On the substance, there are bits I wouldn’t like if I were American. Immigration and voting. But I’m not American and anyway I’m used to my own politicians screwing up on those fronts. But! – out of Afghanistan by next year! I’ll believe that when I see it but as an indication that the American establishment is moving away from the forever wars it was the best bit of the event.

    Infrastructure? Another good bit. We should be pumping money into that in England as well. And getting jobs out of it. Bringing industry back home? Was I wrong in thinking he was pushing that hard and meant it? If so that’ a leaf out of the Trump playbook I’d also like to see our own politicians taking.

    And just one little remark that I took particular note of. The remark about “The Brits”.

    As far as peacekeeping in Northern Ireland goes that’s bad news. The Proddies have been sold all the way down the river by HMG. They’re sour about the breaking of the GFA. They’re up against the EU. And now they’re up against the most powerful country in the world. With only the decidedly labile Boris Johnson to fight their corner and knowing that Johnson’s dumped them once already. The peace walls in Belfast will have to be heightened, looks like. The President of the United States Wearing the Green in his first major policy statement will make the Unionists feel more threatened yet and when people are threatened they lash out.

    That aside, I welcome the “Brits” remark. There was a discussion on your site about the Brits yearning for their lost Empire. Not quite. The Brits, a good half of them, are yearning for their lost independence. So far, that’s been independence from Brussels but it has to go further.

    The Brexit debate was cast by many as a conflict of allegiances. Were we going to run to Mutti Europa for shelter or to Uncle Sam. That’s been a conflict in England for decades. The assumption that if we wish to “punch above our weight” and “have a seat at the top table” , all those gruesome old clichés, we had to run to one or the other.

    But there’s a feeling in England, and I share it, that England does not have to go running around the world looking for masters, whether those masters are in Brussels or in Washington. We’re on our way to getting shot of Brussels. Now’s the time to get rid of that fake “Special Relationship” that’s been the Holy Grail for our “Atlanticists” for so long. I love the States, you know that Colonel Lang, but it’s time to untie those apron strings too. Perhaps Biden’s throwaway “Brits” remark will make some of the more weak-kneed Brits realise that independence means just that.

  16. fakebot says:

    He spoke a lot more about the border than I had expected, but as with other times he has faced the cameras, everything was carefully orchestrated and staged managed. Clearly Biden can’t be trusted to think and act on his feet.

    It’s a curiosity, to say the least, that Biden has left Harris in charge of the border. It looks like he’s trying to insulate himself from criticism, leaving Harris out to dry.

    There’s a commonly held perception that Biden will simply hand over the presidency to Harris, yet Pelosi has kept up her efforts to strengthen Congress’ hand over impeachment and the 25th amendment procedures even though Trump is no longer president. I imagine she worries Biden will refuse to step down when told to. Despite Biden’s advanced years and possible dementia, he might try to remain in office despite all advice to the contrary. He never pledged to be a single term president and now he’s talking about himself up in terms of FDR who served four terms and died in office.

    His FDR-like ambitions suggest he plans to make his presidency more consequential than Obama’s, to the point where you have to believe he’s rubbing it in. It doesn’t seem there’s a whole lot of a love between them.

    Furthermore, for all of Biden’s progressive hoopla, he won’t get the amnesty bill he sought, he has managed to make Trump look good on the border issue so far, and the only thing he can really hang is hat on now are boondoggles: a Covid relief and a promised infrastructure bill.

    BTW on infrastructure, I think most of us would feel this is Trump’s forte. He would have been better suited to administer that kind of undertaking given his lifetime of experience in construction. But with Trump there or not, Washington is still jam packed with lobbyist intent on making out like bandits by bleeding the public coffers dry. The country may end up teetering on bankruptcy if no one tries to keep this in check.

    • jld says:

      That’s strange, what makes you think that Biden has any plan of his own?
      Jill maybe or Kamala but everybody will have to stick to “the script”.
      Am I mistaken?

      • roberto says:

        Just a hunch, but I suspect that Susan Rice, running Joe’s Domestic Policy Council and an Obama operative, is the one in charge. She takes her orders from Obama, IMO.

        • jld says:

          This assumes that Obama was/is fully autonomous, not so sure, he was very probably “advised” to some extent.
          There is may be some internal democracy within the Deep State. 🙂

  17. Sam says:

    1.Western wealth was built on productivity improvements;
    2. Western political systems are built on productivity reductions;
    4. Central banks sided with governments;
    3. When #COVID19 ends, the threeway war starts.

    Stagnant productivity is what one sees as monopolies and cartels form with the backing of more interventionist government. That’s been what’s happening in the US for over 40 years under both parties. Biden is just further acceleration of this trend since the Reagan presidency.

  18. Bill+H says:

    Liberals, progressives, or whatever they call themselves today, are pressing for amnesty for “undocumented immigrants” (or whatever today’s politically correct term is) without, apparently, remembering that the original amnesty in 1986 was passed only because it was based on the promise that it was a “one-time deal” and would never ever be repeated. Doomsayers warned that unless assurance was given that no repeat amnesty would ever be forthcoming, the first one would increase illegal immigration (as it was then called) rather than decrease it.

  19. Deap says:

    Why did Biden say there would be no GOP party in 2024?

    Does his inner circle keep repeating this claim because they know they now own the entire election system? SEIU runs the election departments. SEIU counts the votes and Democrat-controlled electoral bodies purchase the voting systems.

    That was an extraordinary claim. What does Biden know and how did he know this. it is one thing to claim you will defeat your political rivals, but quite another to claim you will have a total one party state in just two years and all political rivals will be obliterated and in the dust bin of history. That was his most sinister statement of all.

    In fact, it is the GOP who has the strongest back-up of potential candidates, the depth in the state houses and recent gains even in Congress. But the GOP does not own the deep state inner mechanics of the election systems.

    This statement needs more follow-up.

    Are Biden and his handlers so sure his proposed federal “election reform” will do to the nation what these same techniques have done to California – now a permanent Democrat super majority due to application of every trick in the book.

    To wit: vote-harvesting; 100% vote by mail; motor voter registration; remote ballot boxes; CVRA expansion of protected voting classes; no voter ID; same day registration, jungle primaries; imposition of special minority-majority protected districts; farming out vote counting and registration verification to remote and unverifiable propriatory machines……… and armies of self-interested government employee union members making sure every single Democrat voter gets tracked and their ballots deposited using state funded “Where is My Vote” system.

    California is your warning that in fact Democrats may well be able claim the GOP will be wiped out of existence by 2024. Coming soon to a state near you.

    What a massive difference the two Georgia senate losses have wrought.

  20. chris moffatt says:

    pre-written answers to preselected questions from selected journos? Pure theatre. At least he stayed awake. Aides fiddled with the flags several times before the start but never did succeed in getting them equidistant – a metaphor for the uselessness of the whole exercise perhaps.

    • English Outsider says:

      As long as politicians do stay awake when delivering their speeches is that not all that’s required? Biden did rather better than that. And the fact that it was stage managed to the nth degree, prepared for for days, and quite often read from prepared notes, gives what was said more significance. It may be taken as a definitive policy statement from the new administration.

      In that it differs from a few of the Obama press conferences, and from many or most of the Trump press conferences, in which the respective Presidents permitted themselves a good deal of ad libbing. This was Washington speaking and I believe will be taken as such.

  21. Sans Racines says:

    English Outsider, how your diction has eroded! May you soon recover to your old self

    • English Outsider says:

      Ad hominem doesn’t cut it though one sees it often enough in the NYT or Guardian. Surprised to see it in these pages.

      This Brit’s out of here. Lebt wohl.

  22. Sans Racines says:

    Col. Lang

    In response to your request – sobering.

    America’s Yeltsin moment, minus the bonhomie.

    But this too shall pass.

  23. Deap says:

    Is SKY.NEWS.AU Australia’s answer to SNL?

    Run-down on Weekend at Biden’s, co-starring Kackling Kamala:

  24. J says:


    Biden’s spokesperson Jen Psaki worked for Israeli Intelligence through an Israeli spy firm AnyVision. Ha’aretz reported in 2019 that AnyVision’s facial recognition tech was being used by the Israelis to monitor West Bank checkpoints entering Israel. AnyVision’s president Amir Kainan was the former head of Israeli defense ministry’s security department, and one of its advisers Tamir Pardo was the former head of Mossad. Microsoft was invested in AnyVision until an NBC program id’d AnyVision involvement in the Israel’s intelligence campaign against Palestinians whereupon Microsoft divested itself of the Israeli spy firm.

    Psaki’s financial disclosures show she earned at least $5 grand as a ‘crisis communications consultant’ for AnyVision.

Comments are closed.