Thinking In Time About Biden's Short List

A leak attributed to presumptive 2020 Democrat Presidential nominee Joe Biden (D-DE) revealed that six names had made the initial cut to be considered Vice Presidential running mates.  This list seems to adhere to Mr. Biden’s promise to pick a woman.  The list includes Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Obama National Security Advisor and ex UN Ambassador Susan Rice, two term Congresswoman Val Demings (D-FL 10th), first term New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-NM), and Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D-Atlanta).  

Notably, several persons who seem to have been campaigning to be Joe Biden’s right hand woman were absent.  Failed 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, who had been openly speculating about her chances was not on the list.  Minnesota Senator Amy! Klobachar (D-MN) did not make the cut, despite the fact the she withdrew from the Democrat primaries quickly after placing third in New Hampshire thereby  clearing the way for Biden’s first Presidential primary win (ever) in South Carolina.  Also absent is freshman Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmar (D-MI), who made a name for herself in aggressively implementing a continued COVID-19 lockdown in the Great Lake State.   Surprisingly, Michelle Obama’s name was not teased on this list, even though candidate Biden has used nearly every opportunity to associate himself with the Obama legacy. And Hillary Clinton’s name was no-where to be found on this leaked list.

Naturally, Biden Campaign spokesman Andrew Bates, dismissed the speculation by cryptically saying: “Those who talk don’t know and those who know don’t talk”.  That may be true, as sometimes prospective nominees use the time between clinching the nomination and the convention to keep in the news as they supposedly vet candidates, but then they make an unexpected choice.  This campaign tactic garners earned media during a traditionally lean campaign funding time-period between the primaries and the general election.  Moreover it has the added bonus of recognizing inter-party influencers to unite the party and generate enthusiasm. 

(L) Rep. Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY 9th) and ex VP Walter Mondale (D-MN)

Take the parade of VEEPstakes candidates that 1984 Democrat nominee Walter Mondale interviewed for the job.  Mondale claimed that he wanted a running mate who could advise the President nationally, could act as an international envoy and who could help pass legislation on Capitol Hill.   Mondale was open to having a female VP, so he seriously considered Kentucky Governor Martha Layne Collins (D-KY), then San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and ultimately his choice Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY 9th), who was known for working for equality for women while representing a conservative Democrat district where Archie Bunker from “All in the Family” would have lived.

While Mr. Mondale offered high minded criteria in selecting a Vice Presidential running mate, there are often more base political concerns, encapsulated in the probing question “What does (s)he bring to the ticket?   Almost always, a campaign wants the selection to lock a state in the victory column.  Preferably an important swing state.  This might explain the major motivations that Hillary Clinton (D-NY) chose Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) to clinch Virginia in 2016.

A second quality that Presidential nominees usually seek in their VEEPstakes choice is the notion of balance.   In 1960, then Senator John Fitzgerald Kennedy (D-MA) balanced his East Coast ticket by picking then Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX).   In 1988, Governor Michael Dukakis (D-MA) chose Senator Lloyd Benson (D-TX).  This can be North/South or Coastal/Midwest (or more derisively-- “fly over country”).


That balance need not be geographical or electoral.  In 2000, then Governor George W. Bush (R-TX) chose former Wyoming Congressman Dick Cheney (R-WY) as his running mate.  Republicans rule Wyoming and it is only three electoral college votes, so clinching a swing state is not the answer.  Well, at the time, “W” was considered to be an intellectual lightweight and a Washington outsider.  Cheney, who had acted as President Ford’s Chief of Staff and President George Herbert Walker Bush’s Defense Secretary, quelled media concerns for “gravitas”, as well as selecting a rock rib Republican who had loyalty to the Bush family.   Opting for an experienced but loyal insider may well have been the motivation for then freshman Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) choosing 36 year senate veteran Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) in 1988.    

There are some instances in which the VEEPstakes is driven by reinforcing a value.  Take for example when then Governor Bill Clinton (D-AR) selected Senator Al Gore, Jr. (D-TN).  Both were baby boomers from mid South states, neither being signficant swing states or big electoral college values.  But they could be contrasted as a new era for politics, particularly contrasted with the last World War II President (Bush “41").  They also could be marketed as “New Democrats”.

(L) Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) and (R) Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) made a surprise choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) in 2008.  McCain fancied himself as a maverick who campaign would fight for you.  He chose a had a reputation for fighting corruption among her own party and offered inroads with the religious right.  It did not hurt that she provided an attractive generational balance for an aged Vietnam War veteran. This might have been a second choice for McCain, as he pined to pick his friend Senator Joe Liberman (D/I-CN) but this choice was allegedly rebuffed by GOP conservatives.

By thinking in time, it might shed some light into Biden’s Veepstakes. Aside from insinuating that his running mate must be female, candidate Biden has espoused:

"One, that they are younger than I am. No, I'm not being facetious, and number two that they are ready on Day One to be President of the United States of America."   

So Biden recognizes that he is older and needs to have a second who is ready to step in. 

(L) ex VP Joe Biden (D-DE) and (R) Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)

If we take Biden’s statements about age and sex seriously, it is odd that Elizabeth Warren tops the leaked list.  Warren is almost 71 years old, so technically she’s younger than the top of the ticket but not a generational difference. However, based on many recent media appearences, Warren seems more mentally with it than Biden. Warren placed in third in her home state primary, so it’s hard to say she’d lock Massachusetts, and the Bay State is hardly a swing state. The ticket would not be geographically balanced.  Warren’s credentials as a “Native American” Harvard professor, bankruptcy lawyer and legislator does not lend credence to being a public administrator ready to step in.   Arguably, Warren’s name being circulated appeals to her supporters, is an attempted olive branch to Bernie Bros due to her socialist leaning campaign and might lead to party unity.


At the start of the 2020 Democrat primary campaign, Kamala Harris was considered to be in the top tier of candidates, as she was a youthful minority candidate from the largest electoral college vote state.  An 2007 iteration of Joe Biden, might crib his praise of Barack Obama unto Kamala as a storybook candidate <<who is an African American candidate articulate and bright, clean and good looking.>> Maybe not today.  

(L) Ex VP Joe Biden (D-DE) and Sen. Kamala Harris (R-CA) at Detroit debate

During the Democrat Presidential Detroit Debate of 2019, Kamala Harris came out of the box to insinuate that her Joe Biden, her fellow candidate for the Democrat Presidential nomination, was unintentionally a racist for being against school busing in the 1970s, which benefited her as a little girl. Yet this blatant play of the race card did not win her support among the predominantly African American Democrat electorate in South Carolina, which Biden easily carried (with the strong support of House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC 6th).  Wonder why there is a disconnect between identity politics and Harris.  Consider the progressive paradigm of intersectionality.  While Harris is a Person of Color (sic), progressive voters have perseverated on the fact that Harris was perceived as being on the wrong side of history when she was California Attorney General as she was strong on punishment for minority malfeasors and that she punished cannabis criminals while privately enjoyed smoking it. 

Although Vice Presidential running mates are often encourage to be attack dogs for the top of the ticket, when she wasn’t spouting attacks planned in advance, Harris had a wooden stump style.  There is some evidence that Harris was associating herself with the Jesse Smollett controversy for political gain, but that did was not successful in being a positive lime light to dominate African American attitudes. 

Long time Democrat operative James Carville opined that personal chemistry may color Biden’s choice of a running mate.  When the cameras are away, it is hard to imagine that Harris would pass Biden’s smell test after accusing him of essentially being a racist.  Biden himself has asserted that his running mate must be intellectually simpatico.  Again, Harris does not seem to fit the bill. 

Although Biden easily carried the predominantly African American electorate voting in the South Carolina Democrat primary, with the strong support of House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC 6th), Biden may have to bolster his black base after his bone headed blunder with  the Breakfast Club’s “Charlamagne the God” when he said: “If you don’t vote for me, you ain’t black”. 



It is hard to see how Harris could achieve that end.

(L) Sen. Amy Klobachar endorsing Joe Biden (R)

An ideal balance of identity politics, geography and loyalty would have been Biden’s 2020 competition Senator Amy! Klobachar (D-MN).  She is a woman, from a Midwest swing state and did Biden a big favor by dropping out when she did. Alas events and experience got in the way.  The George Floyd sparked riots in Minneapolis highlighted the fact that Klobachar was a Minnesota Attorney General who gave the bad cop a pass for brutality in 2006.  Oops.  Klobachar’s husband’s live was saved from Covid-19 by doses of hydroxocloroquine, which was championed by President Trump (to much ridicule by the mainstream media).

Rep. Val Demings (D-FL 10th) at Trump impeachment

Another quasi prominent African American woman in the news is Congresswoman Val Demings (D-FL 10th).  Her background includes being a Police Chief in Orlando. She rose to prominence as being one of the eight House Impeachment Managers for the failed Senate trial of President Donald Trump.  Aside from that, the second term Representative has no legislative achievements, and her time leading the Orlando police force is marred by unresolved excessive police brutality problems.  While Florida is a swing state with significant amount of electoral votes, it is difficult to think that her presence on the ticket clinches the victory.  In a short time span, she would have to be marketed as a minority icon, in a nation that twice elected a black President.

Two names that were on the list that seemed to be sop to identity politics are Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham.  Both seem to be considered because of their identity rather than their experience as Administrators. Viscerally, it is hard to think that Bottoms would clinch Georgia.  Lujan Grisham might be enough to lock up the Land of Enchantment with its whopping five electoral votes.  But realistically, this would be more of a play to keep Hispanic votes in the Democrat camp.

The leaked name that is most intriguing is Susan Rice. Granted Rice has never held elective office (though she dreamed of being the first Senator from the District of Columbia) and DC’s three electoral votes are safely Democratic. So it’s not clinching a state or geographical balance that makes Democrat Rice (not to be confused with Condeleeza) interesting in Biden’s VEEPstakes. 

(L) ex VP Joe Biden (D-DE) and Susan Rice 

 Susan Rice is 27 years younger than the top of the ticket, has experience as UN Ambassador and being National Security Advisor, so she is “younger” and can be pitched as ready to step into the job when Biden can no longer do so.  But it is her connection to the inner circle of the Obama Administration and loyalty that makes it remarkable.  Susan Rice was the Obama Administration official that went on all five network public affairs shows immediately after the Bengazi fiasco in 2012 to spout the Administration line.  Susan Rice was part of the inner circle that has been implicated in the unmaskings of Trump campaign (and transition) staff.  So she worked with Biden, showed loyalty to Barack and doesn’t mind being the front person in contentious situations.   Along with identity politics, the Obama association, the loyalty and willness to be a pit bull, Susan Rice would be an interesting choice for Biden, albeit with some significant prospective liabilities. Besides, she has no office to lose and may earn a lucrative gig on MSNBC if things go south.

We can not be certain if the delayed 2020 Democrat National Convention will be held in Milwaukee, much less if Joe Biden will still be at the top of the ticket, so speculation on a Vice Presidential pick is a pre-mature parlor game.  Maybe Biden has binders of women which just haven't come to the forefront yet. But for political junkies anxious to not have to think about Antifa insurrection and COVID-19 contagiousness, it is a good exercise to keep regular order in shape.  Besides, it might give those of us who care about politics insight on evaluating Biden’s final answer. 

Jonathan Turley on Spygate

Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice on Iranian Protesters

Andrew Napolitano on DC Swamp Culture

In reaction to revelations that the FBI withheld 30 documents about the July 2016 tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and Obama Attorney General Loretta Lynch (when Hillary Clinton was still under investigation for the Hillary Email security violations), Judge Andrew Napolitano revealed an ugly truth about Beltway ethics. 

Napolitano's exhortation for government officials to follow the rule of law and not protect other "members of the club", explains why Values Voters Summit participants repeatedly rallied at allusions to "Drain the Swamp".

DOTty about High Speed Rail

Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) rejected $2.4 Billion in Porkulus spending “High Speed” rail line in Central Florida.  There was not strong support from Central Florida citizens for this High Speed Rail project.  Voters in in Tampa and Polk County (FL) rejected a 1 cent sales tax increase dedicated to the “Supertrain”. Moreover, Gov. Scott reasoned that the Orlando metropolitan area (2 million) and the Tampa Metropolitan area (2.7 million) was too small to sustain the high speed rail system.  In addition, it is unlikely that the five scheduled stops in the 84 mile route would allow the train to ever reach “high speed” status.

Gov. Scott claimed that he was trying to protect Florida taxpayers from an estimated $3 Billion in cost overruns. The SunRail deal was structured so that Florida was responsible for half of the high speed rail costs and 20% of commuter rail costs.   Gov. Scott suggested “Rather than investing in a high-risk rail project we should be focusing on improving our ports, rail and highway infrastructure.”

Obama Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood snarkily reacted that since there was an overwhelming demand for the stimulus funds earmarked for high speed rail and states like California ought to send a thank you to Florida for rejecting the funds.  LaHood denied that Florida taxpayers would be on the hook for cost overruns or stillborn project planning costs. This assertion is a stark contrast to the New Jersey paradigm, where the Obama Administration levied a charge back of $350 million to the Garden State when Gov. Chris Cristie (R-NJ) refused to write a blank check for the train to Macy’s.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Rep. John Mica (R-FL 7th) has been conflicted about rail expenditures.  Rep. Mica inveighed that “Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service." Mica also derided the Obama Administration’s push to spend an additional $53 Billion in passenger rail projects under the auspices of the Federal Rail Authority and Amtrak as “This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio.”   But Mica was also disappointed that the SunRail point was scuttled by Gov. Scott, perhaps because a pet project of a Congressional Cardinal was being sacrificed.

Building upon the fact that Orlando attracts 63 million visitors a year, Rep. Mica renewed a call to complete 21 miles of the proposed SunRail route that would connect Orlando’s main airport with the Orlando Convention Center and Disney World. Based on the massive influx of tourists, this cautious first step on the Central Florida HSR route has a chance of not being a modal money pit.

However it is unlikely that the Obama Administration DOT Secretary LaHood will approve the project on its merits because it is not a high speed rail connecting two cities.  The real reason maybe somewhat murkier.  The Obama Administration was poised to point to SunRail during the President’s re-election effort as a validation of the $836 Billion in Stimulus Spending on shovel ready projects, as well as to burnish the 21st Century Infrastructure improvements and as a sop to green voters who want to force Americans out of their evil polluting automobiles. That argument is less auspicious when it is effectively a commuter rail for tourists.

It is probable that financial and power considerations also make Rep. Mica’s modest proposal less palatable to the Feds.  The State (or municipality) only needs to pick up 20% of commuter rail costs.  A commuter rail between MCO and Disney would be under the auspices of the City of Orlando and Orange County (FL), thus bypassing the authority of the Federal Rail Administration or Amtrak, which is a government sponsored enterprise that has long been a financial featherbed for connected Democrat politicos. No wonder why Between-the-Beltway elites are dotty about trains.

Florida is the fourth most populous state and does not receive anywhere near its fair share of federal transportation expenditures compared to its gas tax contributions to Washington.  It is unseemly to have unwanted federal public policy projects from outside of the state foisted on its citizenry who will bare the brunt of the boondoggle.

But local pet projects of politicians also can be undesirable.  In 1987, the Detroit People Mover was completed at the behest of longtime Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young (D-Detroit) for a mere $187 million.  The 2.9 mile route does nothing to alleviate congestion or commuting.  It does attract 2.7 million in ridership, mainly because the $0.50 fares does not include the $3 per ride that the government absorbs.  It was a vanity project to take advantage of Federal transportation dollars.

If the U.S DOT diverts Florida’s transportation earmark from Florida to California, it will have the appearance of rewarding political friends and punishing foes to push an idealistic ambition.  Considering the estimated cost of $45 Billion for the Golden State High Speed Rail project and the possibility that cost overruns will skyrocket the cost to $60 Billion, they can use all of the earmarks that they can get.

H/T: Orlando Sentinel
H/T: Rick Geller

[This piece originally ran at DCBarroco.US]

TRAIN-ing Wheeling and Dealing

During a speech at Philadelphia’s 30th  Street Station, Vice President Joe Biden announced that the Obama Administration plans to spend $53 Billion over the next six years to upgrade and expand inter-city rail networks.  The Transportation Administration hopes that 80% of all Americans will have access to rail travel within 25 years.  These proposals keep Biden’s campaign promise that this would be the most train friendly administration ever.

The Porkulus legislation earmarked $8 billion in seed money to play with passenger trains and the FY 2010 budget included another $2.5 billion to railroad development.  But only $3.5 billion is going towards true high speed rail projects.  Instead The bulk of these funds have been directed to railroad projects in Central Florida and in California in order to have a ribbon cutting early in President Obama’s prospective second term.

Biden’s experience of taking over 7,900 round trips commuting on Amtrak between Capitol Hill and his home in Wilmington, Delaware apparently makes him an expert on railroads. Even though taxpayers take an estimated $50 loss on each Amtrak ticket sold, I doubt that many Americans who can not expense their quotidian commute to their Senatorial office can afford the $195 round trip on Acela or the $90 for the regional passenger service.

Either it is extraordinary forward vision or tunnel vision to keep touting the Supertrain. Amtrak only currently serves 78,000 passengers daily and has cost American taxpayers $35 billion since the government takeover in 1971.

The Orlando to Tampa leg of the Florida High Speed Rail System might be capable of traveling at 168 miles per hour.  But due to the number of stops along the 84 mile route, the “Supertrain” would only beat a car trip on a congested I-4 by a half an hour. This innovation comes at an estimated cost of $2.7 billion, but such government run infrastructure projects inevitably have severe cost overruns.  In two years, the cost estimates for California’s Bullet Trains have risen by a third to $43 billion.  For the High Speed Rail System which the Obama Department of Transportation envisions, it would cost $100 billion.  For true high speed trains, CNN estimates the cost of the system at $500 billion in 2009 dollars.

Train enthusiasts insist that investing in passenger rail improvements will alleviate road congestions.  Reason TV rightly points out that intercity passenger rail does nothing to alleviate rush hour traffic jams. And many of those metropolitan areas already have commuter rail services.  Based on overseas examples, these high speed rail projects are a money pit as only two bullet train projects have ever re-cooperated their infrastructure costs.

Naive observers may wonder why the Obama Administration seems almost as obsessed on trains as the Simpson’s Springfield was smitten with Monorails?  I believe that there is a sincere impetus to improve our nation’s intermodal infrastructure with a bias that a bigger government can do a better job.  But there is certainly some TRAIN-ing (sic) wheeling and dealing.  First off, to quote our National Treasure Joe Biden “[A]s Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.”  Union jobs in particular. When these projects receive such massive federal funding, they will be obliged to follow federal rules, which have a strong bias towards hiring union workers.  After the ribbon cutting, who will need to staff the rails? Union workers of course.  Once the systems are operational, they will continue to require massive government subsidies. And unless we risk being paralyzed by a intercity rail strike, it is necessary to appease the rail unions.

There is the notion of political payoff.  When newly elected Governors John Kasich (R-OH) and Scott Walker(R-WI) decided to opt for a political train derailment of this high speed rail folly, the Obama Administration withdrew those allocated transportation funds with prejudice. When New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) opted not to proceed with the $9 billion Hudson train tunnel to Macy’s, the Federal government sued to get the planning seed money back.  Is it any coincidence that whenever Republican Governors try to derail the Obama Administration's obsession with trains on behalf of their constituents that these red states are figuratively thrown from the train and they lose the intermodal transportation funds that they richly deserve?

I fully appreciate House Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica (R-FL 7th) cynicism regarding the latest push to spend lots of money on a train folly.  Mica asserted that the Federal Railway Administration should not be giving grants or selecting projects.  Moreover, Mica recognized that Amtrak highjacked 72 of 78 projects, that were mostly costly and many had already been rejected by state agencies.  Mica inveighed that “Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service."  To make a point, Mica analogized this rail proposal as: “This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio.”

Notwithstanding this skepticism of the merits of improving the intercity passenger rail system in intermodal transporation, the expensive earmark makes a mockery of President Obama’s State of the Union show, where he promised that there would be a five year across the board freeze on federal spending.

[This piece originally ran on DCBarroco.US]