Friends, no one cares much what I think about the first presidential debate, but what the leftist media pundits are saying is very telling indeed -- they're freaking out! All their worst fears about Biden's senility played out in front of them, and they can hardly believe it. They've been assuring themselves, and each other, for so long that Biden is just fine that this demonstration of his unalloyed obsolescence is very jarring. Yes, they all agree that Trump was awful and lied through his teeth, but they expected that. They didn't expect a sitting president who can barely string a sentence together. Speculation about replacing Biden on the ticket will therefore intensify, but it's still unlikely to happen, for several reasons.
First, switching horses in the middle of a race is damn awkward, virtually unprecedented, and maybe close to impossible. It would open up all kinds of tough questions about how precisely to sideline Biden, what to do with Kam-Kam, and who to push forward in Biden's place. Second, this debate was moved up to June for a reason -- Democrats wanted to give pundits and voters plenty of time to forget about it before the election. It looks like that was very prescient and sensible of them! Third, Biden's performance, while poor, reflected what many already thought about him -- that he's inarticulate and bumbling. His delivery did improve somewhat as the debate wore on, and he said plenty of things that lefties will have liked. The talking heads on ABC who I watched analyze the debate were at pains to point out all Trump's "lies" -- while, as usual, giving Biden a pass on all his whoppers -- and crediting Biden with being on the right side of the issues. Well, that reaction from the Left is entirely predictable. Thus, progressives will evaluate Biden's performance much more favorably than you or I would for the simple reason that they were primed to agree with virtually everything he said. This will insulate Biden, to a point, from internecine attacks.
What did I think of Trump's performance? It was good -- good enough. Trump was more respectful of Biden than he was back in 2020. He was more disciplined, in the sense that he virtually ignored the moderators' questions and hammered away at a few consistent themes, especially what a disaster Biden has been, and what a mess the border has become. In my humble opinion, Trump is not a masterful debater or rhetorician. He's not very knowledgeable about policy and offers few specifics to back up his arguments. Not a single factoid to drive home the pain caused by inflation? Not a single concrete example of an American victimized by illegal immigrant crime? These were themes suggested by Trump but never properly illustrated. These were missed opportunities. Trump also talked way more about the border than he did about inflation or crime, and this may be a mistake, because almost every poll says that the economy is the main issue on voters' minds. The bottom line, however, is that, while Trump was arguably bombastic and thin on evidence, no one will be surprised by that, and he showed absolutely no sign of diminished mental capacity. He was, if anything, a more focused, more disciplined, and more competent version of his former self. Biden was...the opposite. And that is what debate viewers will remember, more than anything. I saw nothing in this debate that will hurt Trump, and nothing that will help Biden. I also saw nothing that will, in itself, kill Biden's candidacy -- and that too may be, as I suggested last week, a win for Trump, because the last thing he needs is for the S.S. Biden to go down with all hands. It can take on water, sure, and limp around the ocean blue while listing this way and that, but Trump needs barnacle-encrusted Sleepy Joe to remain seaworthy, above all, and it looks to me like he still is.
One final thought: the moderators were reasonably restrained. They could have injected themselves more forcefully into the conversation, presumably in order to save Biden from himself. They didn't. They asked both men tough questions, but if anything they were more preemptory towards Biden, who they repeatedly cut off. What's more, Trump didn't get suckered into a shouting match with the moderators, which is all to the good, because it allowed the focus to remain on Biden and his ramblings. CNN, for once, did its job, journalistically speaking, and nothing more, and that may end up delivering the White House to Trump. I know that sounds like hyperbole, but, in a race in which Trump has consistently enjoyed a polling advantage, and opinions about both major candidates are so fixed, this may have been Biden's last real chance to change the dynamics. He blew it. Now, you'd think the lefties at CNN would do anything to prevent Hitler 2.0 from showing up Mr. Democracy himself, but maybe not. Remember, CNN is struggling, and nothing has ever breathed life into the liberal media like Trump's first term did. Food for thought!
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/27/biden-debate-opening-concerns-00165595
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I was prepared to say that Biden's departure from office in the near future is guaranteed now. But as usual you presented a measured and well supported argument and it brings that tentative conclusion into plausible doubt.
ReplyDeleteBuilding on your recent commentary that a good performance by Biden would be to DJT's advantage because it would help to solidify the continuance of a candidacy which DJT may well defeat, I had concerns for DJT's standing after Biden's sad spectacle last night. But you presented a plausible view that DJT did nothing to hurt himself and that Biden did nothing to help himself last night. And you rightly mentioned the possible calming effect of time on this present frenzy.
If Biden were to resign now, an absurdly "Presidential"Kamalafornia would probably be their nominee; there is not enough time for anyone to mount a conventional campaign so the decision would probably be by acclamation, at the convention .
Biden could simply say he will not accept the nomination. Such a decision would, I think, see the Clinton machine set to roll and curse us once more with their onerous debasement of our public life.
It's a harrowing thought that Biden could be President for the next six months but there is the Amendment addressing Presidential disability. I'm not afraid of him pulling the nuclear trigger; I don't think he would be allowed to do that.
What seems guaranteed is that he will not be President beyond Inauguration Day. That possibility should be unthinkable to all now. Its not the main issue though; that remains the defeat of the antiamerican left and the prevention of a newly inspired onslaught of lawless, forced and catastrophic"fundamental transformation" of America.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: DJT's redeemed Scotus is the gift which keeps on giving to law abiding America and which plagues the antiamerican left"even unto roaring". Today's announced decisions: the disempowerment of the "Chevron" judicial deference to Federal administrative agencies and the apparent negation of the convictions of those Jan. 6 participants who were conveniently hammered for "obstruction"(unlike the 2020 anarchic paragons ). The career leftist bureaucrats who so corrupt the prolific administrative process will no longer have
ReplyDeletesuch an arbitrary and presumptuously free hand to reshape legislation to their partisan purposes or to create its effect out of usurped whole cloth. GOOD! Maybe some of them will move on to real jobs.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: In saying above that I thought that Biden remaining in office beyond Inauguration Day was unthinkable I objectively misspoke.Of course its an appalling prospect but if he were to win reelection presumably he'd take the oath, if he could manage it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he's running things now; I think Obama is.So perhaps that would continue;Biden could be retained as a figurehead until it was convenient to set him out to pasture.
They knew that it would go like this ahead of time, how could they not? Those presently handling the would-be president are more than aware of his mental faculties (and their precipitous decline) and yet they still put him out there for the world to see. Several media outlets had stories written ahead of time about the need to change candidates, before they ever saw his debate performance. The most interesting question is, "Why?"
ReplyDeleteThey literally put a player on the field to pitch the bottom of the 8th, with the score neck and neck, knowing his arm was shot. Why?
Either they WANT Biden out of the way and this provided the needed excuse to bring in a new candidate, or, perhaps more interesting, some faction of the Deep State WANTS Trump to win. I find myself more and more beginning to suspect the latter. The total loss of control of the foreign military situation (and the economic and financial system which relies upon it) has them rattled and they might see putting Trump in as a win/win. If he succeeds then the Global American Empire is saved (likely in a deeply unpopular way that involves some armed conflict) and their pocket books are saved, or else Trump fails and the Right is left holding the bag for the fallout from his attempt to salvage the situation.
The important point is: "They want Biden gone."
Whether this is part of a Thermidorian Reaction or just some inter-party politics remains to be seen, but they put him out there knowing he'd fail, for a reason.
"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Lee is spot on about the debate being planned as the means to remove Biden. The near uniform chorus from the main stream media is further evidence.
ReplyDeleteDeep State wanting Trump to win? That's an interesting theory, but I doubt it. I can't fathom a scenario where they could foresee all the orchestrated prosecution backfiring so terribly.
Rest assured, there is a Plan "B" (or would that be "C"?) already in place. What that plan is? We'll know shortly.
Still, I'm reminded: “The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry”
Robert Burns, 1785
Dr. Waddy from Jack: Your observation of DJT being "more focused, more disciplined, more competent" brings to my mind my view that a redeemed DJT will be a most formidable one. This week has reminded us of the monumental change he wrought in Scotus with far reaching decisions which dealt the presumptuous antiamerican left grievous blows. It may deliver another on Monday. In his restoration of Scotus to lawfulness, in that alone, his first term was incalculably beneficial. I fully expect a DJT tempered as you have described and grimly motivated by the execrable treatment directed at him by the vicious and amoral left (treatment which fully predicts what would be in store for all Americans at their hands)to do us even more good if he is restored. Many other great Presidents were not immediately recognized as such and I think he's going to prove one of them.
ReplyDeleteJack, I wish I could agree that a continuation of Biden's presidency beyond January 20th was "unthinkable", but polls suggest that, for a big fraction of the country, it's very thinkable! Could we have a senile president? Why not! We already do! The bigger question may be...can Biden win? If he can't, or isn't very likely to do so, then the Dems have some really tough choices on their hands. That's the subject of my next article.
ReplyDeleteJack, I rejoice in the Chevron decision too, BUT it transfers regulatory power from bureaucrats to judges, not necessarily to Congress, and whether that's good or bad depends largely on the judges, and the lawyers, involved. The bad news is that, thanks to Biden, the federal courts are getting less and less reasonable every day.
I don't think Obama is running things, or that he ran things even when he was president. No, there are forces in the Democratic Party that transcend the power even of a president. Couldn't one argue that a chief of staff, for instance, almost always has more practical power than the man he (allegedly) serves?
Lee, that is a very smart and highly original analysis. I'm not sure I agree, because the Dems could easily have convinced themselves that Biden would rise to the occasion -- just enough -- to keep himself competitive, but you're right that they took an awful risk, and a completely avoidable one, by sticking him out there. I can accept that there's a faction in the Democratic Party that wants Biden out, but does his own White House? Does his own campaign? And, even if they do, is there a realistic path to replace him with someone more likely to win? I dunno. Sometimes people just are willfully blind and make what appear in retrospect to be inept decisions. I think this might be one of those times.
Richie, to your and Lee's point about the establishment "wanting Trump to win", I believe that wouldn't be so irrational. The establishment and the Left profited mightily from Trump's presidency, and they hemmed him in beautifully. They may feel that they can hobble him again (I tend to agree), and that, if the economy and the world unravel, they'll have him to blame. Not a bad strategy at that!
Will Trump be remembered as a "great" two-term president? As I've opined before, if 99% of professional historians are ground into a paste, then it could happen, yes!
Lee, Richie and Dr. Waddy from Jack: The idea that some on the left may wish a DJT restoration is intriguing and plausible. But I think their main concern is with domestic politics and policy .
ReplyDeleteSince the 60s their ongoing primary purpose is to "fundamentally transform " America to their unassailable justice and enlightened and dictated benevolence. This includes full recompense from America for historical wrongs, regardless of" insincere " massive past and present efforts to right them They may assume that that would make of an America they hold to be internationally oppressive in the extreme a good neighbor with comprehensive , undiscriminating deference to all and apologetic refrain from the use of power.
It would be very hazardous for them to promote a DJT redemption. He's going to come out of the detestable crucible forced on him for opposing antiamerican leftist intent tested, stronger for it and ready to bring antiamerica to heel.
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I contradicted myself when I predicted that a (SIC!) "President" Kamalafornia would probably be the nominee. I hadpredicted Hillary. I'll stick with this: she would use the full arsenal of Clintonian disingenuousness and viciousness to steal it and would feign great "concern "over Kamalafornia's undoubtable politically correct inherent bonafides having any creditable role in the nomination.
ReplyDeleteDr. Waddy from Jack: How unaccustomed Americans who cherish the rule of law are to looking on the Federal judiciary with favor.Far too often it has enabled the far left to force laws on us that that neomarxist faction could never persuade our elected representative to enact.
ReplyDeleteNow, thanks to DJT and Mitch, we have a lawful Scotus seated and it has already demonstrated its principled adherence to measured attention to the rule of law and to careful construction of it, rather than the rule of incidental, arbitrary and emotional fiat dictated by the far left whenever it has the power. This, while Scotus's radical minority thrashes in deserved futility.
But your reminder that Biden has had time to obsequiously wreak much antiamerican leftist corruption on the lower levels of the Federal courts is very well taken. How do we counter this?
First and now foremost, elect DJT and let him redeem the lower courts with Justices who reject the multitudinous totalitarian "Critical Legal Studies " school which advocates giving radical jurists (only) free reign to enact whatever their compromised hearts desire, no matter its defiance of the rule of law.Second :seek test cases meant to reach Scotus in which Scotus can put the final quietus to broad swaths of potential radical presumptuousness.(eg. the Chevron decision). Third: since the left has embraced the counterintuitive tactic of fishing for Federal District Court Judges from. . . well . . . wherever (at least for now in the U.S.; beyond that you never know with them. Sharia maybe?) to render case law inexplicably seen as mandatory authority throughout our country, let us hasten to do the same and hoist them on their own petards. Let us enthusiastically identify Federal District Court Judges of conservative views and force their views in turn upon an antiamerica which intends to force all on us all in their good time. Our devotion to principle is commendable but in dealing with the Clintonianly amoral left which laughs at the rules sometimes you have to get down and dirty; failing that we expose our flanks to their certain onslaught .
Just imagine how it would have been if Hillary had been able to appoint four Scotus "Comrade"Justices in two terms. It almost happened! America enjoyed incalculable good fortune in the redemption of Scotus and its return to credibility as the third branch rather than as an antiamerican left rubber stamp.We must not waste this monumental favor fate has afforded us. Let us build on this great good fortune and win in November. If we don't, we may expect a characteristically amoral onslaught on Scotus "by any means necessary" by a relieved and vindictive far left determined to never again face the dreadful unanticipated roadblock wrought by DJT and the Maga he has inspired.
I tend to agree with Jack that it would be reckless for any leftist to promote or look forward to a Trumpian restoration, although unlike Jack I think a second term for Trump could just as easily strengthen the Left as weaken it. If I were merely a partisan Democrat, I don't think a Trump win would scare me much. If I were an ideological leftist, I would be queasy, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteAn aside: we shouldn't forget that a lot of these Dems, although they are nominal political allies, actually hate each other personally! That complicates the picture.
Jack is sticking with Hillary! You heard it here first. That certainly would be a shocker. She barely appears in polling of Democrats, when they're asked about a replacement for Biden. Anyway, as far as I can tell, Biden ain't going anywhere.
Jack, to your point about SCOTUS, our victory was hard-won, but it may also be more fragile than we think. A right-leaning high court only profits us if and when its rulings are, first, conservative, which is only occasionally and marginally the case, and, second, when they are respected, upheld, followed, etc. That is mostly the case now, but, as we New Yorkers know, there are all kinds of creative ways to try, try, try again when SCOTUS slaps you down. What's more, if Trump wins in November, or worse yet if his victory hinges on a Supreme Court decision, then we may reach a breaking point, and the Biden Administration and half the country may be prepared to say "Sayonara!" to judicial review.