I don’t know, more than 100 stories on Biden’s age etc vs how many on either Epstein/Trump or Project 2025 or Trump’s lack of fitness for the presidency? Only one paper called him out in their editorial—the Philly Inquirer. The right has been working the refs (political journalists) for years with that old trope which is not true—along w…
I don’t know, more than 100 stories on Biden’s age etc vs how many on either Epstein/Trump or Project 2025 or Trump’s lack of fitness for the presidency? Only one paper called him out in their editorial—the Philly Inquirer. The right has been working the refs (political journalists) for years with that old trope which is not true—along with the war on Christians, the war on Christmas, and every other cultural made-up “war” they have created from whole cloth. Not to mention the language that journos picked up—entitlements, death tax, death panels, etc.”
So no, the coverage isn’t the same and hasn’t been for years. Need I say once again “but her emails?” Or Howard Dean’s “the scream”? JVL kinda missed the boat with that mention yesterday, as well as Kerry’s “effete” wind sailing, and Gore’s “sighs and lies.” Of course they were so hard on W—the guy who gave them all nicknames and who they portrayed as the “kinda guy you’d like to have a beer with.” And let’s not forget Whitewater, once Foster, travelgate (and every other gate), Dukakis in the tank, the “scold” Jimmy Carter and his and the First Lady’s “tacky off the rack style.” The Beltway elite celebrated the return of glamour, money, and style when Reagan came to town.
I'm not claiming equivalency. I'm talking about perception -- that individual voters tend to see media coverage through the filter of their own preconceived notions and ideologies. There is no arguing with them because their mind is made up. It becomes a point where no matter what the media say or do, they will annoy someone (lots of someones) who see things differently, and no statistics and historical examples will penetrate that fog. And then there is the fact that, as businesses seeking profits in a free market economy, the media can report as they wish to, with no specific obligation to be "fair" or "balanced." So we appear to have two choices: turn them off and do our own thinking, or follow Harry Truman's example of taking seven different newspapers (TV shows, radio broadcasts, websites, ...) each day and consuming them all before making up one's own mind. Either way, complaining about media coverage is as useful as trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind. It goes where it goes, and we can't change that.
I choose to remain optimistic that they will at some point have to change or they will die. Media is not doing well—which is what is driving the clickbait which is only making it worse. But I agree—I am very picky what I consume and no I do not only listen or read things I agree with. I also read a lot of books. I wish more people would educate themselves—about narrative, about media, journalists, pundits, and contributors. Unfortunately most Americans are not critical thinkers—which is part of my problem with the dump Biden movement. So if we do, then what happens? Who decides and how will it be decided who the nominee will be? How are they going to fundraise and barnstorm the country to gain name recognition? We now have an unknown vs a known, and not enough people understand the dangers of Trump 2.0 so it could make his victory that much more possible. We may all know these possible candidates but the average American does not. And if it is candidate A, who becomes the running mate? Is Biden old? Sure he is. Has he lost a step? Anyone under the age of forty has. Does he have dementia? Not from what I see and hear.
Four months seems like a long time, but it isn’t. And what happens when the media treats them like they do Biden? These are just a few of the questions to think about. But all I seem to see is wishful thinking—we dump Biden and everything will fall into place.
I'm in the so-called dump Biden movement. I read a lot of books and I'm a retired US History and Government teacher, so I bring a lot of background knowledge to my reading, something essential to thinking critically. And, I've been following this story since February when, seeing that Biden was losing, Ezra Klein first proposed an open convention.
Also, did you actually read all of today's Morning Shots? Bill said, "James Carville lays out in (yesterday's) New York Times a version of how an open competition for the Democratic nomination might work, along lines similar to helpful suggestions from Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks and venture capitalist Ted Dintersmith, and commentator Ezra Klein.
Talk about hubris. Carville himself is old and maybe he needs to retire. Something absolutely none of you are thinking about is the actual nuts and bolts process of replacing Biden on the ballot in all 50 states. That Carville calls on Obama and Clinton to hand pick the nominees—maybe with governors’ help—is the height of arrogance. He calls for town hall meetings in the four geographic regions and a mini primary. But there is no general primary that can be held across the country on one day; each state has its own laws and regs when it comes to candidates and elections. Just how is that going to happen in red states controlled by the GOP who would be beyond happy to legally challenge any changes to the ballot? And even in blue states? Do you think elections happen overnight? Because Carville, who should know better, certainly doesn’t seem to. Did you know that today is the deadline for registering the presidential candidates for the ballot in Georgia? And Ohio tried some ratf*#kery (sorry JVL) to try to keep the Dem candidate off the ballot because he will not officially be the nominee until the DNC—which is after the deadline.
But let’s go back to the town halls and mini primary. States would have to set up new Dem elections, and in PA and other states, potential candidates need to circulate petitions and gather signatures to qualify. Then new ballots would have to be printed. And again you don’t think this will all be legally challenged by the GOP? We have how many weeks until the convention? Just how does this all miraculously happen in five or so weeks?
Oh yes I saw Ezra’s column and rolled my eyes. The truth is, so many of the people who were and are calling for Biden’s ouster are the same people who didn’t want him in 2020 but held their noses to vote for him. I actually had the honor of meeting the man and talking to him two months ago. He was funny, sharp, and stayed on his feet for more than two hours talking and interacting with people. So I will go by my own in the flesh in real time experience with Joe Biden.
Ok, some good points about Carville's proposal, but that he is old is not hubris. If there is no way to get another nominee who can beat Trump, then so be it. I'm not convinced of that yet, so I would like to see some more discussion.
Are you saying Klein didn't want Biden to run in the 2020 primary, or are you saying he perferred Pete B or Bernie once the primary races began, or are you saying he didn't want Biden to be the nominee once he won SC? I don't recall any of that. I'd need some evidence.
All I know on the "Joe is demented" issue is this:
1) I have a parent who has severe dementia, and while experiences can vary, I'm not seeing the key signs of it in Biden. But I am seeing them in DJT. Let's have that discussion too.
2) I have a job where I do a lot of talking, to an audience. I frequently trip over my own words, flub things in misspeaking, have awkward speech moments, lose my train of thought when trying to juggle and balance multiple approaches, and otherwise do not get a perfect score on my delivery. I wouldn't want to read a literal transcript of all my utterances. Yet no one is calling for me to step down from my job because of it. It is hard to speak spontaneously and get everything right. What is different with Joe is that now everyone is looking for every last mistaken utterance and waiting to pounce on it. Some things may be legitimate issues on his part, but others strike me as piling on because it is easy (for some) and convenient (for others). Some additional perspective is in order.
Rather than symptoms of dementia, I am seeing symptoms of Parkinson's in Joe: An abnormally weak voice due to lack of coordination of the speech muscles, forward flexed posture, a shuffling gait, his mouth agape, and irregular speech pattern (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/us/politics/parkinsons-expert-white-house.html). My 85-year-old brother has been showing these very symptoms for over a year. As far as I can tell, it hasn't affected his cognition, just his movement. It has slowed him down considerably.
These symptoms are what's contributing to the voters' perception that Biden is old.
Thank you for the detailed overview, Sandy. Beyond normal human sympathy if that is the case, it does give pause to wonder if the job responsibilities of such a strenuous position could contribute to a rapid decline or a substantial impairment while in office, if not now maybe in two or three years. The DNC needs to be fully transparent if there are legitimate health concerns. Anything short of that ventures dangerously close to political malpractice and scandal.
So, Deutschmeister, I'm an admirer of good solid well thought out theses backed up by fluent prose, hence my high opinion of your posts (and please, no comments of "get a room" from other commenters here.) I haven't seen where you stand on the clash of Joe's "Should I Stay or Should I Go" dilemma (see what I did there?) Do you have an opinion, or did you already express one and I just missed it? For awhile I waffled back and forth, landed on the fence for a spell, and eventually sided with the ousters. I'm a gambling man, one who's had some success at the Hold'em table, and I think a new energetic candidate is our best bet. I'm all in on Harris.
Honestly, I don't have a position on staying or going, primarily because I don't feel I have enough information to make that judgment call with a reasonable assurance of accuracy. I keep feeling a nagging sensation that there is a lot more to it all than we've been made aware of -- significant things that those on the inside know but are not communicating, for obvious pragmatic reasons. So I'm trusting Joe and the DNC to get it right, aware as they are of how high the stakes are in this particular campaign. I suspect that's something of a weak response to some people, and I understand that. But it's the truth about how I feel. I just don't know, as there is no easy answer one way or the other.
In contrast I feel a great deal of hostility now toward the Democratic Party for not game planning for this possibility, even privately, and seeing the scenario coming when the signs have been visible for some time. If we're honest about it, we've all been quietly hoping fervently with fingers crossed that Joe would not have a (real or perceived) age-related incident in a very public setting, for all to see. But here we are. If asked to choose among the alternatives, I suppose I'm with Harris, but I am persuadable otherwise. The one good thing about Harris that not enough people are talking about is that she already has been fully vetted -- for the 2020 campaign -- so I do not expect that any unforeseen skeletons are lurking with her. Who knows about someone else who has not been held up to presidential-level scrutiny? If the Dems were to go with someone else who has something of substance to hide, and it were uncovered in the time between the nomination and the election, then we might as well not bother watching the election returns on November 5. We'd be viewing in real time as the last guardrail keeping democracy from going over the cliff is removed.
I appreciate the kind words from both you and Edward, and from others over time. But there are so many good, thoughtful, insightful posters in this forum. I truly am honored to be considered as one of them. I mean that in all sincerity. This group is very special.
Thanks, D. I suspect a lot of activity and conversing among the power brokers on both sides is going on behind closed doors right now, and like you I hope where we end up is what maximizes our odds. I guess one thing that gives me hope about Harris is that we shouldn't forget that she's a politician, she's won several elected posts, and she's not a half-bad stump performer. In these days where performative antics are important I think she can inject a much needed dose of enthusiasm into what has been a somewhat downcast Party the last few years. Cheers!
I don’t know, more than 100 stories on Biden’s age etc vs how many on either Epstein/Trump or Project 2025 or Trump’s lack of fitness for the presidency? Only one paper called him out in their editorial—the Philly Inquirer. The right has been working the refs (political journalists) for years with that old trope which is not true—along with the war on Christians, the war on Christmas, and every other cultural made-up “war” they have created from whole cloth. Not to mention the language that journos picked up—entitlements, death tax, death panels, etc.”
So no, the coverage isn’t the same and hasn’t been for years. Need I say once again “but her emails?” Or Howard Dean’s “the scream”? JVL kinda missed the boat with that mention yesterday, as well as Kerry’s “effete” wind sailing, and Gore’s “sighs and lies.” Of course they were so hard on W—the guy who gave them all nicknames and who they portrayed as the “kinda guy you’d like to have a beer with.” And let’s not forget Whitewater, once Foster, travelgate (and every other gate), Dukakis in the tank, the “scold” Jimmy Carter and his and the First Lady’s “tacky off the rack style.” The Beltway elite celebrated the return of glamour, money, and style when Reagan came to town.
So I have to disagree about any equivalency here.
I'm not claiming equivalency. I'm talking about perception -- that individual voters tend to see media coverage through the filter of their own preconceived notions and ideologies. There is no arguing with them because their mind is made up. It becomes a point where no matter what the media say or do, they will annoy someone (lots of someones) who see things differently, and no statistics and historical examples will penetrate that fog. And then there is the fact that, as businesses seeking profits in a free market economy, the media can report as they wish to, with no specific obligation to be "fair" or "balanced." So we appear to have two choices: turn them off and do our own thinking, or follow Harry Truman's example of taking seven different newspapers (TV shows, radio broadcasts, websites, ...) each day and consuming them all before making up one's own mind. Either way, complaining about media coverage is as useful as trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind. It goes where it goes, and we can't change that.
I choose to remain optimistic that they will at some point have to change or they will die. Media is not doing well—which is what is driving the clickbait which is only making it worse. But I agree—I am very picky what I consume and no I do not only listen or read things I agree with. I also read a lot of books. I wish more people would educate themselves—about narrative, about media, journalists, pundits, and contributors. Unfortunately most Americans are not critical thinkers—which is part of my problem with the dump Biden movement. So if we do, then what happens? Who decides and how will it be decided who the nominee will be? How are they going to fundraise and barnstorm the country to gain name recognition? We now have an unknown vs a known, and not enough people understand the dangers of Trump 2.0 so it could make his victory that much more possible. We may all know these possible candidates but the average American does not. And if it is candidate A, who becomes the running mate? Is Biden old? Sure he is. Has he lost a step? Anyone under the age of forty has. Does he have dementia? Not from what I see and hear.
Four months seems like a long time, but it isn’t. And what happens when the media treats them like they do Biden? These are just a few of the questions to think about. But all I seem to see is wishful thinking—we dump Biden and everything will fall into place.
I'm in the so-called dump Biden movement. I read a lot of books and I'm a retired US History and Government teacher, so I bring a lot of background knowledge to my reading, something essential to thinking critically. And, I've been following this story since February when, seeing that Biden was losing, Ezra Klein first proposed an open convention.
Have you not come across this in your extensive reading? See https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/opinion/ezra-klein-biden-audio-essay.html.
Also, did you actually read all of today's Morning Shots? Bill said, "James Carville lays out in (yesterday's) New York Times a version of how an open competition for the Democratic nomination might work, along lines similar to helpful suggestions from Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks and venture capitalist Ted Dintersmith, and commentator Ezra Klein.
Talk about hubris. Carville himself is old and maybe he needs to retire. Something absolutely none of you are thinking about is the actual nuts and bolts process of replacing Biden on the ballot in all 50 states. That Carville calls on Obama and Clinton to hand pick the nominees—maybe with governors’ help—is the height of arrogance. He calls for town hall meetings in the four geographic regions and a mini primary. But there is no general primary that can be held across the country on one day; each state has its own laws and regs when it comes to candidates and elections. Just how is that going to happen in red states controlled by the GOP who would be beyond happy to legally challenge any changes to the ballot? And even in blue states? Do you think elections happen overnight? Because Carville, who should know better, certainly doesn’t seem to. Did you know that today is the deadline for registering the presidential candidates for the ballot in Georgia? And Ohio tried some ratf*#kery (sorry JVL) to try to keep the Dem candidate off the ballot because he will not officially be the nominee until the DNC—which is after the deadline.
But let’s go back to the town halls and mini primary. States would have to set up new Dem elections, and in PA and other states, potential candidates need to circulate petitions and gather signatures to qualify. Then new ballots would have to be printed. And again you don’t think this will all be legally challenged by the GOP? We have how many weeks until the convention? Just how does this all miraculously happen in five or so weeks?
Oh yes I saw Ezra’s column and rolled my eyes. The truth is, so many of the people who were and are calling for Biden’s ouster are the same people who didn’t want him in 2020 but held their noses to vote for him. I actually had the honor of meeting the man and talking to him two months ago. He was funny, sharp, and stayed on his feet for more than two hours talking and interacting with people. So I will go by my own in the flesh in real time experience with Joe Biden.
Ok, some good points about Carville's proposal, but that he is old is not hubris. If there is no way to get another nominee who can beat Trump, then so be it. I'm not convinced of that yet, so I would like to see some more discussion.
Are you saying Klein didn't want Biden to run in the 2020 primary, or are you saying he perferred Pete B or Bernie once the primary races began, or are you saying he didn't want Biden to be the nominee once he won SC? I don't recall any of that. I'd need some evidence.
All I know on the "Joe is demented" issue is this:
1) I have a parent who has severe dementia, and while experiences can vary, I'm not seeing the key signs of it in Biden. But I am seeing them in DJT. Let's have that discussion too.
2) I have a job where I do a lot of talking, to an audience. I frequently trip over my own words, flub things in misspeaking, have awkward speech moments, lose my train of thought when trying to juggle and balance multiple approaches, and otherwise do not get a perfect score on my delivery. I wouldn't want to read a literal transcript of all my utterances. Yet no one is calling for me to step down from my job because of it. It is hard to speak spontaneously and get everything right. What is different with Joe is that now everyone is looking for every last mistaken utterance and waiting to pounce on it. Some things may be legitimate issues on his part, but others strike me as piling on because it is easy (for some) and convenient (for others). Some additional perspective is in order.
Rather than symptoms of dementia, I am seeing symptoms of Parkinson's in Joe: An abnormally weak voice due to lack of coordination of the speech muscles, forward flexed posture, a shuffling gait, his mouth agape, and irregular speech pattern (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/us/politics/parkinsons-expert-white-house.html). My 85-year-old brother has been showing these very symptoms for over a year. As far as I can tell, it hasn't affected his cognition, just his movement. It has slowed him down considerably.
These symptoms are what's contributing to the voters' perception that Biden is old.
Thank you for the detailed overview, Sandy. Beyond normal human sympathy if that is the case, it does give pause to wonder if the job responsibilities of such a strenuous position could contribute to a rapid decline or a substantial impairment while in office, if not now maybe in two or three years. The DNC needs to be fully transparent if there are legitimate health concerns. Anything short of that ventures dangerously close to political malpractice and scandal.
So, Deutschmeister, I'm an admirer of good solid well thought out theses backed up by fluent prose, hence my high opinion of your posts (and please, no comments of "get a room" from other commenters here.) I haven't seen where you stand on the clash of Joe's "Should I Stay or Should I Go" dilemma (see what I did there?) Do you have an opinion, or did you already express one and I just missed it? For awhile I waffled back and forth, landed on the fence for a spell, and eventually sided with the ousters. I'm a gambling man, one who's had some success at the Hold'em table, and I think a new energetic candidate is our best bet. I'm all in on Harris.
Honestly, I don't have a position on staying or going, primarily because I don't feel I have enough information to make that judgment call with a reasonable assurance of accuracy. I keep feeling a nagging sensation that there is a lot more to it all than we've been made aware of -- significant things that those on the inside know but are not communicating, for obvious pragmatic reasons. So I'm trusting Joe and the DNC to get it right, aware as they are of how high the stakes are in this particular campaign. I suspect that's something of a weak response to some people, and I understand that. But it's the truth about how I feel. I just don't know, as there is no easy answer one way or the other.
In contrast I feel a great deal of hostility now toward the Democratic Party for not game planning for this possibility, even privately, and seeing the scenario coming when the signs have been visible for some time. If we're honest about it, we've all been quietly hoping fervently with fingers crossed that Joe would not have a (real or perceived) age-related incident in a very public setting, for all to see. But here we are. If asked to choose among the alternatives, I suppose I'm with Harris, but I am persuadable otherwise. The one good thing about Harris that not enough people are talking about is that she already has been fully vetted -- for the 2020 campaign -- so I do not expect that any unforeseen skeletons are lurking with her. Who knows about someone else who has not been held up to presidential-level scrutiny? If the Dems were to go with someone else who has something of substance to hide, and it were uncovered in the time between the nomination and the election, then we might as well not bother watching the election returns on November 5. We'd be viewing in real time as the last guardrail keeping democracy from going over the cliff is removed.
Deutchmeister has a line outside the door to his room, so no such suggestion like that from me. ;)
On a more serious note, my journey has mirrored your own.
I appreciate the kind words from both you and Edward, and from others over time. But there are so many good, thoughtful, insightful posters in this forum. I truly am honored to be considered as one of them. I mean that in all sincerity. This group is very special.
Thanks, D. I suspect a lot of activity and conversing among the power brokers on both sides is going on behind closed doors right now, and like you I hope where we end up is what maximizes our odds. I guess one thing that gives me hope about Harris is that we shouldn't forget that she's a politician, she's won several elected posts, and she's not a half-bad stump performer. In these days where performative antics are important I think she can inject a much needed dose of enthusiasm into what has been a somewhat downcast Party the last few years. Cheers!
I just called you easy! ;)
But seriously, I agree completely.
I may be easy, but I'm not a cheap date.
"We've already established what kind of girl you are, now we're just haggling on price!"