So, what now? Everyone seems to be pushing Biden to resign his candidacy, fearing his cognitive ability has declined too far. Panic is setting in among those who fear a Trump presidency 2.0. Because Biden did not “perform” as hoped. He did not “perform” as all of the spectators of the debate were needing.
I wonder, is that all a presidency is? A performance? We all know that Joe Biden suffers from a stutter. We all know that Joe Biden is 81 years old. We just saw Joe Biden have a horrible night. But is that all there is to Joe Biden? Is that all there is to a presidency? Donald Trump managed to avoid answering some of the more critical questions of the night. What would he do with immigrants? What are his thoughts on climate change? What really would he do to our democracy? He lied his way through the entire night.
Joe Biden has served his country as an elected official honorably. He has put his country first. He has tried his best to support and defend our constitution as the oath of office requires. Donald Trump has never done any of those things. He has always put Donald Trump first.
Joe Biden had a bad night. But a bad night does not mean a bad presidency. Not this time around nor in the future. Joe Biden is worth keeping. He is a fighter and history will show he is the president that is needed now. I will stick with Sleepy Joe.
20 comments:
#NeverTrump.
"SCOTUS rules on the immunity case Monday."
I expect a broad, perhaps even unanimous, ruling disallowing Trump's 'absolute' presidential immunity claim.
After that I expect things to probably fall into factions. There'll be a hard right-winger faction that gives lip service to the idea the the President is not absolutely above the law but wants to make it so difficult to ever hold him/her accountable that there are no practical legal limitations. Any restrictions they devise will be so hard to implement that they'll be meaningless. Then there'll be a wider right-wing consensus that somehow Trump cannot be held accountable this time around (leaving them room to allow holding liberal presidents accountable later). What their magical formula might be for this I do not now know; the options here are almost endless. But we can probably expect that whatever it is, it'll put off any further legal processes against Trump until after the upcoming election.
And then, of course, there'll be a dissent of some sort from Federalist Society majority's reasoning supporting the 'Trump is somehow above and beyond the law' decision that they'll hand down today. The nature of the dissent will depend on that nature of the magic act the majority engages in to defend Trump while pretending they're not doing that.
Looks like I was overly optimistic. The Supreme Trumpkins have pronounced an absolute immunity for Trump for all actions of which they believe he's clearly guilty, and further announced that his guilty conduct (for which he is now immunized) cannot be admitted into evidence on the few remaining charges they allow might be brought against him. Six to three along ideological lines.
I am frankly surprised, almost stunned.
As am I. But perhaps we shouldn't be. It has been obvious for some time that SCOTUS has been co-opted by the more extreme factions of the Republican Party.
They have went against the concensus of the American people. Or at least the concensus showing up in recent polls.
So now what do the American people do?
"So now what do the American people do?"
Ain't much for the general citizenry to do other than begin efforts to counter the Federalist Society's now successful decades long campaign to 'capture' the Supreme Court. We have a reactionary majority on the court which is hostile to democracy, apparently preferring to reinstate the 18th century autocracy originally envisioned by the Founding Fathers. It'll take them awhile yet to fully reverse the clock on the last 140 years of democratic advancement, but they're hard at work on it.
To address that we need to re-balance the court is what we need to do. We can't expect the Congress to muster a two-thirds majority to impeach any of them, so controlling the replacement of justices is about all the American people can do. That means holding the White House and a Senate majority. Big job.
"It has been obvious for some time that SCOTUS has been co-
opted by the more extreme factions…"
I didn't think they'd get Roberts to go along with this. (Not right before an election--for fear there'd be a backlash by the 'swing' voters). I was expecting a sort of 4-2-3 vote--and that likely Roberts would be able to get one vote for a more moderate holding. But it was pretty much foregone conclusion that there'd be three/four votes for absolute immunity and that they'd then find a way to shield Trump 'til after the election (and forever if Trump wins).
It has occurred to me to wonder…
Will Trump be able to curb his impulse to gloat and strut before his Trumpkins; will he be able to refrain from outlining the powers he will now wield and the steps he will take as the first American Caesar (and naming all the folks he'll punish)?
"That means holding the White House and a Senate majority."
Of course, if the Democrats can hold the White House and the Senate and pick up a House majority, it's possible we might see a movement to match the number of Federalist Society justices with an equal number of non-Federalist Society justices. The Trumpkan/Republican Party will call that 'court packing', but Hell, the court's already been packed. It didn't get a super-majority of members drawn from a secret society by accident.
Attempting that move did not work for FDR in the 1930s; it was an utter failure. I'm not sure I'd be in favor of trying (and perhaps failing) to do that a century later. But, it's a thought.
We've had nine justices since the Civil War when the American population was only 31 million people (including Negro slaves). The population is over ten times that now. An increase in the number of justices is probably justified on that basis alone.
I didn't think they'd get Roberts to go along with this. (Not right before an election--for fear there'd be a backlash by the 'swing' voters).
It had occurred to me that this ruling may help some Americans forget the poor showing of Biden in that debate the other night.
#NeverTrump
That means more now.
Editing error; should have read…
"…preferring to reinstate the 18th century aristocracy originally
envisioned by the Founding Fathers."
Biden's supposed to be doing an interview with George Stephanopoulos for this coming Sunday's morning show.
I heard. The chorus of people who are saying he should step down is growing.
For me, as a voter it doesn't matter if he steps down or stays. Anything would be better than Trump. Even Biden in a coma.
I would assume that if Biden were re-elected and developed a serious health issue then Kamala Harris could step in. I have no problem with that. She is at least a supporter of democracy, unlike Trump.
But I am only one person. So what I think probably doesn't matter a heck of a lot.
"The chorus of people who are saying he should step down is
growing."
There also seem to be steadily increasing rumors that Biden's suffered other 'senior moments' that have been covered over. How much of that's just Democratic pols wanting their name in national headlines and/or political writers wanting clicks? I don't know. Sunday may tell us something 'bout that.
I got only one bottom line requirement of the Democratic Party. I want them to nominate somebody who can beat Trump in November.
After that I'm pretty flexible on the other characteristics of their candidate. (I do want to see somebody who'll support the Ukrainian resistance to Putin's Russia, but even that's secondary to beating Trump in November. #NeverTrump.)
At this point I'm hoping that Biden comes across Sunday as coherent and capable. But I'm not wedded to the notion that he needs to be the nominee. I just want somebody who can beat Trump in November. If that's not gonna be Biden then who? Can't beat somebody with nobody.
I agree with all of that.
Biden is supposed to "meet" with a group of influential Democratic governors today (probably via teleconference) they want to get a live look at Biden in real time. I think we can expect they'll have to issue a report on Biden's level of alertness and engagement with the question of the day, which is… Was his performance at Thursday's debate a glitch or is it indicative of a chronic condition?
Irrespective of how this "meeting" comes out, Sunday's interview with Stephanopolous is still the big deal. Voters are gonna wanna see for themselves.
I have been wondering about the cold he had. At least that is what I heard. I don't want to in any way find excuses, but If he was taking anything for that, like a decongestant it might have had some side effects. In older patients meds can have some odd side effects like confusion.
It might explain his appearing more alert later, if the stiff had worn off.
But this is pure speculation because I have no knowledge of his health.
"… if the stiff had worn off."
I don't follow.
Biden's interview with Stephanopolous has been moved up to tomorrow night, prime time.
The governors' group who meet with Biden sent out three representatives to pronounce they backed Bided. (I thought the endorsement was rather tepid.)
Sorry, typo. I meant to say "stuff" not "stiff". If he had taken something earlier for the cold it might have worn off after the debate. But they haven't mentioned him taking any meds.
Yeah, prime time. Good for the ratings anyway. I bet there will be a lot of watchers, like me.
Nope, they said he wasn't taking any meds.
Post a Comment