A State of the Union Special Mailbag Edition
Hello Hackaroos,
Well, President Biden addressed a nation (and a world) on edge on Tuesday and since we’re both still processing the big speech, we thought it would help us wrap our heads around it by answering some of your questions in this special mailbag edition of the newsletter. Plus, some Texas tidbits from the big primary day!
As always, be sure to share the newsletter with your friends: https://hacksontap.bulletin.com/subscribe
And check out our merch store: https://themerchspot.com/collections/hacks-on-tap
YOU’VE GOT STATE OF THE UNION QUESTIONS, WE’VE GOT ANSWERS
Andrew Kiesow: Did Biden tap into his empathy superpower enough in this speech?
GIBBS: Truthfully, I wish he would have tapped into it a little bit more. I think they wanted to, but I just don't know if the speech absolutely hit the mark with people walking away feeling like Biden was middle-class Scranton Joe Biden from 2020 enough. I wanted more to show he fully understood the depth and pain of inflation. So, I would have liked that to a little bit more. I think it's always hard to get the leader of the free world (or any of us for that matter!) to freely talk about things that aren't going well and I think that's probably what happened here.
MURPHY: I would say there were authentic flashes of empathy when he talked to many of the gallery visitors, but it was not really deployed in a particularly effective or strategic way in the speech. It could have been better. I was dying for him to do the “let me talk for a minute to the people of Russia, whose sons are dying in a needless war the Russian people do not want. Our fight is not with you, but with the dictator who ordered it, etc.” So I give him OK marks, but a lot of lost opportunity to really show his empathy in the classic Biden way.
Lisa McKinley: The heckling of Boebert & Greene - They never receive any consequences, even if Lindsey Graham tells them to shut up. Greene can be stripped of all conference committees, speak at a Nazi rally, and still fundraise to keep her seat. What can actually be done about this? And will the Republicans do anything?
MURPHY: I would give the Sergeant at Arms a cattle prod to be discreetly employed at moments like that because I thought it was disgusting. That said, I think if we censored members of Congress for bad judgment, or boorish behavior, it would be hard to reliably find a quorum. But yeah, if McCarthy had a spine, there's no reason why the leading kooks in the party wouldn't be harshly disciplined.
GIBBS: Yeah, Marjorie Taylor Greene held a rally not too long ago and said Kevin McCarthy couldn't do anything to stop her. I’m not sure that’s right, but that’s how the GOP leadership has handled her. It speaks volumes that an Adam Kinzinger and a Liz Cheney get ostracized from the party when the Marjorie Taylor Greene’s and Lauren Boebert’s of the world are embraced and lauded by the party. One point, though in the case of Marjorie Taylor Greene: her punishment is in many ways her removal from committees and really any of the workings of Congress, which makes her to some degree rather, if not completely, inconsequential to what happens in Congress. Yes, she has a presence and a following but in Washington she’s at best a sideshow. There's a number of people who are in Congress who aren't necessarily effective members. She's barely even a participatory. She's a spectator in an arena that isn't a spectator sport.
Kirk Stoltz: Do you think the President spent enough time on Americans' economic woes vs. the Ukraine issue?
GIBBS: Yeah, I do in this case it did. Us Hacks went into the speech asking, “does this speech become totally different as a result of Ukraine or is Biden's big lift here to talk about and empathize with Americans’ economic anxieties”? In that case, I think this probably did match the right amount. Interestingly, as you may have heard on our podcast, David Axelrod and other commentators have since said that they felt like the Ukraine part was simply added on to the front of the speech, rather than the full speech being narratively or thematically rewritten to include Ukraine. So, in that sense, I think they were doing it consciously such that it didn't overwhelm the business that they had to do around the economy and domestic politics.
MURPHY: I thought the mix was jumbled and awkward. I get it; Biden had to juggle a world crisis and the economic pain people are worried about COVID and inflation; the biggest real domestic issue right now. So not easy, but I think he would have done well with a longer, deeper, Ukraine segment (or the TV speech to the nation I’ve been plugging) and then a tighter more focused domestic policy section. Too much got lost in the long laundry list.
Geri Shufelberger: I enjoy your newsletter and the Podcast very much. I really just have a comment. Mr. Murphy, would you please, out of the goodness of your heart and to keep the Gold Man out of the White House, volunteer to advise President Biden's advisors on how to communicate his message. I almost cringe every time he speaks although last night was better than some I have watched. Thank you for your time.
MURPHY: I give him all the free advice I can manage in this newsletter and on Hacks on Tap podcast. I have some friends over there and they have no shortage of smart people. That said, many Democrats find my background suspect. And I am a conservative; I disagree with much of his domestic agenda (too big, too much $). On the other hand, I want his Presidency to be successful for our country, which needs it. So I’m lost in the middle here. They should just listen to Axe and Gibbs!
Bottom line, me being there would be an uneasy marriage.
GIBBS: But if it happens, let it be on Zoom so that a few of us can watch!
MURPHY: Not gonna ever happen!
Adriane Luckey: What surprised you the most about the speech?
MURPHY: I really thought the structure would be tighter and more clear: Ukraine, COVID on the mend, let’s fight inflation and help the middle class with these 2-3 things. This moment is too important for a do-nothing Congress. You did it with infrastructure. Now show the world U.S. Democracy works. Use the moment to slim down the dead BBB and relaunch…
GIBBS: While I thought immigration and crime would be mentioned in the speech given their importance as issues, I did not have on my bingo card that the Joe Biden would mention border security before immigration reform (even though it was only a couple words earlier). I certainly didn't think that he would be much more forceful even than he was during the campaign in 2020 about, in this case, funding, not defunding, the police. I think it was a valiant effort for Biden to pull his party back from its dangerous lurch left. He's the physical embodiment that the lurch left is not the base of the party. If it were, he would not have been the nominee, and he wouldn't be our President.
Joseph Reyna: Do you think it will change in any real way how people think about President Biden or his agenda?
MURPHY: No. People are – tragically – so hopelessly dug in. Maybe it helped him a little because of the tough voiced Ukrainian stuff and the sheer volume of a TV speech. The ratings were high compared to earlier speeches. And I’m sure a lot of Democrats liked it. But I don’t think the big needle moved in a long-term, meaningful way. Maybe I’ll be wrong.
GIBBS: I agree with Murphy. We have seen that the audience for these speeches is dwindling. Though in this speech, probably because of global events, there was an increase in the audience than watched Biden's address to Congress last year. But, I think we just live in such a polarized world that is asking too much of a speech and far too much for a broad portion of the population to be open minded enough for it to truly recast the way we think of Joe Biden. I do think you could see some marginal improvements because lots of the public polling leading into this speech had really low approval ratings on Ukraine for Joe Biden (33% in The Washington Post) and I think at least Americans got a lot more information on Tuesday night about Ukraine and the important role we are playing, and might view him slightly more favorably as a result of it. But any real movement, no.
TIDBITS:
GIBBS: A fascinating runoff is taking place in Texas is 28th congressional district – something we talked about on the podcast and a recent issue. Henry Cuellar, popularly known to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is running for reelection against Jessica Cisneros in a runoff in a few weeks. This will take place with interesting geography and interesting ideology and I think it will be something that a lot of people will be watching as we head into more primaries and ultimately the general election. It is really interesting if you look at the territory here. The real estate most closely around San Antonio was big for Cisneros, 70-plus percent. The more traditional Valley real estate was pretty heavily for Cuellar. So, I think each campaign knows where they're going to target to get out their vote.
MURPHY: Yeah, that’s a race the R’s have targeted to pick up – it’s a winnable district for them – and both Dem candidates are wounded. Cisneros is too lefty and Cuellar (who was strong in general elections) has FBI trouble hovering over him. So it’ll be interesting to see who wins. If I were the D’s, I still want to go with Cuellar in the general; he might be cleared and his grip on the district in the past has been strong.
The other Texas story is the GOP runoff for AG. Incumbent Ken Paxton faced several opponents and state Land Commissioner George P Bush (Jeb’s son) made it into the run-off. Paxton finished a strong first, but will Bush now be able to unify the large anti-Paxton vote that was split in the first round between three contenders? Tough, but possible. Paxton is polarizing and has a huge ethics issue of his own that’s been all over the local media. This will be an axe fight.
GIBBS: And one more for you under the headline, “So you're telling me there's a chance?” Joe Manchin dangled the idea of a potential solve for aspects of Build Back Better (though we're not calling it that anymore!) by basically saying you do tax reform, do prescription drug pricing reform, and use half the money for fighting inflation and deficit reduction. That formula would likely leave funding for important investments to combat climate change and to extend the assistance given to purchasing healthcare insurance through the Affordable Care Act. And, if I'm Joe Biden in this White House, I would run, not walk to his office to sign that deal. It is not all that they wanted. It's not even half of what they wanted. But it's fundamentally important. The climate change money is obvious. If the help approved during the pandemic for health insurance isn't extended, lots of people are going to get notices right before the election that the cost of their health care is going up. Not a good thing ever, but certainly not a good thing before an election. The outstanding question is whether Senator Kyrsten Sinema will go for tax changes she has opposed previously. My only other advice to the White House would be cut this deal yourself with Joe Manchin and get it on the floor. Don't involve Congress. Don't involve the House and the Senate leadership. Don't involve the Committee chairs. Just do this and get it done.
MURPHY: That's good advice. I agree, make a deal. Get a win!
Have a great weekend everyone and we’ll see you on Tuesday!
Murphy and Gibbs