Biden Pivots to Voting Rights

President Biden ran his 2020 campaign on the promise he’d bring back “normal” life in ...

By

President Biden ran his 2020 campaign on the promise he’d bring back “normal” life in America. Almost one year later, there is still an ongoing pandemic, record-high inflation, and a serious lack of food in grocery stores. The gang discusses it all and what it means for the country. Plus, President Biden spoke about voting rights in Atlanta yesterday and the speech aggravated all four hosts. They discuss the speech and how it adds to the tearing of the social fabric in America.

Show Notes:

–President Biden’s speech in Atlanta

–Stacey Abrams snubs President Biden?

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (116)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Mike from Jersey

    Once again Jonah shows his anti-Jersey, and anti-Wawa, bias in his comments about the worst 3 hour drive (although he is right that the 10 mile drive on I-95 in Delaware is absolutely the worst in the country...and if you've driven it on a Friday in the summer, you know what I mean). All apologies to Delawareans...or is it Delawarites? As a somewhat recent transplant to The Woodlands, I will take up Sarah's comment about Hruska's and visit...and it is a nice drive to Austin.

    Collapse
  2. Richard Fulmer

    Sarah’s point that there is very little left in the country that hasn’t been federalized highlights a fundamental problem with our democracy today. Yuval Levin keeps admonishing Americans that they should get involved at the local level rather than concentrating on national issues. But if everything has been made a national issue, what is the point of getting involved locally?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Sarah, if the filibuster goes, then Bill Taylor will win and the Boy Rangers won’t get their summer camp built and Jefferson Smith will live out the rest of him days in shame and sorrow and freedom and democracy and justice and the American Way will all perish an ignominious death…

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Ohio turnpike was on my list. And 95 in Delaware and Jersey. 95 everywhere is pretty bad. Sundays Richmond to DC is so impassible it destroys traffic all over Fredericksburg because anything heading north backs up. Haha the drive to Pedro’s South of the Border does make you want to start cutting yourself.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Faraday

    Worst drive? Maybe Reno to Vegas, about 8 hrs, numerous speed traps. The only plus is getting to wave to the Aliens as you pass Area 51, they are neighborly.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Faraday

    Thanks Guys! Really enjoyed the discussion! I am totally ok with the explicit and believe, especially in this case, I am now considered an enemy of the State by our illustrious President, a little heated language is the least of our worries.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Robert Hatch

    Has Biden not morphed into Trump 2.0? The retoric, the"Big Lie" of voter suppression is all too reminiscent. Only even more incompetent.

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Will Roberts

    I listened to this podcast, watched Biden's speech, and subscribed to the New York Times to read Levin's article. BTW. There is no option to unsubscribe. You have to call or talk to a representative on instant chat. Ridiculous.

    I listened to Biden's speech and the commentary. While I thought parts of the speech was over the top I was not as angered as Sarah or anyone else on the podcast. Perhaps because I am Republican curious rather than strictly Republican. I can't say the commentary or evidence presented helped me move from the camp of Republican curious to even a Republican like David who criticizes his tribe but still considers himself to be part of the tribe. The Dispatch has made me Republican curious. But conversations like this make me think that is not a good idea. It seemed more like a diatribe then a well thought out argument.

    While the New Jim Crow and Bull Conner analogies are to left field perhaps they are not out of the ball park for a party who presented as their nominee a man who said mexican's are rapists but some are good people (implying that most are in fact rapists and giving him an out from the explicitly racist ratting). Considering that the original Georgia Bill included provisions to limit voting on Sunday, a day Black churches explicitly take voters to the poll, is perhaps an instance of saying the quiet part out loud and indicative of larger intent. To say that New York has similar restrictive laws does not excuse Georgia Laws it is to point out New York's attempts at voter suppression and to maintain a one party state as Georgia is trying to do. To say as Jonah did in his G file that lots of blacks are moving to Georgia is an irrelevant point to as whether the Georgia law is racially motivated or has a racial effect. To say that voter turnout is high generally is irrelevant when the margins are small in increasingly purple states like Georgia. Even a small suppression of the vote could help. Levin's article drew the equivalence to voter fraud not being real and voter suppression not being real without really making the factual argument. To say that New York bans food and drink at polls doesn't make it a good idea in Georgia. Just say you can't have identifying labels on the food and drink you hand out if that is your concern. To say that polling places can provide it. I have worked in a polling place. It is hard to find volunteers, they have low budgets, and better things to do on election day. Sarah mentioned a more detailed study on voter suppression. I didn't see it in the notes. I would like to read it. I remain unconvinced. Perhaps the Republican party's motivations are not completely racial but considering the amount that blacks vote for democrats the effect is the same. It is much easier for a for legislatures to pass laws than it is to rig a large scale vote count. If you are going to make the argument that these few legislatures are doing good things behind doors you are going to have to make a better argument to this Republican curious listener. Today's argument was a diatribe and below Dispatch standards.

    In regards to Sarah's Anger. I understand she worked for the Trump administration. And she has a motivation not to bad mouth her former employer. I think that generally makes her a good moderator and gives the Dispatch more credibility for those who are more pro trump. The most I have heard her say in the years I have listened is expressing great sadness and the complicated position those in the administration were after January 6th. I get that she probably doesn't approve of Trumps more divisive comments. She doesn't seem to be the type of person who would. But unlike David I have never heard her speak publicly in anger with the same anger about Trump's divisiveness as with Biden's. Perhaps I understand the reasoning. But I don't think it makes her the best messenger to call out Biden when she has largely not directly commented on Trump. I think that makes her a good moderator. But it also makes her hypocritical in this case. Preserve your bridges or burn your bridges. But if you are going to criticize Biden for being divisive I do think it requires you risk burning your bridges. I don't know Sarah personally. Perhaps it isn't the case. I am just giving my public perception having listened to her for a few years now.

    As to federalizing elections. I think we have to accept that the states have not been the main guarantor of civil rights or constitutional rights. The Federal Government has. I remember David talking about trying to sue a coal company in a coal town and how the judge was biased because of all the interests around him. He was probably a good person. But as most of us he wanted to keep his job. So I am somewhat skeptical that we should entrust states to ensure people's voting rights. While the federal government may standardize voting they are not the one's administering it.

    That being said it could open up a Pandora's box of the next party coming into Washington restricting voting rights. And it could raise suspicion that the process is further rigged. I do think the uncentralized nature of American elections make large scale voter fraud a practical impossibility as Sarah described on Advisory Opinions. But I do feel the uncentralized nature makes it more likely that local officials will cave into popular pressure to restrict voting for their own economic and political survival. I don't know the solution. Like most things these days it is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. I hope these comments have been fair.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Will Roberts

      Also the point that people are democratically electing officials who publicly profess that the election was stolen and saying that since they were elected democratically and nothing has happened yet therefore it is not a problem for democracy, which is what Jonah and Levin argued, is not a serious argument. It is like a kid who is about to reach his hand and get a cookie he is not supposed to and gets caught say I haven't actually taken the cookie yet, when that was your clear intent. I hate to compare Republicans to Hitler since it is cliche, but the NAZI's were democratically elected and overthrew the democratic process. Electing people who say an election was stolen when it was not is a real threat to democracy.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Phil Pennington

    This may be letting Biden off the hook to some slight extent, but I wonder if he was set up by his more ‘progressive’ advisors. I have been very reluctant to even wonder about his mental competence (I’m uncomfortably close to his age), but I think this speech really raises questions about it.

    Collapse
  10. William in Ecuador

    Sarah's reaction to the Biden quote is bizarre. Here's what Biden said: "The next few days, when these bills come to a vote, will mark a turning point in this nation. Will we choose democracy over autocracy, light over shadow, justice over injustice? I know where I stand. I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will defend your right to vote and our democracy against all enemies foreign and domestic."

    Wouldn't Sarah defend democracy etc against domestic enemies? Does she think it has no domestic enemies? Really?

    The quoted text does not in any way mean what Sarah said, "Anyone who does not support the legislation is an enemy of the country". It just doesn't. It is not even implied. The other three don't get a pass either, as none objected to that formulation.

    As a foreign onlooker, US voting doesn't look so democratic. I've voted in the UK many times, in Germany a few times and in Ecuador a few times. Never have I waited more than a few minutes to vote. There's no gerrymandering and no voter suppression. In Ecuador voting is compulsory. But there are areas in Georgia where people stand in line for hours and yet instead of considering that a national embarassment and fixing it Republican politicians appear to want ot make it even worse.

    I'd classify the US, like my country the UK, as only a semi-democracy. I get the feeling that many people don't really believe that everyone has a right to vote. The panel are all upset with Joe Biden and his party for wanting to make it a little better. But I'd expect them also to be upset that, for example, the Supreme Court removed protections that the VRA, voted for almost unanimously in 2006 (ish) by Congress. That's what the John Lewis act does, but nobody on the panel seems to care. They'd rather get angry about things Biden never said than consider that voter supression really does exist and help to fix it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

      I have a few questions for you, William in Ecuador.

      (1) Of the many times you voted in the U.K., how many of them were on early voting days?

      (2) What was the partisan affiliation of the Georgia city and county election officials where there were the longest poll lines?

      (3) How do you square your assertion about voter suppression with the record vote totals — both in terms of absolute votes cast and percentage of eligible voters — all across the U.S. in November 2020, during the middle of a pandemic? Is your theory that the records would have been broken by even bigger margins, but for voter suppression? If so, what's your empirical evidence for that guess?

      (4) I gather that Ecuador fines nonvoters. Is that something you support? Do you have any views as to how that could be squared with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which treats voting as a form of speech beyond the power of Congress to dictate? Why do you suppose that FreedomHouse.org rates Ecuador as only "partly free," whereas it rates the two "semi-democrac[ies]" you specify, the U.S. and the U.K., as "free"? Are they just hallucinating? Or are you urging that we ought all follow the Ecuadoran paradigm? Link: https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores

      Finally: (5) Where did you learn to mind read? You've told us things about the internal thoughts and beliefs of those participating in this podcast, throwing a particularly nasty ad hominem brickbat at Ms. Isgur. Yet you didn't actually quote any of them, not even once. And my own impression, from what I heard, doesn't square up with your interpretation. Do you have any specific quotes to support your assertions?

      Collapse
      1. William in Ecuador

        Hi Bill.
        1. We don't have early voting in the UK. Mail-in voting is easy though. I don't understand why early voting is needed in the US, and why people stand in line on voting day rather than using it. But wouldn't the state want to fix that?
        2. I read that there are bipartisan bodies but I don't know how that works in practice. I mean, bipartisan can mean deadlocked. It is a mystery to me, because why would anybody voluntarily allocate just 3 poling places for 22000 voters.
        3. Well think about it. If you didn't have a birth certificte, driver's licence, etc needed to vote in 2016 you probably still didn't have one in 2020. Just because more of the folks who did have an ID turned out to vote doesn't change the fact that you still couldn't vote. So yes, obviously without suppression the number of voters would have been bigger, but then they'd have been bigger in 2016, 2012 etc and so the 'margins' would not necessarily have changed.
        4. They pay a penalty if they use a state service of some sort and can't produce a voting card. They can of course attend voting an spoil the ballot if they prefer not to vote for anyone. I don't have strong feelings about compulsory voting, but I'd note that Australia requires citizns to vote and has a rating on your preferred scale of 97, way higher than the US at 83. I'd suggest not boasting about a score that puts your country well behind almosty all of Europe, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Taiwan, Chile, much of the Carribean, and even behind Mongolia.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

          (1) Thanks for your honesty; this was a trick question, because there is no early voting in the UK. Nor in Delaware, although that will change in 2022. Nor in New Hampshire or Connecticut, and that will still be true in 2022. What this demonstrates is not that your arguments have any merit, but rather, that there is a very wide range of what is considered "normal" in a wide range of places that aren't trying to suppress democracy.

          (2) Those responsible for the long lines in Georgia were Democrats, not bipartisan or nonpartisan. You call on Republicans to fix this problem. They have to be elected in the relevant Georgia counties first. Until then, blame Democrats; I'll join you. (In fairness, I don't think they're trying to suppress votes; I think they're grossly incompetent.)

          (3) You don't seem to actually understand how voter ID works in the U.S. Birth certificates aren't required, but many states — including, for example, Illinois, whose voter ID law was co-sponsored by then-state senator Barack Obama — do require some form of photo ID. It doesn't have to be a driver's license; all states provide alternate forms of photo ID free of charge, although you're still going to have to provide something (typically utility bills) which confirms both identity and eligibility. There are organizations that will help anyone who's eligible overcome, at no charge, any logistical hurdles to getting a valid photo ID. There are organizations that will pick you up and give you a free ride to and from the polls.

          You theorize, but present no actual evidence to support the proposition, that there are some number of people — you don't say how many — who want to vote, and who are otherwise eligible to vote, but who're prevented from doing so by voter ID requirements. Can you name one? I've never met one, nor seen a reliable report of one. And I live in Houston, in a majority-minority neighborhood.

          There were roughly eight million more voters in the 2020 presidential election than there were in 2016. That seems to me to be conclusive evidence. I therefore find your voter suppression arguments entirely, indeed ridiculously, unpersuasive.

          (4) I wasn't boasting, I was asking you questions, one of which you sidestepped, and the other of which (regarding the First Amendment) you ignored.

          (5) I didn't expect you to answer the last question. Let me suggest to you that when you project ugly sentiments onto someone, and then produce no objective evidence — like something they actually SAID, rather than your misleading or simply false paraphrase thereof — you lose credibility.

          This will conclude our conversation. I doubt we'll ever have another.

          Collapse
        2. William in Ecuador

          5. I don't think there's an ad. hom. but if you point it out I'll apologize. I quoted Sarah directly in the 3rd paragraph. Thats the core of my comment - she made a provocative statement that's just plain false. The whole discussion that followed was thus based on that false premise and by going along with it the others were complicit. As for reinstating the VRA, that's part of what they're railing against. What possible justification is there for that?

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Bill Dyer (aka Beldar)

            Did you read the SCOTUS decision? Here's a link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4053797526279899410

            EDIT: The one direct quote you have from Ms. Isgur was her paraphrase of something Joe Biden said in his speech — and she wasn't quoting and paraphrasing the lines from Biden that YOU quoted, but rather the ones in which he referenced George Wallace, Bull Conner, and Jefferson Davis (former U.S. senator from Mississippi, former U.S. Secretary of War, but then the treasonous president of the Confederacy). Perhaps you think it was an unfair paraphrase, in which case we disagree. If you label someone "on the side of Jefferson Davis," you're calling someone an enemy of the country in my opinion — and Abe Lincoln's too, by the way. It's was Biden's ridiculous calumny, not his attempts at a ringing call for justice, with which she was finding fault.

            I was also referring to the words you tried to put into Ms. Isgur's mouth in the second paragraph of your comment. I challenge you to find anything Ms. Isgur said to the effect that she wouldn't defend America or thinks America has no domestic enemies.

            You're making very personal attacks for which you haven't provided, and can't provide, actual supporting evidence. Those seem to me to be classic examples of ad hominem.

            We're done, sir. And I have to say, I regret the time spent in this discussion. I'll go out of my way to ignore you hereafter.

            Collapse
Load More