The behaviors in that example and longer, more contextual versions of it, sadly, aren't entirely Biden's fault.
For one thing, much is being made (not necessarily in those two threads) of Biden sticking his finger in the questioner's face. I disagree: he was pointing, as many of us do, for emphasis and pointing in the direction of the man's chest without pointing anywhere or at anything in particular. It wasn't until the end that, in his zeal, Biden's finger came up toward the man's face.
More importantly, though, as is also being pointed out, that behavior and others like it in the last few weeks, are consistent with, although not diagnostic of by itself, early stage dementia.
This may be why Biden is being limited (I don't see him limiting himself) to 7 minute speeches (we've seen him tire and visibly fade during 90-minute debates), few interviews, few interactions of this type, few public appearances at all. The foolishness and humiliation are the fault of his handlers for continually exposing him and on the part of the Progressive-Democratic Party for letting this charade go on; although at this stage, Party really is limited on what they can do about it.
The best thing that could happen to him now--and best for Party--would be to encourage Sanders to destroy him at the next debate. Party can't stop the fight on a TKO, but Sanders can go ahead and knock him out. Of course, a lot of that will be up to the moderators and how much they try to protect him. Biden is wholly incapable of defending himself at this point.
On the other hand, I'm not sure Sanders has it in him to deliver a coup de grâce.
Nah, Eric.....I have to believe Limbaugh's analysis of the situation: Biden WILL be the nominee* to preserve the status quo for the Party Management/Establishment. He may lose, but the Establishment will persevere because he will be the de facto Head of Party, as the Obama/Clinton group is currently. (Of course, the Obama/Clintonites will continue to run the Party, trotting Joe out for an occasional hand-wave.)
In contrast, were Bernie the nominee, he WILL be the de facto Head of Party (win OR lose) and will root out the Management/Establishment in favor of his own people. Bernie is also a larger danger to down-ticket (D) folk than Biden, although both are deleterious to the Party at all levels.
I am not un-biased here, but I cannot understand how the Democrat Party can be so utterly devoid of talented, visionary members that they are forced to nominate one of these two characters.
Notice, Dad, that I was talking primarily about what was best for Biden.
Party likely will hold out for Biden as nominee; that would, according to some, put Hillary Clinton into the White House were Biden elected.
But conspiracies aside, a Biden nomination would be a far greater disaster for Party than a Sanders one, and a Biden election would be far more disastrous, also. Biden's ascendancy will allow Party to continue hiding its collective head in the sand, avoiding reality. A Sanders ascendancy will make the ideological questions stand front and center for the American people and force Party to adjust to the center--the American center, not Party's current center--or die.
I have no fear of where We the People will go on that...discussion.
Specifically on the debate, the format is being changed up 'due to coronavirus concerns' to a no audience format that looks designed to shield Biden from having to listen to long free form questions and will proved chances for the moderators to cut him off if he rambles.
Seems likely that the real Dem plan is to have a VP candidate they really like, and, should they win the election, persuade Biden to step aside in terms of the VP as soon as possible.
You and I agree about one thing: a Biden ascendancy will allow the Party to whistle past the graveyard.
But it's not only 'top-ticket' that's in play here. The House is (D) by virtue of many VERY skinny-margin (D) victories in Trump-dominated districts; the seats were won largely because (R) incumbents retired. These are not "safe" seats by any means.
Thus, (D) turnout is absolutely critical--but the more Sundown Joe talks, the less enthused "normie" Democrat voters become--that UAW (or trade-union member) in Detroit is not the Lone Ranger in his antagonism toward Joe.
How I hope the Ds blow their House majority. It's no time for complacency, but so far their tactics are working brilliantly for the cause of their destruction. Here's hoping for a fundamental realignment across both the R and D board.
David, I do keep hearing about a plan for the VP to take over but I wonder how effective that will be. In the first place, I can't imagine that it can openly be the plan without creating a significant backlash among the electorate, and I don't see how the VP pick will generate enough excitement to propel the ticket forward without it being openly discussed. A VP pick is almost always defensive, when it isn't an outright detriment to the ticket, and trying to flip that script is going to be difficult.
David, I do keep hearing about a plan for the VP to take over but I wonder how effective that will be. In the first place, I can't imagine that it can openly be the plan without creating a significant backlash among the electorate....
In today's political (and climate-panic, and now coronavirus-panic) environment, the VP pick can't help but be picked over in the electorate and by pundits, and if it's Biden at the top, that choice will be debated from two directions: chosen to take over from Biden? and Biden's pick, or someone forced on him by Party elite?
11 comments:
The behaviors in that example and longer, more contextual versions of it, sadly, aren't entirely Biden's fault.
For one thing, much is being made (not necessarily in those two threads) of Biden sticking his finger in the questioner's face. I disagree: he was pointing, as many of us do, for emphasis and pointing in the direction of the man's chest without pointing anywhere or at anything in particular. It wasn't until the end that, in his zeal, Biden's finger came up toward the man's face.
More importantly, though, as is also being pointed out, that behavior and others like it in the last few weeks, are consistent with, although not diagnostic of by itself, early stage dementia.
This may be why Biden is being limited (I don't see him limiting himself) to 7 minute speeches (we've seen him tire and visibly fade during 90-minute debates), few interviews, few interactions of this type, few public appearances at all. The foolishness and humiliation are the fault of his handlers for continually exposing him and on the part of the Progressive-Democratic Party for letting this charade go on; although at this stage, Party really is limited on what they can do about it.
The best thing that could happen to him now--and best for Party--would be to encourage Sanders to destroy him at the next debate. Party can't stop the fight on a TKO, but Sanders can go ahead and knock him out. Of course, a lot of that will be up to the moderators and how much they try to protect him. Biden is wholly incapable of defending himself at this point.
On the other hand, I'm not sure Sanders has it in him to deliver a coup de grâce.
Eric Hines
Nah, Eric.....I have to believe Limbaugh's analysis of the situation: Biden WILL be the nominee* to preserve the status quo for the Party Management/Establishment. He may lose, but the Establishment will persevere because he will be the de facto Head of Party, as the Obama/Clinton group is currently. (Of course, the Obama/Clintonites will continue to run the Party, trotting Joe out for an occasional hand-wave.)
In contrast, were Bernie the nominee, he WILL be the de facto Head of Party (win OR lose) and will root out the Management/Establishment in favor of his own people. Bernie is also a larger danger to down-ticket (D) folk than Biden, although both are deleterious to the Party at all levels.
I am not un-biased here, but I cannot understand how the Democrat Party can be so utterly devoid of talented, visionary members that they are forced to nominate one of these two characters.
*Barring a black-swan event, of course.
Notice, Dad, that I was talking primarily about what was best for Biden.
Party likely will hold out for Biden as nominee; that would, according to some, put Hillary Clinton into the White House were Biden elected.
But conspiracies aside, a Biden nomination would be a far greater disaster for Party than a Sanders one, and a Biden election would be far more disastrous, also. Biden's ascendancy will allow Party to continue hiding its collective head in the sand, avoiding reality. A Sanders ascendancy will make the ideological questions stand front and center for the American people and force Party to adjust to the center--the American center, not Party's current center--or die.
I have no fear of where We the People will go on that...discussion.
Eric Hines
I lean toward Dad29's views.
Specifically on the debate, the format is being changed up 'due to coronavirus concerns' to a no audience format that looks designed to shield Biden from having to listen to long free form questions and will proved chances for the moderators to cut him off if he rambles.
It won't matter after tonight anyway. Biden's it; Bernie will be too far behind unless there is a tremendous shock in the election results.
Seems likely that the real Dem plan is to have a VP candidate they really like, and, should they win the election, persuade Biden to step aside in terms of the VP as soon as possible.
You and I agree about one thing: a Biden ascendancy will allow the Party to whistle past the graveyard.
But it's not only 'top-ticket' that's in play here. The House is (D) by virtue of many VERY skinny-margin (D) victories in Trump-dominated districts; the seats were won largely because (R) incumbents retired. These are not "safe" seats by any means.
Thus, (D) turnout is absolutely critical--but the more Sundown Joe talks, the less enthused "normie" Democrat voters become--that UAW (or trade-union member) in Detroit is not the Lone Ranger in his antagonism toward Joe.
How I hope the Ds blow their House majority. It's no time for complacency, but so far their tactics are working brilliantly for the cause of their destruction. Here's hoping for a fundamental realignment across both the R and D board.
David, I do keep hearing about a plan for the VP to take over but I wonder how effective that will be. In the first place, I can't imagine that it can openly be the plan without creating a significant backlash among the electorate, and I don't see how the VP pick will generate enough excitement to propel the ticket forward without it being openly discussed. A VP pick is almost always defensive, when it isn't an outright detriment to the ticket, and trying to flip that script is going to be difficult.
Many in leftist alliance mafia are just tools. Fun to see conservatives thunking similar ideas. If a suit is empty then where is the puppet master?
David, I do keep hearing about a plan for the VP to take over but I wonder how effective that will be. In the first place, I can't imagine that it can openly be the plan without creating a significant backlash among the electorate....
In today's political (and climate-panic, and now coronavirus-panic) environment, the VP pick can't help but be picked over in the electorate and by pundits, and if it's Biden at the top, that choice will be debated from two directions: chosen to take over from Biden? and Biden's pick, or someone forced on him by Party elite?
Eric Hines
Post a Comment