WSJ: "Not Demosthenes, but..."
-
Most cars still run on gasoline, not solar or wind power. Electric cars remain impractical for most Americans. The way to reduce gas prices is to produce more oil to increase the supply. Mr. Biden wouldn’t have to plead with OPEC to produce more if he weren’t working so hard to limit U.S. oil production.
How about the supply-chain bottlenecks contributing to shortages and inflation? Mr. Biden blamed Covid and employers who won’t pay enough to attract workers. But employers are bidding up wages nearly across the economy and they still can’t fill the more than 10 million job openings nationwide.
Asked if he’d call in the National Guard to address the shortage of truckers, Mr. Biden said he would. But the deployment of the Guard is actually controlled by Governors, as the White House later clarified.
Mr. Biden’s confusion extended to foreign policy, which is supposed to be his strength. Regarding Taiwan—a crucial issue with China—Mr. Biden misstated U.S. policy. Asked “can you vow to protect Taiwan,” Mr. Biden said “yes.”
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper must have figured this was news, because he gave Mr. Biden another chance: “So are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if—”
Mr. Biden: “Yes.”
Mr. Cooper: —“China attacked?”
Mr. Biden: “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”
The actual U.S. policy toward Taiwan is “strategic ambiguity” about U.S. intentions. The Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to help Taiwan defend itself but does not include a NATO-like commitment to go to war to defend the island democracy. Many people think the U.S. should make such a commitment explicit so Beijing doesn’t miscalculate and invade the island. Was Mr. Biden announcing a change in U.S. policy?
Apparently not, because the White House soon walked back Mr. Biden’s words. Strategic ambiguity lives, or perhaps we should say strategic confusion in the case of Mr. Biden. You have to wonder what the hard men in Beijing think of this performance. Does the fast White House retreat from Mr. Biden’s words mean the U.S. doesn’t intend to defend Taiwan? What is U.S. policy? Wars have started amid such mixed signals to adversaries.
We take no pleasure in pointing this out, since the U.S. needs a President who can handle the strains of the job. Mr. Biden was never Demosthenes, and all Presidents stumble in speech. But Mr. Biden’s frequent public confusion about the major issues of the day is a reason for the growing public concern.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
- The best solution to the range problem for EV's was the Chevy Volt. That's not my opinion, but one I read the other day, written by an electrical engineer.
Engineer that concept until it works well, and you could have a car you could drive from Boston to San Francisco.
- As for Taiwan, and the same for Japan and South Korea, the U.S. needs to stand behind its allies. While demanding those countries be able to mount an effective and credible defense on their own, the U.S. needs to stand behind its commitments. I don't think we need to invade China, but I do think we need to do what it takes, to counter their expansionist aggression.
And while I feel like we should not be an aggressor, the Chinese need to know we can counterpunch and do so with authority.
-
I’m very uncomfortable with using the National Guard to transport non-essential commercial goods. I don’t like that precedent.
-
Yep. bringing in the NG is a bandaid over a gaping wound. It might help for a week or a month but doesn't solve the problem. As far as Port Los Angeles, it's California's own laws that have created this mess.
I think China's recent belligerence is mostly to take the focus off of COVID and they probably won't make a move on Taiwan. That said, they have to be eyeing the current weakness in the White House. It is hard to say if they will switch from methodical to opportunistic in that regard.
-
Yep. bringing in the NG is a bandaid over a gaping wound. It might help for a week or a month but doesn't solve the problem. As far as Port Los Angeles, it's California's own laws that have created this mess.
I think China's recent belligerence is mostly to take the focus off of COVID and they probably won't make a move on Taiwan. That said, they have to be eyeing the current weakness in the White House. It is hard to say if they will switch from methodical to opportunistic in that regard.
-
The solution to the shipping crisis does have some solutions that would help take some of the pressure off.
- Have the U.S. Government temporarily subsidize OT for the longshoremen. The international shipping companies run the ports and they are loath to pay OT. That's why the ports don't run 24/7.
- Let owner-operators work their trucks at the ports.
- Use the Panama Canal. Florida is open for business and underutilized. New Orleans is putting in a new set of cranes in November. Houston is expanding in Baytown.
-
Most cars still run on gasoline, not solar or wind power. Electric cars remain impractical for most Americans. The way to reduce gas prices is to produce more oil to increase the supply. Mr. Biden wouldn’t have to plead with OPEC to produce more if he weren’t working so hard to limit U.S. oil production.
How about the supply-chain bottlenecks contributing to shortages and inflation? Mr. Biden blamed Covid and employers who won’t pay enough to attract workers. But employers are bidding up wages nearly across the economy and they still can’t fill the more than 10 million job openings nationwide.
Asked if he’d call in the National Guard to address the shortage of truckers, Mr. Biden said he would. But the deployment of the Guard is actually controlled by Governors, as the White House later clarified.
Mr. Biden’s confusion extended to foreign policy, which is supposed to be his strength. Regarding Taiwan—a crucial issue with China—Mr. Biden misstated U.S. policy. Asked “can you vow to protect Taiwan,” Mr. Biden said “yes.”
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper must have figured this was news, because he gave Mr. Biden another chance: “So are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if—”
Mr. Biden: “Yes.”
Mr. Cooper: —“China attacked?”
Mr. Biden: “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”
The actual U.S. policy toward Taiwan is “strategic ambiguity” about U.S. intentions. The Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to help Taiwan defend itself but does not include a NATO-like commitment to go to war to defend the island democracy. Many people think the U.S. should make such a commitment explicit so Beijing doesn’t miscalculate and invade the island. Was Mr. Biden announcing a change in U.S. policy?
Apparently not, because the White House soon walked back Mr. Biden’s words. Strategic ambiguity lives, or perhaps we should say strategic confusion in the case of Mr. Biden. You have to wonder what the hard men in Beijing think of this performance. Does the fast White House retreat from Mr. Biden’s words mean the U.S. doesn’t intend to defend Taiwan? What is U.S. policy? Wars have started amid such mixed signals to adversaries.
We take no pleasure in pointing this out, since the U.S. needs a President who can handle the strains of the job. Mr. Biden was never Demosthenes, and all Presidents stumble in speech. But Mr. Biden’s frequent public confusion about the major issues of the day is a reason for the growing public concern.
@george-k said in WSJ: "Not Demosthenes, but...":
Mr. Biden’s confusion extended to foreign policy, which is supposed to be his strength. Regarding Taiwan—a crucial issue with China—Mr. Biden misstated U.S. policy. Asked “can you vow to protect Taiwan,” Mr. Biden said “yes.”
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper must have figured this was news, because he gave Mr. Biden another chance: “So are you saying that the United States would come to Taiwan’s defense if—”
Mr. Biden: “Yes.”
Mr. Cooper: —“China attacked?”
Mr. Biden: “Yes, we have a commitment to do that.”
The actual U.S. policy toward Taiwan is “strategic ambiguity” about U.S. intentions. The Taiwan Relations Act commits the U.S. to help Taiwan defend itself but does not include a NATO-like commitment to go to war to defend the island democracy. Many people think the U.S. should make such a commitment explicit so Beijing doesn’t miscalculate and invade the island. Was Mr. Biden announcing a change in U.S. policy?
Apparently not, because the White House soon walked back Mr. Biden’s words. Strategic ambiguity lives, or perhaps we should say strategic confusion in the case of Mr. Biden. You have to wonder what the hard men in Beijing think of this performance. Does the fast White House retreat from Mr. Biden’s words mean the U.S. doesn’t intend to defend Taiwan? What is U.S. policy? Wars have started amid such mixed signals to adversaries.Maybe this is like President Trump and his 4D chess. Act confused and befuddled and China will not be sure what exactly will happen. LOL
