Joe Biden ran as the moderate option. Joe Biden lied.
Now that he’s got the keys to the White House, he’s building the vanity project as the cherry-on-top of five decades of faithful public disservice.
That vanity project is an overhaul of how government runs on a scale that would make FDR blush.
Part of that plan is to put the right (or wrong, depending on your perspective on whether traditional America and the Constitution are worth preserving) in positions of power to chuck wrenches into the machine of the state or hijack it entirely.
Blinken, Milley and Garland are obvious examples of this practice. Some others are coming down the pipe. But with sufficient public outrage, we just dodged a bullet with one that became too radioactive even for the radicals holding the whip hand of power in DC right now.
Lenin scholar Saule Omarova withdrew her name from consideration for the country’s top bank regulator on Tuesday after losing the support of moderate Senate Democrats.
Omarova told the White House it was “no longer tenable” to remain a nominee for comptroller of the currency, the New York Times reported. Omarova came under withering criticism from Senate Republicans over her calls to radically reform the banking system and create a New Deal-style federal agency to oversee infrastructure spending.
The withdrawal is a major setback for progressives, who touted Omarova’s criticism of big banks and the fossil fuel industry. President Joe Biden said in a statement accepting Omarova’s withdrawal that she would have been a “staunch defender” of consumers but that she “was subjected to inappropriate personal attacks that were far beyond the pale.” —FreeBeacon
Inappropriate personal attacks, Joe? Like what, exactly?
Like what Toomey said about her?
“You could ask yourself, ‘Where would a person even come up with these ideas?'” he continued. “Well, maybe a contributing factor could be in if a person grew up in the former Soviet Union, and went to Moscow State University, and attended there on a Vladimir Lenin Academic Scholarship.”
All of it is both accurate and relevant.
Like bringing up her open praise of the Soviets’ centrally-planned economy (the same article shows her praising China’s system of regulating their financial system).
Was the ‘personal attack’ about how she wanted to federalize personal banking? Or possibly objecting to the fact that she openly called for energy companies to ‘go bankrupt’ as a way of stopping climate change?
She was educated in a university in Moscow, and she embraced a Russian economic ideology. Surely the guy who spent his campaign trying to smear Trump with a baseless allegation of being Putin’s stooge would be able to see the problem there.
No, Joe, your nominee was sunk by criticism of her policy. Have someone explain the difference to you.
Maybe more concrete examples could help clarify that for you.
An example of an ‘inappropriate attack’ might be a candidate for President going on television and calling a seventeen-year-old kid a white supremacist without a single shred of proof.
Another example might be unfounded rape allegations leveled against a Supreme Court nominee based on the flimsiest of claims in a cynical and bare-knuckle attempt to run out the clock before midterms.
How about you take that plank out of your own eye before looking for specks of ‘personal attacks’ in everyone else’s.
The Art of Joe: The Political Brilliance of President Biden is the consummate gag gift that every MAGA Patriot should own and buy as gifts for snowflakes and NeverTrumpkins. Frequently bought together with The Art of Joe are Jumbo Sized Crayons, Finger Paints, Big Chief Tablets, Depends, and Velcro Shoes. BTW, the book is 95% bereft of any content. Just like Biden’s head.