posted
I've been "trying to think it over" regarding why Joe waited so long to abdicate?
There have been many a report that his cognitive skills were deteriorating even when he was Obama's VP and definitely during the "Trump interregnum" as a private citizen.
To campaign during '20, he "lucked out" as all he needed to do was to make scripted addresses from a TV studio in his home. This resulted in his "razor thin victory", which will be disputed by some "forever".
He sold himself as a one term "bring us together" President. On that objective, he failed miserably. So far as his legislative "achievements", help those financially hurt by COVID?, sure; that's what a government is for. Infrastructure? well, too many politicians swept that under the rug for too long. After all, where's the "photo-op" with a repaired stretch of highway?
Now to the Inflation Reduction Act. What that had to do with its title escapes me. It was really just a "grab bag" for Bernie, Liz, AOC, and The Squad to have what they wanted in return for their '20 and '24 support.
But Joe should have recognized that he "didn't have it" for a full-fledged "can't hide in my studio" campaign against, Donald, Nikki, Ron, or Swamy, and should have withdrawn about when this topic was originated.
Finally, I must wonder how many of "the Democrat Bench" just might be rooting for Trump. After all, Kamala never really had standing with them as she flitted from "Backbench Senator" to unsuccessful Presidential Candidate to "stageprop VP". For if Kamala wins, '28 by custom will be held open to her, so the likes of Amy, AOC, Gavin, Gretchen, Kathy, JB, and Josh, will all have to wait for '32. Several of them could well have "aged out" by then.
Just some "Homestretch thoughts" of mine.
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Rate The Presidents is not the usual one sponsored by CSPAN that I have cited around here. That poll, which rated Trump as 41st of 44, did not rate Joe as his term was not complete when it was taken.
Now this one cited rates Joe as 14th best of 45, with Trump being last, or worse than Buchannon, who historians hold could have done much more than he did to contain the Civil War.
I highly doubt if Joe's 14th will hold when either this or the CSPAN poll is updated. I also hold that Obama (#7) is in for a dropping from his rather high "perch" that he holds in both polls.
But now to current events, I blame Joe in great part for Kamala's, anywhere between "decisive" and "landslide" defeat (I'll call it the latter should Trump also win the popular vote), he should have stepped away from the '24 nomination as soon as he realized his cognitive skills had diminished to the extent they have. His "corner" was like that of a "no match prizefighter" being told "come on kid, you can do it".
Now another group I blame is the pollsters. Those people have now been wrong, and in turn feeding the public misinformation, for each of the past three presidential elections (yes; Joe won, but by such a slim margin that it gave rise to January 6). This also leads me to wonder if the pollsters each campaign hires were also feeding them misinformation. I further have to wonder how those feeding the public could be telling the media that all seven battleground states could be within a point either way when in fact Trump will win all seven of them?
As I noted at the other active forum topic, the George McGovern quote from the '72 election where Nixon "trounced" him; "the only poll that matters is on November 7"
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Brazilian poll? Particularly with convicted criminal hard-leftist Lula da Silva in charge of that country?
Posts: 855 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Helfner, to allay your concerns, I have now linked the cited material to another site.
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This Journal columnist, Kimberly Strassel, sure lays the Trump victory/Harris defeat on the media:
Fair Use:
quote:The recriminations are flying, as Barack Obama’s and Joe Biden’s forces go to war over who’s more to blame for Democrats’ humiliating defeat Tuesday. So long as the left is pointing fingers, let it direct a big, fat digit at the outfit that played the biggest role in losing it this election: the U.S. media.
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More "Dump on Joe" - this time, by a columnist writing in The Times:
Fair Use:
quote:Kamala Harris lost the election this week, but I mostly don’t blame her. At least, I don’t blame her because of anything she did recently. Since she became the unofficial nominee in July, she played a difficult hand about as well as she could have, running a disciplined campaign that sought to reassure Americans about the economic issues that trouble them most, in a political environment that was very rough for Democrats and for incumbent parties around the world. But where did that bad hand come from? It was dealt to her by two people: President Biden, who produced a governing record she could not effectively defend or run away from; and herself
With his years in public service foregoing "who knows how many $$$", yes, "he stayed to long at The Fair". This defeat has robbed him of so much, so let him live out his (what I don't think will be too many) final years with a sense of dignity.
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forgoing? Still has a reported net worth of $10 million (although the green Corvette suggests higher); should be far lower if solely as a career politician with zero private sector experience, which nobody regards as respectable.
Posts: 855 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm sorry to hold these thoughts regarding a man who has given fifty years to public service, but Joe, you have worked overtime to discredit yourself.
It is going to cost you in the two presidential ratings surveys I have cited around here.
First; the various reports and biographical TV shows regarding your career. One show, a PBS "Frontline" documentary reporting how Obama passed you over during '16 in favor of Hillary, who lost to Trump. While possibly mistaken. I'm sure there was a "deal" in place. That was to offer Hillary a visible Cabinet seat (State certainly qualifies as that) in which she would serve during the first term and with her resignation being accepted early in the second so she would have three years to get ready to run in '16.
Joe, you've been around politics long enough to know what a deal is.
Now it's '20 and you got your crack. Fortunately you did not have to campaign all that vigorously thanks to COVID. You campaigned on a platform of serving one term that would be focused on "bring us together". I for one "bought it" and you got my vote.
Now so far as your agenda;"stimulus" to help persons and businesses hurt by COVID? Sure, that's what a government is for. Infrastructure? you had to; for too many politicians had ignored it for too long. After a repaired highway doesn't make for photo ops, but new trains do.
Now so far as your Inflation Reduction Act? What a sellout to Bernie, Liz, AOC, and "the squad". There went any hope you would, say, govern slightly left of center as did Bill, and had she won, Hillary.
Now so far as seeking a second term when you campaigned that you were not, you have known your cognitive skills had badly deteriorated and had no business seeking such. You should know that each party selects their candidate through a primary process and that it was '52 when Ike was selected in a "smoke filled room" which was the end of "the old way".
In short, you should have honored your one term pledge, affirming it during your '23 SOTU, and let the primary process take place. Kamala may or may not been the nominee, but if she got the most delegates, so be it. At least, she or any nominee you chose to "annoint" would have more than 107 days to execute a campaign.
Pardoning Hunter? Let's allow this Journal Editorial to "do the talkin'".
So Joe, I wish you a happy retirement and line up a good ghostwriter for the book deal.
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, Mr. Norman I disagree with almost everything you say, except what you said about the misnamed "Inflation Reduction Act" and that he should have bowed out after his one term. As to the "slightly left of center", I will admit to being well right of center, but part is because the "center" has moved left significantly over my lifetime>
Biden did not give 50 years of public service. He milked it for his own wealth and that of his family. "Bringing us together?" Probably one of the most divisive terms ever, with the possible exception of Obama.
Yes, I do agree that his cognitive skills had declined, I am just not sure they have gotten as low as those of Kamala and Walz at their best. I did vote for Trump in 16 because I thought he was the less bad, but in 20 and 24 because I considered him a good choice. As an alternative to Harris/Walz, I would have taken whatever the alternative was short of Castro, even if it were Alfred E. Neuman.
Pardoning Hunter? A final slap in the face of the entire justice system and population. I truly fear what he will do or try to do with the remaining slightly over a month he has in office.
Posts: 2958 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Mr. Harris, we seem to agree on a number of points I immediately addressed.
Now what will be interesting, considering how Joe has badly discredited himself over this past year, namely by failing to face facts that "he no longer had it" and stepped down so the Democrats could also have had a primary process. Maybe, but I think likely not, Kamala would have been victorious. While I doubt if the "Rehoboth Beach conclave" in which Kamala was "anointed" was "smoke filled", that process had been gone since '52, when the Republican Convention was deadlocked and Eisenhower ended up being chosen over Taft behind closed doors.
It will be interesting to see where the two "Rate The Presidents" surveys I've noted around here, will place Joe. One of the surveys by Political Scientists, rated Joe as 14th best of 45 (Trump 45). However, when that survey is next updated, I think Joe will be "in for a big slide".
The other survey of Notable Scholars sponsored by CSPAN had not rated Joe (Trump 41 of 44), but I think when they do, he will be down in that Fourth Quartile.
But for the good of all of us, let's hope that Trump can climb out of the basement with "with a steady hand sailing our ship of state" during his second term.
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Former Watergate lawyer John Dean has spoken out now, claiming that Biden should issue “blanket pardon(s)” to people such as Jack Smith and Robert Mueller as well as any others he would deem to exist on what he calls “Trump’s enemies list” (the fact that he tries to make people think such a thing exists shows that he has been biased for decades).
Posts: 855 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ideally Mr. Helfner, such a pardon to Messrs. Mueller and Smith would, in the name of "national unity", be issued by (no longer Former or Elect) President Trump.
Uh, "not exactly holding my breath" for that to happen.
Posts: 10801 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
