Coronavirus and the Return to Normalcy

Is the Biden administration bungling their Covid-19 and vaccine messaging? As Steve put it to ...

By

Is the Biden administration bungling their Covid-19 and vaccine messaging? As Steve put it to Jonah, “It’s awfully cynical of you to suggest that what they’re doing is withholding information because they want to pass their emergency relief bill, and you’re absolutely right to be that cynical.” Also up for discussion: why Xavier Becerra should have been the Biden nominee to have gotten the Neera Tanden treatment instead of Neera Tanden, U.S. relations with Iran and why Republicans who are not Trump loyalists cannot simply turn into Democrats.

Show Notes:

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (46)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Donnie Winningham

    Because this is a journalistic endeavor, I have a question that I was hoping someone could address. I'm not sure if "journalism" is a unique market that is resistant to or immune from traditional market incentives and/or pressures, but I'm confused as to why more of the competitors to the NYT (i.e., the Washington Post, L.A. Times, Boston Globe, CNN, etc.) are not jumping all over all of the bad press the NYT has created for itself over the last several months in order to tear it down and build their own market share. Maybe I'm just in a bubble, but it seems like the only places I hear/read about the myriad of issues at the Times, from the Tom Cotton op ed fallout to the most recent firing of the science reporter, are from conservative leaning publications. It would seem to me that there would be a little more market rivalry at work here, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Can anyone provide any explanation beyond just "their all on the same partisan team, so won't attack each other"?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    I listened to the whole thing. If you only have ten minutes, listen to the first ten. Mr. Goldberg nails it. I've been saying that for many weeks now. Good show.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    As we say in Philly, Bill Kristol is a bum. Stop listening to him.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    The Iran Deal: It's a first ditch effort!

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    The Stray Goose

    The Iran Nuclear Deal: Pres Biden isn't restoring Pres Obama's legacy, he's restoring HIS legacy. Like Robert Gates said, (paraphrase) "Biden was wrong on ever foreign policy issue". Biden is desperate to prove he was right. I think he's wrong, but that's what I think he's doing.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Justin Perry-Naw Dawg Doctrine

    I think it's intriguing that none of them thought to address that last question from the assumption that you live somewhere (an urban center such as NYC) where a Republican/Conservative will not be winning any election for the foreseeable future. What then? I happen to find the idea of switching affiliation simply to vote in the Democratic primary (NY requires you to be registered in one party or the other in order to vote in their primary) to try to drive the candidate towards the center, with the hopes that whomever wins the primary and inevitably wins the election IS more centrist.

    Collapse
  7. Brett C

    My take is that the saner wing of the democratic party has plurality of power (Biden was the nominee, not Sanders), but the saner wing of the republican party won't be nominating anyone anytime soon. I'd vote in the GOP primaries if I thought I was helping someone like Liz Chaney get the nomination, but that ain't happening. So why should I fight within the GOP? It seems like I'd have more influence in the democratic party. I don't mean sell out your principles in order to get power, but if you voted your conscience everytime, where would that vote do the most good?

    Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    The Bell Tower

    Tanden is a moderate who acts like a radical, very similar to Donald Trump as a matter of fact. He engendered far more anger due to his personality than to his policy positions (assuming he ever had any). That isn’t sexism so much as human nature.

    And it isn’t just Biden’s call to pick his OMB Director. A guy who paints my house can pick his staff until the dude who yelled at my daughter in the grocery store shows up. Then I kick him out, call the painter and say “Try again, buddy.”

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    BrandonAlleman

    In defense to Sarah's assertion that sexism could be part of the objections to Tanden, there were lots of equally good and plausible assertions to explain the discrepancy towards Tanden but no evidence. If you are going to propose several plausible assertions but only hold one to the standard of evidentiary proof, I'd like an explanation why the assertions that mesh better with your sensibilities don't need to meet the same standard.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Michael Berkowitz

      It's a matter of burden-of-proof. If you're going to call someone sexist and/or racist you should have to do more than say that's one possible explanation of his behavior, even if it's as likely as the others. (I am, not being a lawyer and this not being a legal proceeding, using terms in their colloquial sense. Whatever would happen in court, this is how people should behave.)

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JohnF

      It also ignores the other candidates who have already sailed through. If Tanden's nomination is scuppered by racism and sexism, why didn't the same thing happen to Deb Haaland, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, and Marcia Fudge?

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        BrandonAlleman

        I thought the podcast crew did a good job arguing for several reasons more plausible than sexism. If they had left it at that it wouldn't have raised my eyebrow. Steve demanding evidence for this claim alone gave it an air of 'splaining to me. Regardless, I think it's possible to be many reasons at once.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Justin Perry-Naw Dawg Doctrine

        So, I'm not taking a side in this battle. However. I don't think it was "sexism" because she is a female per say. I think the argument is that it's "sexism" because of the belief that women are held to different standards for what they say and how they act than men are. And look, I actually went back and looked at the people who were used as evidence in favor of this argument, and I found it really hard to counter the notion that "all these men who act in publicly appalling ways were supported, whereas this one woman is torpedoed for acting in the same way". If they had criticized Tanden for XYZ position, then so be it. But that's not really what they did at all.

        Let me also state, I don't condone Tanden's behavior, but I would have also not condoned the behavior of these other men who were supported.

        Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Pierre Bezukhov

    You changed my mind completely on the Neera Tanden nomination. I would add to that we should accept her apology, and not that there wasn't an ulterior motive, or that she's sincere in anyway, but because being a victim of cancel culture should not be a death sentence. Let's begin the forgiveness process with her. Tanden serves the role of red herring (the dogs are on her scent and not Becerra's) whether that was the intent or not. Manchin gets credit by not voting for her which gives him an out if he votes for the far more dangerous Becerra. Then again, Becerra's reputation as a "bully of nuns" is so toxic that maybe we want him in the picture ... attached to Biden.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Richard Maxton

      I'm more in line with Charles Cooke on the Tanden nomination - let her live by the rules her side has set for others. "I don't think that people - even people in public view - should be condemned forever for rude, intemperate, ill-advised, even profane tweets. But they do."

      Collapse
Load More