Republicans' likely hold on the Senate is forcing Joe Biden's transition team to consider limiting its prospective Cabinet nominees to those who Mitch McConnell can live with, according to people familiar with the matter.
Why it matters: The new Senate political math could dash the ambitions of some Democrats, including those who have clashed with Republicans.
It could push Biden to go with more centrist options, like Lael Brainard for Treasury or Tony Blinken for State, sources tell Axios.
Susan Rice and Stacey Abrams could be early casualties, depending on McConnell's posture.
But it could also open paths for others, like Sen. Chris Coons, who could benefit from a tradition of senatorial courtesy for quick confirmations of nominees within its ranks.
A source close to McConnell tells Axios a Republican Senate would work with Biden on centrist nominees but no "radical progressives" or ones who are controversial with conservatives.
The Biden agenda would be severely restricted by GOP control, the source added: "It's going to be armed camps."
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I am laughing at this Axios post. The US Senate is not going to block a cabinet nominee from President Biden. I just need to look at how the Republican Senate rubber-stamped President Obama's nominees a few years back to know what this bunch, and they are essentially the same bunch, will do with Biden's nominees.
As to who will be the most important nominee in a Biden administration? It will be the Attorney General. The Biden family are going to do everything in their power to bury Hunter Biden's corruption and the role that his dad played in making this happen. They do not want to go through the crap that President Trump had to go through for four years over a Russian-collusion narrative that was completely false and fabricated by Hillary Clinton. Doubly so in the case of the Bidens since we now have evidence/pictures/videos/multiple witnesses/contracts/etc. that have come to light on this corruption from Hunter Biden's laptop(s) in the past month alone.
12 comments:
The exact reason Trump should have the AG appoint a Special Counsel.
I agree about the nominees, the result and the reasoning to get the result.
With so many emails and videos out can the Bidens hide the crimes?
To hide the crimes they have to hide 3 of Hunter's partners. Those people are talking. Are they going to bury 2 of them in prison and figure out how to sideline or imprison the 3rd?
I fully expect the MSM to not talk about Hunter's crimes. They do not have to be told by the Bidens or DNC to stay mum.
The MSM is so corrupt and so easy that One reason given for them not reporting on Epstein back in 2007 is because of the got Prince Andrew in trouble, then they would not be invited to cover the Royal weddings. Some excuse to not cover a crime. Prince Andrew is an animal. Prince Charles is useless. Prince Harry lost his man card in the last year. We're almost batting a 1,000 here.
Conservatives have for a decade or longer been praying for the Queen. They want to see the queen outlive the useless Prince Charles so that the thrown goes to one of her grandkids. Check the comment threads.
There are video of Hunter by his ow admission being inappropriate with a minor. Is that walking around nude in front of her or is that sex? That much at least is hidden from the larger public. There are a few site saying he had sex with Chinese girls. I never been to those sites and do not know their track record. But if it is true, the Chinese government will have their own video from hidden camera. The Deep State simply cannot wish that away. Xi could get the Chinese populace whipped up pretty good with such video, if or when he chooses to use it either get concessions in territory, money or diplomatically or for war.
If there is such video going around all I can say if WNU goes to China he is lucky. He can speak Chinese and tell would be assaulters that he is Russian or Canadian and not American and that will save him a lot of grief.
I don't know. While these are the same people, things have changed. We've endured a faux impeachment, a bitter electoral campaign, and a number of other things. Some may not be in such a mood to compromise this time around. We shall see. Bottom line: a POTUS should not nominate someone the Senate won't support.
Whoever does win the presidential election it will have been a very close race so the winner will not have a "mandate." He, Whoever he ends up being, should not forget this. It appears far more likely than not that Biden will be the next POTUS.
I disagree B. Poster.
A win is a win. And a President Biden will have a mandate because he can always point to the historical number of voters who supported him.
Editor,
You raise a valid point, however, Trump also had a record number of voters vote for him which is for policies contrary to what Biden espouses. Essentially an overreach could spell trouble for him and the Democrats. In my considered opinion, this dynamic holds true even if Trump somehow manages to pull this out which seems unlikely. Since this election had a record turnout naturally both the winner and the lower got more voters than anyone in history. IMHO that means very little.
Also, expect many people to put pressure on their Republican Senators to block Democrat baser impulses. Examples of this being mandatory lockdowns, massive tax increases, BLM, and ANTIFA. America, as a politically left of center country, is in full support of much of the Democrat platform but are uncomfortable with some of the baser impulses which is reflected in how we voted.
Essentially try and overreach and Democrat hold on the Whitehouse and the House will be short-lived in my considered opinion. I could be wrong of course. Thank you for the reply.
Historical number of illegals voting, historical number of dead people voting, and historical ballot box stuffing.
It is historical alright,. Historians will mark this as the year that America official became a Banana Republic with nukes.
Anon (5:47)
Team Trump alleges what you just alleged in your first paragraph. Do you have more proof than he or his team have presented? Based upon what I'm seeing now enough proof hasn't been supplied to be granted any relief by the courts. Surely Trump must have it otherwise the Republican leadership would have abandoned him by now. Do you have the proof? I'd like to see it, assuming it exists. The editor says Facebook and Twitter are censoring anyone who suggests fraud. They might just be afraid of something.
Your such a precious troll
You never heard of motor voter fraud act of the 1990s?
Or the recent news of California block the feds from investigating it in the last 18 months.
Or A guy in Michigan checking death rolls in Michigan and finding that they are still active voters?
I think trolls should make sub minimum wage in rubles.
Editor,
Part of what Wall Street may be looking at is the makeup of the new Supreme Court. For example, on lockdowns the question arises can POTUS actually do this. Trump largely avoided this particular problem by letting the states chart their course.
There's already been at least two examples I'm aware of where state Supreme Courts acted to check the oowr if over zealous state and local officials. On a Court with RBG the tie breaking vote would have been John Roberts and almost certainly would have rubber stamped POTUS on such a move. With RBG on the Court such a lockdown is less likely to be upheld. If ordered, fierce resistance would ensue and be appealed to the Supreme Court. The pressure they would be under to hear these cases would be tremendous and very likely mean the end of lockdowns nationwide. I think Wall Street is aware of this.
TX almost went Democrat this time. Order a nationwide lockdown and you probably lose TX for a generation or more. A nationwide lockdown would be classic overreach in my considered opinion. We should have learned by now that they don't work.
Finally, don't nominate a Supreme Court Justice that the Senate isn't going to confirm. We saw this during the Obama Administration. Getting a "radical" through is going to be problematic at best. I'm sure Wall Street sees this as well.
Anon (6:27)
I asked for evidence. If you read my post, you would have seen that I'm actually with you on this. The "troll" insult assuming it was directed at me isn't necessary.
Thank you for providing more evidence. As o stated elsewhere I'm seeing lots of smoke. The courts will want to see the actual fire IMHO. You've presented more smoke. Now if the Trump Administration can prevent nany more examples like this and they can prove it really occurred then it may be enough.
Anon (6:27)
I'm actually with you on the fraud thing. The troll insult isn't necessary.
As I've said elsewhere, there's lots of smoke. You presented more. None of these by themselves are likely to be enough to persuade the courts or the Supreme Court. If team Trump can orange enough similar examples along with proof, perhaps it'll be enough to persuade them.
Stalin shot his wife in the face
Post a Comment