The wages of Biden’s energy mistake
It would be naïve in the extreme to be surprised about a politician taking credit for things that go well but sticking his hands up with a “who me?” look of innocence when things go badly. Nevertheless, the incoherence of the White House response to OPEC+’s decision to cut oil production has been something to behold.
In a testy joint statement Wednesday, National Economic Council Director Brian Deese and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan expressed the president’s “disappointment” at the “shortsighted decision.” Deese and Sullivan crowbar in a half-hearted plug for the Inflation Reduction Act, arguing that the OPEC news underscores the importance of transitioning to green energy. But the thing this week’s ructions really make clear is the administration’s costly mistakes on the vital question of energy.
Among the short-term failures exposed: Biden’s summer trip to Saudi Arabia. Yesterday Biden attempted to claim his abrupt U-turn on Mohammed bin Salman was not a consequence of a bleak energy picture. “The trip was not essentially for oil,” he told reporters. “The trip was about the Middle East and about Israel and rationalization of positions. But it is a disappointment and says that there are problems.” No one’s buying it, Mr. President.
The White House’s desperation is clear elsewhere, such as on its overtures to the Venezuelan regime. As my colleague John Pietro explains: “Most egregiously, though, the administration is contemplating offering Venezuela sanctions relief as part of a deal to restart talks with the local opposition and — the real reason — to allow Chevron to produce oil in the country again.”
This week also highlights the administration’s longer-term failings. Biden is paying for his commitment to the green cause, including a pledge of net zero and the cancellation of the Keystone Pipeline. The ineluctable logic of the administration’s climate change approach is to increase the cost of using fossil fuels in order to decrease carbon emissions.
The consequence of the OPEC decision — higher prices here in the US, and on the eve of an election — will be painful for the president and his party. Less tangibly, the president is left looking weak: at the mercy of oil exporters abroad in a situation made worse by his own energy decisions at home.
*** Sign up to receive the DC Diary in your inbox here ***
Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ free-styling
Biden chose a Democratic fundraiser in New York as the venue at which to compare the current nuclear standoff with Russia to the Cuban Missile Crisis — and compare himself to John F Kennedy.
Speaking to donors at the Manhattan home of James Murdoch, Biden said that this is the “first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis we have a direct threat of the use [of a] nuclear weapon if in fact things continue down the path they are going… I’m trying to figure out what is Putin’s off ramp? … Where does he find a way out? Where does he find himself in a position that he does not not only lose face but lose significant power within Russia?”
For some time now, there’s been an uncanny feeling to this crisis. The threats from Vladimir Putin only get more alarming, the powers that be in Washington insist that we should take those threats seriously. And yet, officialdom and the foreign policy blob seem light on assessments of how those threats should affect decision-making regarding Ukraine and are unclear on strategies to avoid the worse case scenario. Against that backdrop, the leader of the free world free-styling about “Armageddon” over cocktails isn’t exactly reassuring.
Time up for Hunter?
According to the Washington Post, FBI and IRS investigators believe that the evidence they have gathered on Hunter Biden is enough to charge him for tax crimes and a false statement related to a gun purchase.
The Post reports: “Agents determined months ago they had assembled a viable criminal case against the younger Biden. But it is ultimately up to prosecutors at the Justice Department, not agents, to decide whether to file charges in cases where prosecutors believe the evidence is strong enough to lead to a likely conviction at trial.”
Sasse heads to the exit
It looks like Ben Sasse is leaving the Senate. The Nebraskan senator announced that he would likely be vacating his seat now that he is the sole finalist to be the next president of the University of Florida. Sasse, who voted to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial, said in an interview with National Review that “one of the most basic things we can do to reinvigorate [the Senate] is to say that people ought to only be here for a time and then get back to building stuff.”
“Nebraskans have well understood that I didn’t expect to be in politics as a lifelong calling. I need to get back to building stuff,” Sasse said. “The best picture in the dome of the US Capitol is Washington surrendering power.”
The most immediate political question the move poses is who will fill his seat. Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts gets to pick a replacement for the rest of his term, before an election in 2024.
What you should be reading today
Ben Domenech: Will the new right repeat the Tea Party’s mistakes?
Lewis M. Andrews: Just how ‘over’ is the pandemic?
Billy McMorris: Andrew Yang’s doomed revolution
James Risen and Ken Klippenstein, the Intercept: The CIA thought Putin would conquer Ukraine quickly. Why did they get it so wrong?
Phelim Kine, Politico: GOP vow intense China focus if they flip the House
Jason Willick, Washington Post: Biden’s instincts to avoid war are sound — even if Putin goes nuclear
Poll watch
President Biden job approval
Approve: 43.1 percent
Disapprove: 53.1 percent
Net approval: -10 (RCP Average)
Arizona senate race
Mark Kelly: 61 percent
Blake Masters: 45 percent (CNN)
