I realize that the majority around here supported Joe Biden's candidacy, likely in great part that passenger rail would fair better than it would in a second Trump term.
But, let's be honest. It's all over.
How he and his Administration can survive this Afghanistan debacle escapes me; Saigon '75 was "orderly" in comparison with this "retreat".
We all know that Gerry Ford only served a partial term and was not reelected; Joe has been mortally wounded by the ineptness of the intelligence regarding Kabul to such extent that I can only foresee his resignation, or removal under the 25th Amendment (impeachment; not likely).
Kamala is "simply not up to the job" beyond that of a caretaker.
There goes the infrastructure legislation - and all the "goodies" within it for passenger rail; Congress will be in Republican hands after the '22 mid-terms. There goes the hopes of any Democrat for '24. Liz, Bernie, or other sacrificial lamb may as well as run - and get the floor mopped up with them by whomever the Republicans nominate (Trump is not a sure bet; I'd be thinking DeSantis, Scott, or Cruz).
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here is additional commentary from the "non-partisan but not neutral" Daily Beast:
Fair Use:
Courtesy MSN.
But being the right candidate to beat Trump did not make Biden the right candidate to actually become president. If this wasn’t already clear, it is now. The hopes and dreams of a Biden presidency that would remake America are beginning to crumble. Talks of being the next FDR now seem naive and hubristic. Indeed, my warnings about aspiring to be LBJ suddenly look eerily prophetic (be careful what you wish for). Trump’s evil insanity made many people cling to the hope that Biden would be some “Jesus meets JFK” savior, as opposed to a predictable rebound relationship.
I can only reiterate; a "miracle" if Joe completes the term. I have held that Joe would hang on until the new Republican controlled Congress was sworn in; now I take that back and am thinking along the lines of "after the Holidays", or early '22.
I can't be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kamala has been told to get her team together.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Looks like the fact that this is an illegitimate administration is starting to be exposed. That is, if the "cancel culture" behind it didn't tip anyone off.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
I am more concerned about the California Governors recall. California is so heavily Democratic that the only way a Republican can win is to unseat him in a recall. If that happens, pray for Diane Feinstein, who is 88. If she passes suddenly, the new Republican Governor will replace her with a Republican. The GOP regains the majority y, Mitch McConnell again leads the Senate,and the Democratic agenda is lost.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, I don't think the issue here is whether the government is legitimate or, as some factions contend, otherwise.
The issue is that whoever was making the call made one of the greatest blunders of the entire "postwar" era.
This was a blunder, be it from faulty intelligence or the unwillingness of the decision maker, i.e. Joe, to abide by such, for which accountability must be accepted. Joe's presidency is mortally wounded, and should step down at such time an orderly transition to a "caretaker" administration can be formed by VP Harris. Such an administration would enact the annual "Spending" and Defense Bills, give the fight back order if attacked, dispatch Federal Aid to natural disasters, and "pardon" the turkeys,
As Mr. Nicholson immediately notes, any legislative initiatives away from the annual Spending bill, including the infrastructure with its $66B allocated to passenger rail, are going nowhere under the Harris successor administration.
The voters have ample time to decide which direction they "want things to go". All I can hope for is that the '24 Election be sufficiently decisive ('22 Midterms decided as soon as Joe, with the razor thin Dem majority, took office) so that there need be no question held by some factions arising from that during '20 and it results in a unified way to move forward.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Or it could have been deliberate, which is scarier to contemplate. That's one thing I actually do not hold Joseph Robinette Jr. 100% responsible for, even though he did insist that the buck stops with him.
The more I learn about the left, the more I realize how implacable they are, and how the end truly justifies the means for them. Only with such realization do tragedies such as this one make sense somewhat.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: I am more concerned about the California Governors recall. California is so heavily Democratic that the only way a Republican can win is to unseat him in a recall. If that happens, pray for Diane Feinstein, who is 88. If she corals, the new Republican Governor will replace her with a Republican. The GOP regains the majority y, Mitch McConnell again leads the Senate,and the Democratic agenda is lost.
From what I've seen of their agenda, it consists of making the USA fall as a sovereign nation in a maelstrom of violence, so the quicker it's lost, the better.
BTW, lest anyone think I'm putting faith in the fake opposition, the GOP's agenda is identical to the Democrats and has been for over six decades. We are under one-party rule.
PS. Your lack of empathy for thousands of Americans now trapped in a newly-spawned enemy state ruled by an implacable, murderous enemy who won't stop with just Afghanistan is noted.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Im puzzled why Mr. Helfner would infer that I have no empathy for the Americans (and the Afghans) stranded when no one on this message board mentioned them in this discussion. I would have thought that went without saying! As Mr. Norman notes, this operation has been a blunder,though at this writing it seems to be going more smoothly. But it must be remembered which President negotiated the withdrawal that amounted to a surrender.Whose Sec of State posed for a picture with the leader of this implacable, murderous enemy that the President at the time wanted to have as a guest at Camp David, and which President wanted to complete the handover in May. Yes, Biden wants us out too, but at least he wanted more time. I know this is a sh*tshow, but at least Biden is taking responsibility like a real man and a President should. As for Biden being "illegitimate", it should be noted that he won by the rules set down by the founders, just like his predecessors who I didnt like, such as GWBush and Trump. When they won, those of my political bent didnt try to overturn the government by illegal, violent means., Whoevers side you are on, however you feel about the results of an election, there is NO EXCUSE for trying to overturn an election by force. Finally, Mr. Helfner, if you think the GOP's agenda is identical to the Democrats', look at what the Democrats are trying to get through Congress compared towhat the GOP did last time THEY had one party rule. A tax cut for billionaires, and TRIED to take away healthcare from millions of Americans.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
US Servicemen: 13 KIA; 15 WIA today in Kabul. How can Joe expect to survive this?
He may not make it even to Xmas.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
You underestimate Biden's tenacity that can come from having experienced personal travesty. Of all the President's, I can only think of Lincoln's example. Biden might say one term is enough, given his age,but I doubt he will quit mid term unless he has a serious illness.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Nicholson, I realize this clip is taken from Fox News and in all likelihood has been "curated" (seems to be a new buzzword) to further their agenda, there is enough within such to show that Joe has kind of "lost it".
At this time, we need a "post 9/11, pre-Iraq, GWB hand on the throttle" and I'm afraid, despite Joe's most sincere efforts, we haven't got such at this time.
I can only hope at this time, Kamala is assembling her team (and that Joe's can accept the "boot" is how the game is played), because I think it is "touch and go" if Joe can even make it to Xmas.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Ah, yes ,GWBush. A truly illegitimate President who was not elected but selected by the Supreme Court when they ruled not to count all the votes in Florida. Certainly Al Gore would have been justified in leading an insurrection against the Capitol. But he didn't, and we didn't because we still respected the rule of law. GWBush, who didn't act on the August 2001 memo warning of an attack on the USA and who broke off the hunt for bin Laden to invade Iraq on false pretenses. What a role model!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Nicholson, yes it was true that at the time the Y2K recount was called off and Gore conceded, the difference was 537 votes in favor of GWB. However, it was determined that whatever absentee votes there were uncounted were largely from military members over or at sea - and the military always favors the Republican candidate.
So it was a case of "end the nightmare"; little did we know of the nightmare to come twenty years later.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The "Bookies" note that there is a 41% chance that Joe will leave office before his term expires - and essentially zip he will seek another.
Times columnists, who represent differing sides of the political spectrum, are also questioning his ability to "survive".
He will hang on to Xmas and a little after; maybe his resignation announcement will be part of his SOTU.
Incidentially, while only my word is evidence of such today, I shared over lunch in Saigon during Oct '67 with two of my "Buds" that LBJ would not run again. I could see, with three months "in-country", just how apathetic too many Vietnamese were about the war. If I sensed it, LBJ had to know it.
I also shared same with my Mother and Father in a letter that they had prior to LBJ's announcement.
Now with this noted, I can't see how Joe can survive.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
As someone who was amazed that Biden won in the first place, and who considered him obviously totally unqualified for the job from the get-go, and whose ineptitude was exceeded by that of his choice of VP, I am still astounded by the absolute complete chaos of his debacle in Afghanistan. If ever we have had a "leader" who has ever been worse than that we have now, I do not who comes even close.
Can anything be more disgusting than to walk away from citizens and those we employed like has been done now? If the President and all military leadership involved were to resign right now it would be too late. To say that they have blood on their hands is just the start.
As said, it makes our pull out from Saigon look orderly. While there (in a construction unit) I had several Vietnamese working for me and a Vietnamese army sergeant that was with me from time to time as an interpreter. Did any of these survive the North's takeover? Probably not. They would not have been high up enough on the totem pole to get out easily. As to the Afgani's and the Vietnamese Army's lack of enthusiasm, it was very plain that the US was going to leave them hanging out to dry. This can now be regarded as the second time in recent years that we have jerked defeat out of the jaws of victory.
The only thing that makes Biden's continued stay in office look at all likely and the least bit desirable is to look at the order of succession. I don't see anyone that I would consider better. Frankly by now looking at him in action he acts totally non compos doing only what he is told.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Here are those in order of succession with names: President: joe Biden and then we go to: 1. Vice President – Kamala Harris 2. Speaker of the House – Nancy Pelosi 3. President Pro Tempore of the Senate – Patrick Leahy 4. Secretary of State – Antony Blinken 5. Secretary of the Treasury – Janet Yellen 6. Secretary of Defense – Lloyd Austin 7. Attorney General – Merrick Garland 8. Secretary of the Interior – Deb Haaland 9. Secretary of Agriculture – Tom Vilsack 10. Secretary of Commerce – Gina Raimondo 11. Secretary of Labor – Marty Walsh 12. Secretary of Health and Human Services – Xavier Becerra 13. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – Marcia Fudge 14. Secretary of Transportation – Pete Buttigieg 15. Secretary of Energy – Jennifer Granholm 16. Secretary of Education – Miguel Cardona 17. Secretary of Veterans Affairs – Denis McDonough 18. Secretary of Homeland Security – Alejandro Mayorkas
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Thank you Mr. Harris for adding your thoughts to this discussion. I also appreciate your compilation of the line of succession - especially that you note with 4th in line Senate President "for the time being" is now Sen. Leahy (D-VT) whereas I thought such was Sen. Grassley (R-IA). Apparently such changes with the majority party.
Now the Amtrak advocacy community would simply "love it" if the first thirteen declined to serve so that "Amtrak Pete" sat in the Oval.
But now returning to the intent of this topic, I of course have become horribly disillusioned with Joe and, like Mr. Harris, question his present competence to hold the job.
While I wish that both parties had it within themselves to have selected other candidates (let's not look at me for suggestions, as I thought Joe should have stepped aside in favor of Andy), I voted for Joe on the strength that he would be a "caretaker bring us together" president.
Of course he should have enacted legislation to provide relief to those adversely affected by COVID. I'm not sure about the "Stimulus" checks enacted by both Trump and Joe; which resulted in me owing to a one time drop in my '19 income (had to sell two positions at a loss) becoming eligible for such (I donated all to Feeding America). Those funds should have been packed into further enhancement of Unemployment benefits "capped" at a beneficiary's previous earnings level. At least there, the beneficiaries have "worked for it" while they could.
Now so far as the Infrastructure legislation, which could well now become a DOA, I'm all in favor of fixing bridges and highways, plus Broadband where underserved - oh, and for the audience here, the Gateway tunnels, but that should be "IT". Using infrastructure and COVID as a "cover" to propose sweeping "New Deal" and "Great Society" legislation is not what I voted for with Joe.
And now, Afghanistan; foreign policy was supposed to be Joe's strong suit. If he relied upon faulty intelligence, he owns that. Those agencies all work for him - not Congress or the Judiciary. If the apparent "deal" Trump struck with the Taliban, appeared too "one sided", that is where his skill in foreign relations was to have shone to have such modified to enable an orderly withdrawal and transition to Taliban rule. There was simply no point to support an armed force that wouldn't fight and a government that fled (or literally "desertion in the face of the enemy" - for which Messrs. Harris, Ocala Mike, Pullman, surely others here who have worn the uniform, and I, would have been looking at the Gallows).
I really think Joe will not complete the term; Kamala would only be a caretaker. "Pardoning the turkeys" would be a high point of her Administration.
Let's hope that both parties can improve upon their choices for '24 than they did for '20.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Anybody notice that while Biden, et al were at Ground Zero masked up even though vaccinated and outdoors, where Trump was? He was meeting with groups of Firemen and Policemen, or whatever the sexually neutral term is these days, having an enthusiastic reception. By the way, all were maskless.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Not surprisingly, Maureen Dowd in her Sunday Times column found other matters on how the former president spent 9/11 to address:
Fair Use:
Never one to miss a cheesy tableau of machismo, Trump is providing ringside commentary on a boxing match on 9/11 at the Hard Rock Casino in Florida between Evander Holyfield, 58, and Vitor Belfort, 44. During a promotional event for the Hasbeenpalooza, the 75-year-old bragged that he’d like to beat up the 78-year-old Joe Biden in the ring, that it would be his “easiest fight” and that Biden would “go down within the first few seconds.”
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
A further thought; the recall initiative against California Governor Newsom.
Joe has put himself "on the line" campaining for Gov. Newsom's retention today. Early consensus is that Gov. Newsom will be retained, but "it's not in the bag".
If retention prevails, then I guess Joe could proclaim a "victory". But should Gov. Newsom be removed from office, it only will enhance the thought I hold "it's all over" come roundly next January, or four months from today. Joe would find himself "radioactive" around any Democratic candidate is a close Mid-Term election. Not that Kamala could be all that effective, but best have Joe gone before the campaigns begin.
addendum: just as well that Gov. Newsom has prevailed. While he is "not exactly a man of the people" as this Journal columnist points out, the matter of his qualifications to serve as Governor will be taken up by the people - at the polls during November '22.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I was not really surprised that Newsom prevailed. But, neither would I disagree with the cartoon that showed him in front of a U-Haul place labeled as "Salesman of the Month". I do have the feeling that he outspent his opponents by about a factor of four to one had a lot to do with it.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It appears that "next crisis at bat" for Joe is this ongoing "fruck fruck" with France.
Now I can't be sure where the French "thought they're coming from". That Australia was going to buy submarines from them with WWII technology? Come on Froggies.
If the US considers Australia a sufficiently trusted ally to share with them sub technology that is the most advanced in the world, of course that is where they will go - and the shipping lanes through SE Asia will be all the safer from hostile foreign powers.
It's simply a "win-win" for the US and Australia. "Sorry bout that, France".
Now what remains is what kind of goods can Australia buy from France to make up that $66B shortfall? Now if Joe still has his supposedly strong foreign policy skills (Afghanistan has me wondering), now would be a time to put them on the table.
How about an HSR system along their East coast from Brisbane to Melbourne via Sydney and Canberra? Even though I've scrubbed any thoughts of going down there next year (I probably could get in, COVID notwithstanding, with a dual citizen permanent resident Niece residing near Sydney), the present US$21,000 air fare is, uh, "a bit of a turn off".
But with the reports that "Amtrak smells like a rose" when compared with their inter city trains (except the Luxotrains), I think that is an area in which the shortfall could be recovered.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
There was an article in he Atlantic some time back that stated that Joe had managed to be on the wrong side of almost all foreign policy decisions throughout his entire political life. It surprised me that they published it considering their usual political perspective. The Aussie sub decision I have to say I consider Joe's best decision as president. The French can get over it, and so can the Chinese. That Joe did something that made the Chinese unhappy surprises me far more than him making the French unhappy.
Some things I have read indicate that cost overruns and reneging on promises of work on these to be done in Australia had much to do with the Aussies telling the French to go away on this issue. Getting far better technology certainly made this a near "no brainer" decision. I don't see the need for the Aussies to do anything to placate France.
That the Kiwi's "nothing nuclear allowed in our nation or waters" policy has led them to say these new subs will be unwelcome in New Zealand waters: Well, tough stuff. Wonder what would happen if NZ ever felt themselves threatened militarily? Bet they would forget all about this posturing.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
It isn't just the French that got unhappy, but all of the EU kakistocrats and their supporting national politicians. They were even moved to compare Biden with his predecessor (inaccurately).
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: It isn't just the French that got unhappy, but all of the EU kakistocrats and their supporting national politicians. They were even moved to compare Biden with his predecessor (inaccurately).
Cry me a river. They didn't like Trump because he had backbone and stood up to them and they simply have no respect for Biden because of his obvious incompetence. My main experience working with Europeans, with few exceptions, is their overwhelming arrogance. It is not altogether a joke that working with Europeans helps me understand why my ancestors got on little wooden boats and risked drowning to leave. We owe these people nothing. In fact, my understanding is that that France, for one, has not paid debts to the US going back to WW1.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I voted for Joe simply on the strength that he was to have a one term, "caretaker", "bring us together" presidency. I believed that he would be a "centrist" governing much as did both Carter and Clinton. Instead of being "enemies", Joe (from WV) and Kyrsten (from AZ) would have been allies.
Instead, Joe takes orders from Bernie, Liz, and The Squad - something I never envisioned. To seek "hard" infrastructure rebuilding within the traditional sense of the term - bridges, highways, the Gateway Tunnel, and even expanding it to include broadband is what I had in mind. This "human infrastructure" definition is simply "too much".
With Joe's long standing experience on foreign affairs, I could never have envisioned a debacle like Afghanistan occurring on his watch.
At this time, I'm not sure if even the "hard" infrastructure will be enacted. Bernie, Liz, and "Squad", have done a good job of poisoning that well.
So all told, Joe, I'm disappointed and that is why I have considerable doubts if you will complete your term.
Now I'm hardly about to say "gosh, why didn't I vote for Trump". Be it assured, that was not going to happen for the Presidency the notable scholars have ranked 41st of 44 (the two preceding - Pierce, Buchannan and the one following Lincoln - Johnson -get that booby prize).
I only wish that both parties had found different candidates to nominate during '20. For '24, from the Republicans the likes of Abbott, DeSantis, Scott seem like strong bets. For the Democrats, Booker, Klobouchar, and Manchin could fill the bill. Voters will have had enough of Kamala filling out Joe's unexpired term.
But, AOC (she could run in '24, her birth date is Oct 13, 1989. Therefore she will be 35 on Inauguration Day), Bernie, Donald, and Liz; for the good of your respective parties, stay out.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Mr. Biden has always been a committed anti-constitutional leftist and no "moderate" if that word really has meaning. His prior bids for presidential candidacy highlighted several character flaws, putting it mildly (not least his blatant plagiarism of Neil Kinnock's speech).
To contrast the ill will out of the EU provoked by him and seemingly by his predecessor, it is indeed the case that the predecessor firmly and openly called out the EU's wrongdoings and worked firmly and frankly with them; while this year's fiascos were conducted in a skulking, capricious and unforthcoming demeanor, the first such fiasco putting the lives of allies in deadly danger.
Also, everyone please note that there are no ideological differences between the two major political parties. They are both on the left, just with one of them enacting the opposite of its party platform (guess which one)
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Wee, it has now been over two months since the Afghanistan debacle and Biden et al are still bumbling along. The guy seems to have more lives than a cat. I usually don't make much of a display of my political views, but I am ready to get one of these shirts that says, "Are you sorry yet that you voted for Biden?" I cannot think of one issue on which I think he has made the decision that would be best for the country.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Wee, it has now been over two months since the Afghanistan debacle and Biden et al are still bumbling along. The guy seems to have more lives than a cat. I usually don't make much of a display of my political views, but I am ready to get one of these shirts that says, "Are you sorry yet that you voted for Biden?" I cannot think of one issue on which I think he has made the decision that would be best for the country.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Again, as I noted earlier in the topic, I too, being as independent a voter as they come (to date 7R 7D 1I POTUS votes), I only wish both parties had nominated different, and hopefully better, candidates.
I am very disappointed with Joe, citing foremost the Afghanistan blunder that he totally "owns". This is followed by allowing Bernie, Liz, and The Squad to formulate his domestic policy. However, on the other hand, I'm not about to wish I had voted for Trump - ranked 41st of 44 POTUS by the Notable Scholars.
Even if Joe gets "something" out of his "Build..." package (hoping the Senate passed "hard infrastructure" still stands), I still think he will be gone before the term expires. Kamala will only be a caretaker and not be nominated come '24. Trump will be seen for what he is - a Fascist; and too will not be nominated. I give the American people more smarts than the economically depressed Germans who duly elected Hitler to their Parliament (Bundestag, I think they call it), but once there bullied his way to become Chancellor, and from there a dictator.
So both parties best be looking at their benches.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This Journal columnist, William Galston, holds my views regarding Joe's disappointing presidency. While possibly my view of "he could be gone by Xmas" (OK; the SOTU), is more drastic than he is prepared to share, the presidency has been a disappointment. Those voters that wanted the country to be "molded in the image" of Bernie, Liz, and "The Squad" are disappointed in that "he hasn't delivered". Those voters, like my independent self (7R 7D 1I to date), who wanted a presidency to "lean somewhat left" following Carter's and Clinton's agenda (the two Bush's lean right was also acceptable to me), are also disappointed.
I doubt if any voter can consider his foreign policy to date anything short of disaster. Afghanistan was simply too great a blunder to be in the dustbin by '22, and even to the extent he has "patched things up" with France over the CXD sale of those WWII Submarines to Australia, just cannot override that first blunder - and foreign policy was touted as his strong suit.
Finally, our "Dem leading" membership here need not fear. I'm hardly about to go out and purchase a "Gee, why didn't I vote for Trump" T-Shirt. I simply wish both parties had nominated different candidates.
Here's "Fair Use" from the column:
After nine months in office, Joe Biden is in trouble. His job approval has fallen nearly 10 points from its high last spring, and Americans have downgraded their assessment of his presidential capacities.
It is far too early, however, to write off his administration as a “failed presidency,” as Virginia gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin and other prominent Republicans have begun to do. In recent decades, presidents of both parties—Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama among them—have recovered from dips in their popularity to win re-election. Reagan won in 1984 in a landslide—but his job approval averaged 43% in 1982 and had fallen to 35% by the beginning of 1983, according to Gallup.
Still, there are reasons why Mr. Biden’s popularity has faded. In the early summer, the administration unwisely encouraged the hope that the pandemic would soon end, increasing the psychological impact of the Delta variant. Inflation crept higher, and seems likely to last longer, than many experts predicted. Snarled supply chains created shortages of goods, and the situation may deteriorate as holiday shoppers hit the stores. Illegal crossings at the southern border surged to levels not seen for two decades, and the Biden administration still hasn’t figured out what to do about it. Rates of violent crime, especially murder, have risen, forcing mayors to reverse the changes in policing made in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death.
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
Seldom in the course of American politics has a party with majorities in all three branches of government promised so much and delivered so little. Of course, much of the blame can be placed on the two recalcitrant DINO Senators who should be primaried when they are up for reelection, but Biden himself deserves his share for opposing repeal of the filibuster when he ran for President knowing that is the one thing that would put the Dems on a level playing field.Remember Democrats have only two years to get major things done before Republicans take one part of Congress and stop them. But the Dems are loath to use this weapon, lest the GOP use in when/if they regain power. As if they havent already used it when it suited their needs! How else are the Dems going to protect voting rights? If the new voting restrictions stay in place, it will become very difficult. for them to ever win majorities again And why would most people vote for them after this? Remember all those marches and demonstrations last summer by young people and minorities? They weren't marching for roads and bridges, but for real reform! And what happened? Police reform? A total failure, with both parties unable to reach any kind of agreement. Voting rights? See above. Sensible gun laws? Forget about it!This great coalition moved Heaven and Earth to get Democrats elected, and what do they have to show for it? How can the Party ever get these people to trust them again? The Democratic record at getting things done is abysmal the Republicans are much better at it. but at least the things the Republicans are good at getting done are anathema to most Americans, like tax cuts for the super rich, TRYING to take away people's health care, stopping people from voting. As for foreign policy, the Afghan pullout was done by Trump, who reversed military policy which is that CIVILIANS are taken out first, military last. That said, Biden should have reopened Bagram Air Base and used it for the evacuation of the Afghan assets and helpers and their families, with the civilian airport for the civiliansr Speaking of Trump, it shocks me he is rated 41st out of 44! Was the list made before Januaey 6? Whatever the other Presidents did, to my mind NOTHING is worse than trying to lead a coup detat against the U.S. Government and establish a dictatorship because one cant accept the fact that he lost the election.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Nicholson, here's the CSPAN survey I have referenced:
I note that you too have become disillusioned with Joe. Defining Bernie's, Liz's, and "The Squad's" agenda as "infrastructure" is taking things too far.
The victory of Mr. Youngkin for Governor of Virginia is "not exactly" a good omen for the Dems come next year.
Maybe not as early as I predicted (this coming Xmas) now that Afghanistan is "off Page 1", but Joe simply will not complete his term, and Kamala, assuming she runs in '24, will be soundly defeated.
All "We The People" can hope is that the Republicans nominate someone other than Trump come '24; for he (Republicans "not exactly" into the girl stuff) will be the 47th POTUS.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
In a tremendous editorial from this past Friday's Times, and written prior to House passing IIJA21 - Infrastructure Improvement and Jobs Act of 2021, the Board notes:
For many voters — especially those who don’t vote regularly — the 2020 election was about removing Mr. Trump from the White House. It was less about policy or ideology. Mr. Biden did not win the Democratic primary because he promised a progressive revolution. There were plenty of other candidates doing that. He captured the nomination — and the presidency — because he promised an exhausted nation a return to sanity, decency and competence. “Nobody elected him to be F.D.R.,” Representative Abigail Spanberger, a moderate Democrat from Virginia, told The Times after Tuesday’s drubbing. “They elected him to be normal and stop the chaos.”
"Victory" (maybe Phyrric) with IIJA21, does not change why I voted for Joe. The Board's position is why.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well.....
Now that IIJA21 is enroute to 1600 and Joe's autograph, I guess that will give him a "lift" - approval polls and his personal "demeanor" regarding the job. Turning shovels of dirt while wearing a hard hat just might be enough to want him to hang around - at least past the upcoming SOTU.
An Acela II departure on 1/20/25?; still not holding breath on that one.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Whatever the other Presidents did, to my mind NOTHING is worse than trying to lead a coup d(’é)tat against the U.S. Government and establish a dictatorship …
Well, after having done precisely that, “Brandon” is rapidly reaping the whirlwind, is he not?
Sorry, but I prefer truth over propaganda, especially propaganda presented in argumentum verbosium form.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Plenty of outlets at which you can become familiar with the vile lyrics.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Thank NBC sports reporter Kelli Stavast for that, which Colleen Long takes six paragraphs to get to while neglecting to mention her name. Also takes until paragraph 15 to mention similarly vile “vitriol” against other Presidents, and no mention is made of the current “I did that” meme.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, it's simply a case of whether one disapproves of the job Joe Biden has done to date, as in "moi", or if anyone chooses to expand a simple misunderstanding by a sports reporter into some kind of vulgarity contest.
Much as the 45th POTUS would have liked to "suspend" such for failing to provide his desired result, we have "that Tuesday in November", and that is where in our long standing Democratic society, "We The People" decide at that time who will be our leader for the next four years.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Now we’re moving into the territory of “republic versus democracy”, and there is some evidence to prove them to be distinct, apart from the names of the major parties since virtually the beginning of the USA.
quote:What will be the course of this revolution? Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. …
That is from The Principles of Communism by Friedrich Engels. To what end, though?
quote:In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat …
Also from TPOC. Engels goes on to name a faction he calls “the agrarian National Reformers”, but clearly the more expedient route to go would have been to subvert the major political parties, and by the early 1900s there were open “progressives” in both major parties, two of whom served succeeding terms as POTUS.
Back to the subject, who is a plain disciple of these forebears. I myself do not believe 81 million “votes” materialized to enable the labeling of any critics as “white supremacists”, for the FBI and DOJ to go after parents at school board meetings, or to turn illegal aliens into millionaires as proposed. Never was part of the job in question.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, you and I are "on the same page" to the extent that Joe's acceptance of Bernie, Liz, and The Squad's definition of "infrastructure" is "too far".
I was all in favor of helping those adversely affected by COVID, such as performing artists and hospitality workers, but with all the employers willing to pay "$15hr for a warm body that shows up", the need for the "social infrastructure" greatly diminishes.
I continue to be in favor of the enacted legislation, IIJA21, directing $100B in each of the next ten years to renew "hard" infrastructure. Both political parties have neglected such for too long, and now, such must be addressed before something catastrophic occurrs.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It cannot be overlooked that Joe right now (not the end of his term) is the oldest person ever to be POTUS:
The party nominated Mr. Biden as a caretaker President with the sole job of beating Mr. Trump. As a concession to identity politics, Mr. Biden pledged to pick a woman Vice President, and then he settled on Ms. Harris
Of course, provide short term relief to aid those adversely affected by COVID; of course fix the infrastructure, as "we the people" had ignored it too long.
But, Joe, you were not given a mandate to transform our society such as was LBJ, and to a lesser extent, Obama. You were given, as the Journal's Editorial Board notes, a mandate to get rid of Trump and otherwise have a "caretaker, bring us together", presidency.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Biden never made pretensions to be a “caretaker” anywhere in his campaign; he was very open about continuing the anti-Constitutional “transformational” depredations of Obama and LBJ (and many others in between from both “parties”). Where do these false retrospects come from?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, I DID hear references that Joe intended to govern as a "Centrist" which meant to me, on the Dem side, Carter or Clinton, and on the Rep, both Bushes.
I only heard "Build Back Better" to regard infrastructure, and that was on Joe's Cleveland to Pittsburgh "whistle stop" train ride.
Never did I hear reference to the "Build Back Better Act of 2021" (that's its title) in the campaign beyond its use as a slogan. But must say, BBBA21 sounds "catchy".
Finally, let it be noted that it was the Journal's Editorial Board who used the term "caretaker", even though I "buy into" such.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The phrase “build back better” ranks among Biden’s infamous list of plagiarized statements, this one from the United Nations in the context of disaster relief, and plagiarized before him by Bill Clinton and Boris Johnson. The execution follows the pattern of Obama’s “stimulus” spending and what they tried to squeeze into it is not unexpected, really.
As for what “centrist” means if anything (also not a word used by Biden IIRC), that seems to have shifted ever leftwards over the years, if there could be a “center” position between governing according to the US Constitution and governing according to socialist principles. Notwithstanding, depredations against the family, private property, religious freedom and the integrity of the border of the Union are purely out of the Communist Manifesto.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, look what I stumbled into when searching for the date in January for the SOTU. As I noted way earlier in this topic, that could be Joe's last day as President.
The date for the '22 SOTU has not yet been set. There is no constitutional requirement for such, and it was not until Wilson that it was delivered in person before a Joint Session.
US Constitution;
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: As someone who was amazed that Biden won in the first place, and who considered him obviously totally unqualified for the job from the get-go....
Mr. Harris, were it not for COVID, which some could argue has been among the most devastating political, social, or economic event, to occur in the history of our Republic, I believe Trump would have been re-elected.
I also believe that had Hillary won in '16, she too would have been defeated in '20.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Neither the disease nor the government’s response to it (which amounts to a massive attempted power grab) had any effect on the election. However, the statistical impossibility of Biden’s alleged 81 million votes, and the dangers of mail-in voting that are still extant, is still the open question that those in power continue to wish everyone would ignore.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: Neither the disease nor the government’s response to it (which amounts to a massive attempted power grab) had any effect on the election. However, the statistical impossibility of Biden’s alleged 81 million votes, and the dangers of mail-in voting that are still extant, is still the open question that those in power continue to wish everyone would ignore.
With you 100% on this one. Like the joke, "my father voted Republican every presidential race since Kennedy until Biden, but when he voted for Biden he had been in the ground for 10 years."
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here is a tremendous Times column that sums up why I voted for Joe - and why I have become disappointed.
Why I voted for Joe:
Gail: I’m happy. Never bought into the idea that President Biden was elected just to not be Donald Trump.
Why I am disappointed:
Bret: Despite what you said earlier, I don’t think Biden was elected to be a transformative president the way Reagan or Obama were, both of whom had clear electoral mandates to change America. He was elected to be a steadying presence. Biden’s failed totally so far, partly for reasons that were not under his control, like the persistence of the pandemic, and partly for reasons that were, like the bungled exit from Afghanistan.
Either way, he is misreading his mandate, and the new legislation won’t help. It’s deeply unwise to try to change the entire shape of government based on a tiebreaking vote in the Senate. It’s even more unwise to do so when prices for groceries and gas seem to be rising by the minute... Biden is overseeing a combustible mixture of sweeping progressive social change and working-class economic distress — a formula that gave us Trump in 2016 and may give us Trump again in 2024. And all this is on top of the already hyperpolarized culture we have in this country.
Now I respect, Messrs. Harris and Helfner, you have your reasons to have supported Donald Trump, and why you both would welcome his return to the White House as either the 47th, or as I think the case, the 48th POTUS.
Happy Thanx; I'll be celebrating with friends where I'd best keep my thoughts about Joe's disappointment to myself, for his agenda is quite revered where I will be (he: an Educator; she: a Social Worker).
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Happy Thanx; I'll be celebrating with friends where I'd best keep my thoughts about Joe's disappointment to myself, for his agenda is quite revered where I will be (he: an Educator; she: a Social Worker).
The continued support this man has from presumably intelligent and educated people is a major mystery to me. In every aspect he has proven worse than I anticipated, and I anticipated that his performance would not be good, to say the least.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, Bachelor's, Master's, ACSW, LCSW between my hosts.
I'm just a Bachelor's and a CPA.
But pedigrees aside, this Journal columnist holds that Joe could possibly recover and even serve out his term:
Fair Use:
Which brings us back to Mr. Biden. His presidency has been dragged down by unforced errors such as the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, unanticipated events such as the outbreak of the Delta variant, misjudgments such as minimizing the threat of inflation for too long, and the public perception that he is less competent and more liberal than he appeared during the campaign. Whatever happens over the next 11 months, it seems inevitable that Republicans will control the House after the midterm elections. A new poll conducted by Donald Trump’s super PAC found the former president leading Mr. Biden in five swing states.
Possibly my earlier speculation that Joe could be gone in about two more months (after the SOTU) is a bit premature, but shortly after the 118th Congress convenes cannot be ruled out.
I just wish both parties had found different candidates to run in '20 - and PLEASE do so for '24, lest I live out my final years along the shores of the Wolfgangsee.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Bret Stephens is getting more desperate to make things up, I see. So this is the narrative, and the truth about the openly “transformative” presidential campaign gets cast down the memory hole. (And that’s aside from the Times’ continuing antisemitic stance, never mind the Journal’s pro-communistic anti-borders stance.)
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Happy Thanx; I’ll be celebrating with friends where I'd best keep my thoughts about Joe's disappointment to myself, for his agenda is quite revered where I will be (he: an Educator; she: a Social Worker).
Originally posted by George Harris: The continued support this man has from presumably intelligent and educated people is a major mystery to me. In every aspect he has proven worse than I anticipated, and I anticipated that his performance would not be good, to say the least.
I for my part expected exactly what we got, albeit at a slower pace; but the fact that the pace has been sped up shows the desperation of the left to accelerate their long-delayed “revolution” that is based in national socialism rather than “worker solidarity” or suchlike.
So perhaps as a Thanksgiving theme, the desire to put paid to this revolution once and for all should be paramount, and to recognize the personalities for what they are and what they actually did/do.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Harris, Bachelor's, Master's, ACSW, LCSW between my hosts.
I'm just a Bachelor's and a CPA.
Actually, given their fields of expertise I am not surprised at their viewpoints as I have seen plenty of others I thought should have known better, regardless of my lack of understanding how awareness of the events of the last year enable people to hold them. But then on the other hand it seems for much of the press Biden can do no wrong.
But then I am BSCE and PE, so maybe a lifetime of dealing with building and out of a family that has always been oriented to things either construction, medical, or other things considered to be part of the "hard" sciences makes believing and dealing with these feel good ideas, many of which seem to ignore any form of economic reality seem silly.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The Afghanistan debacle is no longer front page, and Joe's job approval has stabilized - albeit at a dangerously low level. Accordingly, I must back away from my prediction "he's gone" after the SOTU (whenever it may be; addendum March 1).
But Bret Stevens, in his Times column appearing in print today, makes points, even if hard to take for staunch Democrats, that simply cannot be dismissed:
Fair Use:
In 2019, the Biden campaign — cognizant of the candidate’s age — sold him to primary voters as a “transition figure,” the guy whose main purpose was to dethrone Trump and then smooth the way for a fresher Democratic face. Biden never made that promise explicit, but the expectation feels betrayed.
Things might be different if the Biden presidency were off to a great start. It’s not. Blame Joe Manchin or Mitch McConnell or the antivaxxers, but Biden’s poll numbers have been deeply underwater since August. The man who once gave his party hope now weighs on his party’s fortunes like a pair of cement shoes.
I voted for Joe simply to do my part to be rid of Trump (well, at least for four years), but then to be conciliatory "bring us together" president.
Help those who have legitimately been adversely affected by COVID? of course. Address infrastructure? well no choice (that bridge just up a bit up on Ol' Man River from you, Mr. Harris, sure had to be a wake up call) as too many politicians had ignored it.
But this transformative proposed social legislation? That is not what a caretaker president, especially one with razor thin majorities in both Houses, was given a mandate to do.
My "Joe's resignation target" has now been set back to Spring '23. The 118th Congress will find both houses under Republican control; and all Joe will have is the veto. It will be "anarchy on the Potomac".
Possibly President Harris will somehow "hold things together" until '24, when in all likelihood, there will be a Republican elected - and hopefully "duly elected".
full disclosure: author's all time presidential voting record: 7R, 7D, 1I
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Another quote from the immediately cited Bret Stephens column:
And it needn’t diminish his presidency. George H.W. Bush accomplished more in four years than his successor accomplished in eight. Greatness is often easier to achieve when good policies aren’t encumbered by clever politics. Biden should think on it — and act soon.
While I'm inclined to disagree that Bill Clinton did little, GHWB certainly did a lot.
He, in collaboration SECSTATE James Baker and Gen. Powell, put in place a master plan to ensure stability, and maybe peace, in Iraq. The concept of we keep enough forces in the region to keep a lid on Saddam,but give him enough forces to keep a lid on his "bad guys", I think was a "stroke of genius".
Why his son had to disrupt that master plan simply escapes me resulting in a totally needless war.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
While I considered President Joe a disaster, which it has become, the thought of a President Kamala would have me wake up screaming in terror. If we were to see a Trump/DeSantis combo, I would all but crawl over broken glass to vote for them, and try to get my parents to do likewise, unlike last time when they, along with the majority of other Elmwood Cemetery residents, voted Biden. Trump likewise actually got a lot accomplished, most of it lost to the public in the screaming of the press. I voted Trump in 2016 as the lesser of two evils, but in 2020 with a good deal of enthusiasm.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Oh yeah, the Memphis bridge: Based on some of the discussion in Engineering publications the failure appears to be result of some failures in initial fabrication that left a point of stress concentration. The crack in question had been growing for several years and missed in inspections until complete failure occurred. Despite arm waving in the press, it was not in danger of collapse due to structural redundancy, but it was weakened to the point that closing it to truck traffic, particularly westbound, would have been a good call. Closing it to all traffic, as was done was in my opinion a little over the top.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: ....with friends where I'd best keep my thoughts about Joe's disappointment to myself, for his agenda is quite revered where I will be (he: an Educator; she: a Social Worker).
Not only my friends in Indianapolis, but others such as the gal I invite to go to the Chicago Symphony with me and a neighbor who has taken me to medical "day procedures" such as that eleven lettered one beginning with "c".
Now as to my earlier reference of the Wolfgangsee, that is a lake (I must prefer the less commercialized Lake Fuschl nearby) located some 45km East of Salzburg and where, during '34, my maternal grandparents emigrated, owing to hatred of FDR ("he betrayed his own people").
Funny though, wonder why they "checked out" during '38 (oh in the same manner as did the Von Trapps in reality; which "ain't how they did so in the movie").
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Now as to my earlier reference of the Wolfgangsee, that is a lake (I must prefer the less commercialized Lake Fuschl nearby) located some 45km East of Salzburg and where, during '34, my maternal grandparents emigrated, owing to hatred of FDR ("he betrayed his own people").
Funny though, wonder why they "checked out" during '38 (oh in the same manner as did the Von Trapps in reality; which "ain't how they did so in the movie").
I don't think we need to guess why they checked out during 38, and yes, the Sound of Music bears little resemblance to the true von Trapp story, and to salt their wounds, the von Trapp family got nothing from the movie people, which, among other happenings, is why I have little to no sympathy for the whole movie "industry" getting so up in arms about copyright issues.
You have my sympathy for going through the "c" procedure, having been through it a few times. For encouragement, I am now 4 years clear of any of the cancer found in my first trip through it.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Losing the support for "Build Back Better" from Sen. Manchin can mean either a major provision will get whacked, or there will be more piggies in barrels rolling to West Virginia. "Something" will be enacted.
But it sure takes "guts" to go against your president and your party. If "this Joe" chooses to run in place of, but not against, "that Joe" in '24, I could easily vote for him. To run "against that Joe" would completely shred whatever unity the Democratic party has at present. Bernie, Liz, and The Squad would be in open warfare against a President Manchin.
But President Joe, "We The People" did not vote for you to be "transformative" in the manner of FDR, LBJ, BHO, and on "the other guys" side of things, RWR. "We" voted for you to bring an end to the chaos corruption, and criminality that permeated through the Trump years, and that your sole goal, after helping those who have, and continue to be, honestly hurt by COVID, was to have a conciliatory "Bring Us Together" presidency. That is why "We" gave you a divided Congress, along with an adequately comfortable Electoral majority (same majority as prevailed in '16 for Trump over Hillary) to ensure no doubt you won.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: You have my sympathy for going through the "c" procedure, having been through it a few times.
Don't mean to turn this into Medstory.com, but I had to "go in" this past September because I had Diverticulitis during July.
After a '14 procedure, the Gastroenterologist said I was clean, but he'd like to see me in '19 for an office visit. Being in the same network as is my Primary, he was able to review my two draws a year of blood. On the strength of that, he let me go.
However when I got the Diverticulitis, Primary wanted me to see "Dr. Gas" again, and so I was on the table and with no damage observed (lesions).
A wonderful neighbor supported me through the procedure.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Again, there are not two Joe Bidens. There is only one, the “transformative” one. Only the media has claimed there is another.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Of historical interest, the last elected sitting president to be denied the nomination for a second term was POTUS 14, Franklin Pierce. He was "uh, not too great" as the Notable Scholars have ranked him 42 of 44 (Trump is 41).
The last UN-elected president, i.e. a succeeding VP, to share that dubious honor was POTUS 21 Chester Arthur, who succeeded the assassinated James Garfield. He too, "not too great".
So all told, should Joe want a second term nomination, it's his. Only problem, I think he will get "whupped" by anyone the Republicans choose to run.
Same story for Kamala, be she POTUS 47 or Candidate. I think the former, as I think Joe will resign. While not as soon, i.e. now, as I envisioned when opening this topic, but during First Quarter '23, rather than face a solid Republican Congress with any legislative initiative - well, beyond Omnibus and Defense spending bills.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Based on whatever the number of the Amendment was that limits president to two terms, it allow a president who completes a term that has less than two years remaining to run twice, so the actual maximum time allowed to be in office is on the order of 9 years, 364 days. I think Kamala is both unrealistic and power mad enough to do whatever it takes to keep Biden going to not sooner than January 21, 2023.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, the 22nd Amendment was ratified during 1951. POTUS 32 Truman, who took office some sixty-five days into POTUS 31 FDR's fourth term, would have been precluded from an elected second term had he not been "grandfathered". However, he did not seek that term during '52, fearing a likely defeat by "war hero" Ike.
The "big time return of COVID", I believe, has reduced any thought Joe has of being re-elected to ZERO. Same for your "gender opposite sur-namesake".
Had there not been COVID, and the economy remained strong (it would have), Trump would have been re-elected. Likewise, had Hillary won in '16, and COVID came a callin', and even if her response had been more aggressive than was Trump's, she too would have been defeated for a second term.
On that note, I bid you all a "Happy? New Year".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
And also, a Happy New Year to all.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Has there been a “return” of COVID? or just an overblown hype campaign? And why is the response all over the world exactly the same? i.e. who is coordinating this? Besides all that, the US presidential elections are unaffected by it, save the power grab surrounding lockdowns that are misnamed “quarantine” by elected (and especially unelected) officials.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here is Kevin Dowd's (Maureen's Brother) annual column from this past Sunday's Times:
Fair Use:
Biden swept into the presidency on a wave of hope, a friendly press and a highly disliked opponent. He had run as a moderate, a creature of the Senate and a unifier, promising a return to normalcy.
Donald Trump’s bungled effort to overturn the election and the ill-advised rally that ended with an attack on the Capitol further raised Biden’s standing.
Once he became president, everything changed. Like one of the residents of Santa Mira, the fictional town in Don Siegel’s 1956 masterpiece, “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” Biden looked the same but his actions revealed a startling transformation.
The moderate Joe Biden was gone. The sweeping changes he proposed in the first few months sounded more like Bernie Sanders. Many of them backfired, severely damaging his early support.
Is this fellow and I ever on the same page!!!
I'm probably less a Republican than is he; hardly as "lib" as his sister. With my Presidential voting record to date - 7R, 7D, 1I - the "I" being a mistake I will never make again, I voted for Joe to do my part to get rid of Trump, but also on the strength that Joe would be a Centrist Democrat along the lines of Carter and Clinton. The first was successful - well, at least until Jan '25, but on the second, just like Mr. Dowd, I am sorely disappointed. All I could have hoped for with hindsight is that both parties found different candidates for '20; the same holds for '24.
Finally, Mr. Harris' point rings true regarding Ms. Harris; the news cycle has moved away from Afghanistan, so when both Houses of Congress "flip" a year from now, that is when Joe will "throw in the towel", retreat to the banks of the Brandywine, and play frisbee with, Champ, Major, and Commander. He has a lifetime of public service for which he can take much personal pride, but his (I think) two year "hitch" as POTUS46 is not part of such. I look for a 4th Quartile ranking (35th to 45th; Trump is 41 of 44) from the Notable Scholars.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Volks, Joe's speech yesterday delivered in the Capitol's Statuary Hall belongs on the campaign trail, where assailing candidates from an opposing party is a long standing tradition.
I voted for Joe for two reasons; 1) get rid of Trump, and 2) to "bring us together".
Yesterday only solidified Trump's present lead in the '24 polls over Joe or Kamala and will further arouse Trump's supporters even more resulting in a greater division, and possibly more violence, than at present.
I don't know from whom the speech writers were taking their orders. Possibly it was from others within the Administration, but if it were from Joe himself, he is simply "working overtime" to self-inflict more wounds to his already wounded presidency.
Somehow, I have to wonder if this Journal columnist "is on to something". Might "Joe the other" be "thinking '24"?
Fair Use:
Despite Mr. Biden’s mysterious out-migration to the Sanders-Warren left, we now have two prominent, nationally visible Democrats—Sen. Joe Manchin and New York City’s mayor—who argue the Democratic party’s future lies elsewhere.
If the progressive policy disintegration continues in Washington and in the streets, someone in that party will have to pick up the pieces. How does Manchin-Adams sound?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Again, Biden was always in the Sanders-Warren-Squad camp and had no intention of bringing anyone together.
Manchin has put his (and our) money where his mouth is, but Eric Adams is another one as radical as Biden-Sanders ad nauseam. Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, if as you contend, Joe was always part of the Bernie-Liz-Squad camp, he sure had me fooled.
OK; for better or for worse, Obama was a transformative president - and in apparently a direction other than you would have wished. But I cannot recall any instance in which he used Joe to be a singular mouthpiece for his agenda. Sure of course back Obamacare; but how many other pieces of the Socialist agenda?
But I must hold; that if Joe has so openly embraced Bernie et al agenda, he had to be "on the QT" endorsing such during the Obama administration.
While I could never bring myself to vote for that "egomaniacal thug" (thank you, Maureen, in this past Sunday Times, for that one), if "Joe the other" were to run, as a Democrat, during '24, I just might be blackening that mighty sacred piece of pager for such.
But again, I hold that Joe only has another year to go; now will Kamala pursue the "Bernie et al agenda"? I don't think so. She will be that "caretaker president" "pardoning" turkeys and lighting Xmas trees (Vlad and Xi; be nice to the girl and give her a break) that I thought Joe would be - and not even run in '24 (Bernie and Liz too old: AOC, while eligible, too young).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The way Harris entered politics says it all about her character, if her actions with respect to posting bail for 2020 rioters did not say enough.
And I for one will be happy when “transformative” is no longer used as a euphemism for shredding the Constitution and imposing socialism. (I write this as an old speech where B— claimed he would be “a president for all Americans” is on the radio.)
BTW, why are insulting epithets okay for 45 but not for “46”? particularly invective out of the dignity-free Grey Lady.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
More on Eric Adams: He just appointed his brother Bernard as deputy commissioner for the NYPD, a paid position, raising concerns of nepotism. And that is not the least of it: Adams just stood by a remarkably-unconstitutional city law allowing non-US citizens to vote (both legal and illegal), never mind Manhattan’s new DA Alvin Bragg saying that he will not prosecute many violent crimes.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, my point in citing The Journal columnist's piece was to note a source at which my "Joe the Other '24" thoughts are shared with national circulation.
At this time, should '24 be "Joe v. The Donald", I'll vote, because I even vote for dogcatchers off-year. However, I could well follow the lead of a long-standing friend who actively campaigned (doorbell ringing) for Hillary during '08 that she chose not to vote for anyone as president on the General Election ballot by simply leaving that line blank (I proudly voted for Sen. McCain that year, even if I knew he didn't have a chance post-Sept 15 - day of Lehman Brothers bankruptcy).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Well, after discovering the late-80s editorial out of the WSJ where they were promulgating “a five-word constitutional amendment: ‘There shall be open borders’”, I take them with a grain of salt, particularly when they promote a narrative that the rest of the media try to push in the vain hope that a significant majority of the populace have thrown history down the “memory hole” to the point where they stay placated.
I cannot see how anyone could have been fooled by words Joseph Robinette B. did not even say, when he stated his radical positions quite openly in 2020 (saying to a black man that if he did not vote for him, “you ain’t black” being the mildest of same; he was quite adamant about opening the borders wide and encouraging illegals to crowd the border in fact). He was quite un-vocal as VP, while he had his boss around then to do the talking; but one exception was when he race-baited in 2012 by claiming in front of minorities that economic policies the Republicans promoted were intended to “put y’all back in chains”.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Like Irishchieftain said. I did not expect anything good out of Biden, and the results have so far been worse than I anticipated. He has gotten away with ruling by decree more than any past president, and that only because he has the House in his pocket. When comparing him to his predecessor, think that his predecessor did not enrich himself while in public office, in fact the contrary, where we have both Biden and Obama worth millions which has come from who knows where? I could go on for a while, but I think it pointless and as I read back probably for the most part redundant.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, somehow I think the last Former President to decease no wealthier than when he took the oath was POTUS 32 Truman. That statement, which is likely incorrect, is made on the strength of appearances where he spent his final years arranging his Library, which be it assured was hardly the "splash" that such for POTUS 44 Obama is on its way to becoming.
Lest we forget, Truman left Washington January 1953 in line space aboard the B&O National Limited, the B&O did however allow him time to be interviewed on the platforms at stops such as Cincinatti. For the St. Louis-Independence segment, the MP did provide his party with a Business Car. (source: New York Times).
The only other recent POTUS to take the appearances of a "Vow of Poverty" has been 39 Carter. Otherwise, our Former Presidents have a way of "going Hollywood" and become part of our "de facto Royalty".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Wow, just when I thought this topic was about to "die its cyberdeath", here comes this column appearing at the Journal's site and in print.
Fair Use:
A perfect storm in the Democratic Party is making a once-unfathomable scenario plausible: a political comeback for Hillary Clinton in 2024.
Several circumstances—President Biden’s low approval rating, doubts over his capacity to run for re-election at 82, Vice President Kamala Harris’s unpopularity, and the absence of another strong Democrat to lead the ticket in 2024—have created a leadership vacuum in the party, which Mrs. Clinton viably could fill.
She is already in an advantageous position to become the 2024 Democratic nominee. She is an experienced national figure who is younger than Mr. Biden and can offer a different approach from the disorganized and unpopular one the party is currently taking.
If Democrats lose control of Congress in 2022, Mrs. Clinton can use the party’s loss as a basis to run for president again, enabling her to claim the title of “change candidate.”
While I cannot imagine either a Primary fight between Hillary and Joe or Kamala, I could between her and "Joe the Other".
I of course voted for her during '16; if '24 turns out be a rerun of such, I'll bet she would win. Both she and Trump "have their baggage", but I think she has a bit less than he.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
A President H. Clinton!!?? If there is any improvement between 2016 and now, I don't see it. If the alternative is a reincarnation of one of the Castro brothers, maybe, otherwise, NO. She doesn't have baggage, she has a baggage car.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
By that measurement, Mr. Harris, Trump has the mv Ever Given filled to its Plimsol Line.
I think between us we both gave each of them a good stump speech line.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Response from my long standing friend who simply did not vote for President, but voted "down ballot", during '08 when Hillary lost the nomination to Obama:
quote:No, it's too late for that. Need to look at next generation if not Joe.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: A President H. Clinton!!?? If there is any improvement between 2016 and now, I don’t see it. If the alternative is a reincarnation of one of the Castro brothers, maybe, otherwise, NO. She doesn’t have baggage, she has a baggage car.
A whole trainful of them, FWICS. If you want what’s happening now to have happened in 2017, just imagine a Hillary presidency then.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Lest anyone forgot, Trump donated his presidential salary to various causes. And using one’s office to enrich oneself is not the same as having higher or lower net worth between entering and exiting office.
And the left has tried to make all sorts of Trump “baggage” surface, but always comes up short. It seems that some people here do not understand just how malevolent the left actually is.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I sincerely hope that Joe reads this Brett Stephens column appearing today in The Times
Fair Use:
The view that the Biden presidency is flailing — and failing — has now moved from the opinion pages to the news pages, from right-wing criticism to Beltway conventional wisdom.
Herewith, some suggestions for change:
1. The president needs a new team, starting with a new chief of staff.
2. The president needs to focus on American needs, not liberal wishes.
3. The president should remember that he won as a moderate and a unifier.
4. The president also won office as a trusted steward of American power.
5. And yes, the president should announce he isn’t running for re-election.
Even those here who supported other candidates during '20 cannot relish a failed presidency. As Americans, we need strong leadership from that big house with 1600 on the door. Then, as Americans, those of us who believe someone else can do a better job, we vote for them come November 2024.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Joe will be happy to summarily ignore what Stephens wrote.
Given the debacle that the defense of Ukraine is turning into, who is Joe indeed listening to?
Posted by Jerome Nicholson (Member # 3116) on :
How much can Joe do, given Ukraine isn't a member of NATO? And how are liberal wishes (voting rights,equality,health care, etc.) NOT what Americans need? How is drinking clean water and not having bridges collapse under you not what Americans need? Do Americans not want seniors to have their eyewear, dental and hearing paid by Medicare? Remarkably, a sizeable number of Republicans voted against those things. Does the Republican Party think the American People want nothing done, except to ban books and teach partial history?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Talking points galore, and red herrings all. How are any of those the responsibility of the federal government to allegedly provide?
One thing that is lost on the Ukraine dilemma is the false notion that it must belong to one bloc or the other. Why can it not be purely sovereign and independent?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
I guess this thread might be worth a bump due to SOTU. Anyone watch it?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Of course, Mr. Helfner.
Any mention of passenger rail? NADA; and mention of anything rail? NADA, however, Joe did take a blast at the ocean shipping companies for perceived "price gouging". Lest we note, such are by and large foreign flagged.
But I'm sorry, I don't need to hear the "same old litany" on "build back better". Maybe Joe will get "some piece" of it to sign, but he'd best not expect anything more.
I must say, it was special to see the shades of Sky Blue and Yellow in the chamber, and I'm pleased to have seen that Joe did let loose on Putin, and the apparent show of unity in support of the Ukranian people.
Finally, and I know Messrs. Harris and Helfner will disagree, but the Republican rebuttal delivered by Gov. Kim Reynolds (R-IA) was just more "same old, same old" as well.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
After supporting Putin all this time, I doubt that any support for Ukraine out of this administration is more than for show. The EU of course will be more substantive since they want another client state for their empire.
Insofar as the repetitiveness of the rebuttal from the other wing of the Uniparty, the fact that none of it is ever delivered on wears on the electorate, I must agree.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, your immediate remark of the "Uniparty" reminded me of an Economics professor I had at University of Illinois, where he often said "who do you want; tweedledum or tweedledee". Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
ABT.
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
"One thing that is lost on the Ukraine dilemma is the false notion that it must belong to one bloc or the other. Why can it not be purely sovereign and independent?"
It can. One side is trying to force its will on Ukraine. One. The other is helping to defeat that outside force. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for years, but NATO has refused. And as one who has spent considerable time in Ukraine, I can tell you most Ukranians dont want to be dominated by the other. Most are virulently anti-Putin, however, and enjoy voting in elections and having other rights.
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
"Lest anyone forgot, Trump donated his presidential salary to various causes. And using one’s office to enrich oneself is not the same as having higher or lower net worth between entering and exiting office.
And the left has tried to make all sorts of Trump “baggage” surface, but always comes up short. It seems that some people here do not understand just how malevolent the left actually is."
Many in this country virulently oppose the orange clown, and many, including myself (i lean to the right), are not "left". Many of us are independents or even conservative. (I have many friends who worked for Pres Reagan who despise trump) But funny how many trumpers classify anyone who doesnt support their God as "left".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Try to keep invective out of this please, even though this forum happens to be unmoderated. Thanks.
Incidentally, it has been my experience that those who characterize supporters of Trump as POTUS as worshiping a supposed god-king are invariably left-wing. Particularly at this point in the country's history.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by MontanaJim:
quote:One thing that is lost on the Ukraine dilemma is the false notion that it must belong to one bloc or the other. Why can it not be purely sovereign and independent?
It can. One side is trying to force its will on Ukraine. One. The other is helping to defeat that outside force. Ukraine has wanted to join NATO for years, but NATO has refused. And as one who has spent considerable time in Ukraine, I can tell you most Ukranians dont want to be dominated by the other. Most are virulently anti-Putin, however, and enjoy voting in elections and having other rights.
What would joining NATO have to do with it? I suppose the notion of independence went over your head here, as well as the other point about Putin using the fact that the promise to Yeltsin to not have any former Soviet-bloc countries join NATO was broken in the same year it was made as his point of demagoguery with respect to his military actions. And of course he demagogues over the Bosnian debacle to this day.
And it's not just NATO; Ukrainian membership in the EU would wipe out its sovereignty.
So I was quoted, but got no answer.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Helfner, your immediate remark of the "Uniparty" reminded me of an Economics professor I had at University of Illinois, where he often said "who do you want; tweedledum or tweedledee".
That was much my father's viewpoint when I was young. Both parties at the time (1950's and before) were a mish mash of conservatives and liberals with flavorings off both extremes and some middle grounders. His viewpoint was that we needed something more on the order of the Liberal and Conservative Parties as in Britian. With that, clear choices could be made that would get the attention of the government. As it was, in the South at least up till that time we voted Democrat because in the 1860's those that shot at us and then robbed everything that wasn't nailed down for 10 to 20 years thereafter all identified as Republican. This was done despite it meant voting for some truly sleazy characters and a political party being taken over by leftists in the rest of the country because in congress seniority meant everything much more than now. (Gets back to, Why did I not like Al Gore Jr.? Even without disagreeing with much of what he has done and his absolute hypocrisy concerning things environmental, it was because I knew well about the activities of Daddy Gore.) At least by now we have begun to get more to a Conservative and a Liberal party.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Don’t know what any of that means, but I am aware of the 45 communist goals for the USA that originally appeared in The Naked Communist. Goal #15, Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States, clearly means that both the major parties were targets for the Marxists. And going back to the aftermath of the Civil War, just remember that the Democrats were also still a major party of the North, and that is where the Marxist faction arose and dispersed through the whole nation.
As for the UK, the Conservative Party proved that they themselves were also targets of the Marxists more than the Labour Party; David Cameron pushing the law referred to as 2013 c. 30 unabashedly took the lead for those politicians referred to as “Red Tories”.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Interesting Journal report stating half the voters, party affiliation notwithstanding, hold that Joe will not seek a second term.
Fair Use:
quote:A new Wall Street Journal poll found that 52% of Americans don’t think Mr. Biden will run for re-election in two years, while 29% do expect him to pursue a second term. Nineteen percent are undecided about his future. Among Democrats, 41% said they think Mr. Biden will run again, while 32% said they didn’t think he would. The poll found 26% of those Democrats unsure.
Obviously, as the originator of this topic, I hold that Joe will not complete his term, and that he will resign after delivering the '23 SOTU message. Possibly his announcement will be part of such.
Now if somehow this Ukranian war can end with other than a Ukrainian surrender and removal of the Zelensky government, i.e. the Russian forces just go home (for a society with a declining population base and an inability to attract immigrants, males of reproductive age become a scarce commodity), Joe could get a lift in both the popularity polls and a desire to "see it through", I could possibly come to hold a differing view.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
WOW, did The Journal ever spell it out today on the Editorial page:
Fair Use:
The reality is that we have to live with Mr. Biden for three more years as President. And please stop writing letters imploring us to demand that Mr. Biden resign. Do you really want Vice President Kamala Harris in the Oval Office? She was chosen as a bow to identity politics to unite the Democratic Party in the election campaign, not for her ability to fill the President’s shoes. In the last 14 months she has failed to demonstrate even the minimum knowledge or capacity for the job. We are fated to make the best of the President we have.
I'm willing to "Hear The Journal out" regarding their position of "the President we have". Nothing has suggested that a "President Harris" has the background to lead a World Power as a "navigation" is sought from likely the greatest international crisis since November '62.
Kamala was to be a "caretaker president" who would lay wreaths, light Christmas trees, roll Easter Eggs, and "pardon turkeys". That is what Joe was to be - a chance to "bring us together" by proposing nothing controversial (I don't consider helping those who were hurt by COVID "controversial") and hopefully no major crises to address. How mistaken I was.
Finally, allow me to "stick up for Joe" with his "for God's sake...." remark. Nowhere did he imply that Putin should be overthrown by a revolution (didn't we just live through that on January 6?), he just implied that the Russian people do so at the polls.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
They don't have rigged elections in Russia then?
2024 is still a long time to wait, if not; and Navalny, the only real opposition, languishes in prison unjustly.
But no, the loaded phrase "remove this man from power" implies a lot more than that, and Joe's handlers know it.
And no, we did not "live through that on January 6" 2021.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: And no, we did not "live through that on January 6" 2021.
Amen!!! I am totally sick and tired of hearing about this totally imaginary attempted overthrow of the government where the only fatality was an unarmed woman shot by a capital policeman. If we were going to have riots over an irrational police killing this would be the real one to have.
About the only thing scarier than a President Kamala would be a president Nancy or if anything worse, Hillary.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
A couple of “insurrectionists” were acquitted this week; one was charged with trying to obstruct the electoral vote count, which would have carried a twenty-year prison sentence.
Not a single person charged with actual violent insurrection thus far, but all with minor offenses. The January 6 commission is thus far showing itself to be like a Soviet troika.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
"What goes around comes around" If anyone EVER has done things worthy of impeachment, it is several members of the current selection of embarrassing incompetents at the top of the current federal government. We have had more than enough after four years of "We are going to impeach Donald Trump because he has (fill in the blank with whatever the most recent flavor of the month uproar.)" If there has ever in the entire history of the country anyone more deserving, I can't think of them.
Hopefully in this next round of elections we can get both enough people who have been burned by acts of the current administration and enough of the cemetery residents stay planted.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Gallup poll of six days ago paints their 41 percent approval rating for Biden as “steady” albeit “underwater” and “subpar”. (Who could they be polling to get numbers that high?)
The bigger news from that poll, though:
Only 16 percent of Americans think the USA is going in the right direction; 83 percent definitely think it to be going in the wrong direction. The decline in the first number is attributed to Democrats; the Republicans and independents were already low.
Congress’ approval rating is a mere 18 percent. (The split is 30% approval Democrats, 5% Republicans and, allegedly, 19% independents.)
Also, apparently, Biden has not had majority-level approval on Gallup since June 2021.
Biden’s visit to Uvalde, TX post-tragedy has had mixed reporting but generally is perceived as having been negatively received by locals.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, your immediate made me wonder; what if "Amtrak Joe" decided he wanted to be "a man of the people" and decided to take his namesake to Uvalde?
Digging out my April 24, 1960 SP Timetable, the Sunset made a conditional stop at Uvalde. The companion train, The Argonaut, had been whacked by that date; such likely made a regular stop there.
But during the Amtrak era, Uvalde has never been any kind of stop for the Sunset. Of interest, "driving around in the Googlemobile" shows that the tracks are well to the North of the Downtown area.
Finally though, to conclude on the title of this topic, I think the only unlikely event to alter my prediction of Joe's resignation announced during and occurring shortly after the March '23 SOTU, would be something happening in Ukraine that could be spun as a "victory". That probably would mean Putin packs up and goes home.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Helfner, your immediate made me wonder; what if "Amtrak Joe" decided he wanted to be "a man of the people" and decided to take his namesake to Uvalde?
Digging out my April 24, 1960 SP Timetable, the Sunset made a conditional stop at Uvalde. The companion train, The Argonaut, had been whacked by that date; such likely made a regular stop there.
But during the Amtrak era, Uvalde has never been any kind of stop for the Sunset. Of interest, "driving around in the Googlemobile" shows that the tracks are well to the North of the Downtown area.
I think few would notice and even fewer would care. It would be middle of the night three times a week, whoopie!
quote:Finally though, to conclude on the title of this topic, I think the only unlikely event to alter my prediction of Joe's resignation announced during and occurring shortly after the March '23 SOTU, would be something happening in Ukraine that could be spun as a "victory". That probably would mean Putin packs up and goes home.
Not sure anyone is gullible enough to swallow any claim Biden would make toward assisting Ukraine in victory. And if he does resign? That would mean president Kamala. I can see her winning an ineptitude, incompetence and unpopularity contest with Biden but not much else.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
But Mr. Harris, she knows how to lay wreaths, roll Easter eggs, and pardon turkeys; so let's afford her some credit!
Now knowing she would get "trounced" by any Republican in '24, Kamala would likely choose not to run simply to become a "sacrificial lamb".
"We the people" are "mixed" towards VP's who succeed a sitting POTUS. On that point, ask TR, Coolidge, Truman, and LBJ. But then, how many of those tried to run for their second term (TR tried with a third party). Of course, ask same of Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, and Ford about their success in that arena.
Finally, I must ask who the Democrats have on their bench? All told, whoever is elected in '24 will be a Republican - and will also have majorities within the Legislature and Judiciary. So sit back, relax, and enjoy eight years of Republican party rule.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Finally, I must ask who the Democrats have on their bench? All told, whoever is elected in '24 will be a Republican - and will also have majorities within the Legislature and Judiciary. So sit back, relax, and enjoy eight years of Republican party rule.
You nailed it right there. Actually I felt the same way in 2020. Unbelievable that Biden was the best they could do. And by six million votes? Count me a skeptic. As my son who is an auditor is concerned, unless you have something to hide, you do not fear being audited. Their policy is take one excuse of inconvenience for whatever reason, and the second time an excuse is given, go in with the level of suspicion turned to max. However, I will say that no one had ever seen turnout like 2020. Our precinct had over an 85% turnout, which probably close to all that could actually make it, and this being in Mississippi where all involved would have been truly astounded if it had not gone Republican. (For comparison, in a recent county judge race, the turnout was barely over 5%, but then there was almost no campaigning, either.)
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well, Joe did provide us with a "hand of 4NT". Those here who play Bridge knoweth of what I sayeth.
Beyond that, based upon performance to date, the Notable Scholars will place Joe in the Fourth Quartile when they next rate the presidents.
But "on the flip", I'm not about to buy my Sister's line that The Donald was one of our five greatest presidents.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: But "on the flip", I'm not about to buy my Sister's line that The Donald was one of our five greatest presidents.
I do.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
The Scholars ratings are 1) Lincoln, 2) Washington, 3) FDR, 4) TR, 5) Ike.
I said to my Sister: "OK Barbara, you want Trump in those five, who gets displaced?"
"Washington; he owned slaves".
Of course, that would do nothing for her perceived "travesty", as Obama would become #11 - still in the first Quartile.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Well, that's scholars and so-called presidential historians. No need to guess which ideology they favor, particularly when they rate FDR so highly, have Truman before Jefferson and put Obama in tenth place.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I agree with you, Mr. Helfner; the Scholars have overrated Obama. In time, they will recognize his Foreign Policy blunders like his premature withdrawal of US Forces from Iraq, "the Syrian Red Line", and his inability to muster the Congressional strength to enact meaningful gun control legislation after Sandy Hook. Even likely Fourth Quartile Joe will realize the same fate post-Uvalde.
Now so far as FDR, we are addressing a president who led us through the most severe economic situation our country ever faced, then through the most savage and ruinous war in over six thousand years of recorded history, I think he deserves #2.
I sincerely hope that no one here will question that Lincoln was our greatest President, for even if presently under attack by certain political forces, we have a United States today.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Again, for ready reference:
The Scholars ratings are 1) Lincoln, 2) Washington, 3) FDR, 4) TR, 5) Ike.
I said to my Sister: "OK Barbara, you want Trump in those five, who gets displaced?"
"Washington; he owned slaves".
Of course, that would do nothing for her perceived "travesty", as Obama would become #11 - still in the first Quartile.
"Washington, he owned slaves"?? He was not the only early president to own slaves. As to Lincoln being number one, nope. I am not going to try to revise the list, but I would put Washington as number 1, and probably move Lincoln well down it. Read some of his speeches, and the careful wording of the Emancipation Proclamation such that carefully excluded freeing slaves in Kentucky and Maryland. He was a skilled politician, and despite the "log cabin" promotions, quite a wealthy man by the time he became president. FDR? Not so sure. In many ways he gave away the store to Stalin, but many people in the State Department were deluded as to the realities under Communism. Ike was in many ways president like he was general. He played his cards very close to his chest so that many issues were never publicized. I would put him ahead of FDR. My grandfather always insisted Truman should have been considered much more highly as he was the one dealing with the end of war settlements and issues. I think I would go with 1. Washington, 2. Ike, 3. Trump, or maybe even with Trump as No. 2. Not going to try to go further down the list. Had really not given much thought as to who gets displaced to where. We have had quite a few very good presidents, some of which were dealt very bad hands, and a few total losers, of which I consider the present resident of the White House about the bottom if not the absolute bottom of the pack. As to Obama? He should also be near the bottom. I can think of very little he did at all. As to his Nobel Prize? What was that for? Looking pretty? Saying, hey look at me, I am the first black president of the USA?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
No wonder Open Discussion has become the most active Forum around here at present. Those here who have taken "experiential rides" on Amtrak have learned such has evolved into, away from several Corridors, a highly inconvenient and unreliable "ride". That we discuss politics with a high degree of maturity and respect means we have something that few if any other sites can claim to have.
As for myself, I don't know how much more of an independent voter there can be. My Presidential record to date is 7R, 7D, and 1I. The Independent - John Anderson - was during '80 when I simply "wasn't ready for Reagan". I was by '84, and happily voted for him at that time.
I will NEVER throw "something mighty precious" away again.
A wonderful long-standing friend, who I'm expected to see this coming weekend, in Social Services (Educator husband) and "doesn't know what a Republican is", once "threw her vote away". This was during '16 when Hillary lost the nomination to Obama. That year, she simply did not vote for President, but of course voted "down ballot". I pray she chooses not to do so again.
I voted for Joe during '20; I did so to "bid 4NT at the Bridge table" (really haven't played since '76) and that Joe would be a "bring us together" unifier. First point; only a "time out" - the countdown has begun to when "he's back" - and I fear full of vengeance.
Now so far as Joe; help the people who have been severely affected by COVID? Of course. Infrastructure? too many politicians have ignored it for too long.
But I didn't sign up for any of the transformative social legislation Joe has proposed. I will not totally dismiss my Evangelical Sister's position that Obama is "calling the plays" on such. All I know is that any of the "sweeping" proposals Joe called for are "dead" and for that I thank the current "Senator Joe from WV". I'm confident that in the remaining nine months (my guess) of Joe's presidency, none of such will again be proposed.
Finally again, Mr. Harris, the Scholars will place Joe in their Fourth Quartile, or otherwise "in the bottom eleven".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Not directly related to Joe, but:
To me one of the scariest things in our process is the low turnout in local or many "down ballot" offices. Tomorrow is the primary in Mississippi for congressional races. The interest and campaigning has been so low that I had to look up the names for the candidates. This is Mississippi Congressional District One. They are: Democrat: ....Hunter Avery ....Dianne Black Republican: ....Trent Kelley (incumbent) ....Mark D. Strauss They are "expecting a low turnout" In the precinct I work we had over 3,000 voters for the 2020 presidential race, which was about an 85% turnout. The most recent, which was a county judge race, we had 145 voters, in other words, less than 5% turnout. For this one? Who knows? But what it says is that if you can get some group to stealthily pull in over 75 people who would not have otherwise have voted, you can get the election to go the way you want in this precinct. Put it another way, if you can get over about 2.5% of the registered voters who would not have bothered to go your way, you can get the election to go your way, regardless of what the majority of the population would want. It this intended to be a plea for compulsive voting? Absolutely not! That would if anything make things worse as now you are dragging in the clueless who could most easily be swayed. It is a plea for people to wake up and get involved and to know what is really happening before they go to vote.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:I voted for Joe during ’20; I did so to “bid 4NT at the Bridge table” (really haven't played since ’76) and that Joe would be a “bring us together” unifier …
With all due respect, I am still amazed that anyone still believes that even when Biden made it clear in his campaign rhetoric that he was no such thing, and even when he tried to claim to be such a thing provided no basis other than far-left policies. Biden is exactly the chief executive he claimed he would be.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris:
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Again, for ready reference:
The Scholars ratings are 1) Lincoln, 2) Washington, 3) FDR, 4) TR, 5) Ike.
I said to my Sister: “OK Barbara, you want Trump in those five, who gets displaced?”
“Washington; he owned slaves”.
Of course, that would do nothing for her perceived “travesty”, as Obama would become #11 — still in the first Quartile.
“Washington, he owned slaves”?? He was not the only early president to own slaves.
As to Lincoln being number one, nope. I am not going to try to revise the list, but I would put Washington as number 1, and probably move Lincoln well down it. Read some of his speeches, and the careful wording of the Emancipation Proclamation such that carefully excluded freeing slaves in Kentucky and Maryland. He was a skilled politician, and despite the “log cabin” promotions, quite a wealthy man by the time he became president.
FDR? Not so sure. In many ways he gave away the store to Stalin, but many people in the State Department were deluded as to the realities under Communism. Ike was in many ways president like he was general. He played his cards very close to his chest so that many issues were never publicized. I would put him ahead of FDR.
My grandfather always insisted Truman should have been considered much more highly as he was the one dealing with the end of war settlements and issues.
I think I would go with 1. Washington, 2. Ike, 3. Trump, or maybe even with Trump as No. 2. Not going to try to go further down the list. Had really not given much thought as to who gets displaced to where. We have had quite a few very good presidents, some of which were dealt very bad hands, and a few total losers, of which I consider the present resident of the White House about the bottom if not the absolute bottom of the pack.
As to Obama? He should also be near the bottom. I can think of very little he did at all. As to his Nobel Prize? What was that for? Looking pretty? Saying, hey look at me, I am the first black president of the USA?
Many of the first leaders of the USA had owned slaves. Washington’s will from 1799 stipulated that all of his slaves would be freed. Jefferson was less magnanimous in terms of manumission, but still professed a belief that slavery was evil; who knows what manner of societal and familial pressures he was up against.
The Emancipation Proclamation was specific to states “in rebellion” most likely to prevent MD and KY from rebelling themselves. MD abolished slavery in 1864 notwithstanding; KY had a number of politicians on the ground falsely asserting “states’ rights” in response to Lincoln attempting to directly influence emancipation laws in the state. Frederick Douglass said the following about the Proclamation:
quote:“We are all liberated by this proclamation. Everybody is liberated. The white man is liberated, the black man is liberated, the brave men now fighting the battles of their country against rebels and traitors are now liberated… I congratulate you upon this amazing change—the amazing approximation toward the sacred truth of human liberty.”
There were a number of problems with Truman’s postwar management, among them the Marshall Plan (empowering Konrad Adenauer to fill the government of the nascent Federal Republic of Germany with “former” national socialists, and to eventually go forward with the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, today’s European Union), firing Douglas MacArthur when he wanted to go on the offensive against Red China’s direct interference in the conflict in Korea, allowing Alger Hiss to have his way in the creation of the United Nations (his committee essentially made the Charter a clone of Stalin’s USSR constitution from 1936), the allowing of Red China to come to be in the first place, and some other problems that do not come to mind immediately.
Eisenhower was far too soft on the “New Republicans”, many of whom worked in his administration; he also gave assent to big government spending programs, the most (in)famous of which is the Interstate Highway System that perhaps should have been built by the private sector. Reagan in his early political years warned about these people, who are commonly termed “RINOs” (“Republicans In Name Only”) nowadays, as did Goldwater’s book The Conscience of a Conservative which accused them of being no different from left-wing Democrats in terms of desiring to subvert the freedoms in the Constitution and institute oligarchic tyranny.
Back to FDR: Much of what he is praised for in terms of wartime actions perhaps could have been averted if he had listened to the pleas of contemporaries like Churchill eight years earlier, never mind being more aggressive towards Japan than mere economic blockades.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain:
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I voted for Joe during ’20; I did so to “bid 4NT at the Bridge table” (really haven't played since ’76) and that Joe would be a “bring us together” unifier …
With all due respect, I am still amazed that anyone still believes that even when Biden made it clear in his campaign rhetoric that he was no such thing, and even when he tried to claim to be such a thing provided no basis other than far-left policies. Biden is exactly the chief executive he claimed he would be.
First, a preceding message quoted in its entirety as such appears on a prior page.
Mr. Helfner, I understand and respect your position regarding Joe's campaign rhetoric. If such be the case, he had me fooled, as I was certain "Build Back Better" related solely to infrastructure. At least it was around infrastructure, including Amtrak, that slogan seemed to "sprout".
Had I been aware that slogan was simply a cover for more Obama era social ligislation, I might have "thought twice" walking to the polls (half mile from my house).
Oh but then; the alternative was simply "unthinkable".
Posted by MontanaJim (Member # 2323) on :
All i can say is ive learned since 2016 how cults get started, how they get so many people to join, (even highly educated people), and people who one would think would have critical thinking skills. This country is finished. Period.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Jim, if there is any credence to the carefully orchestrated "made for prime time" TV event aired last night, then I don't know how we recover from the attempted "coup d'etat" for which the planning apparently was being formulated even prior to the Election.
Somebody is not going to be happy with the outcome of the '24 Election. All I can think is "watch out".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by MontanaJim: All i can say is ive learned since 2016 how cults get started, how they get so many people to join, (even highly educated people), and people who one would think would have critical thinking skills. This country is finished. Period.
Jim: There is a very old joke about people being educated beyond their intelligence. I think we are seeing a tremendous amount of that going on. When we see what is being taught / indoctrinated in schools, particularly in colleges, there is a lot of living proof of the adage, "those who can do, those who can't teach." There are a few groups that I really do define as cults that think could be considered as such by most people, but commonly "cult" is thrown around as a defining term for any religious or other organization with which the person making that call strongly disagrees.
I do think this country is in serious trouble as many have lost the basic concepts of the things that have made the country great. There are way too many things considered wrong or even disgusting 50 plus years ago that are currently not only permitted but encouraged. Finished? Maybe and hopefully not as there are still a lot of people who disagree strongly with the current trends.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This Times article that will appear in print tomorrow, shows the concern some within the Democratic party that Joe will attempt to run again in '24.
Fair Use:
quote:Should Biden Run in 2024? Democratic Whispers of ‘No’ Start to Rise.
In interviews, dozens of frustrated Democratic officials, members of Congress and voters expressed doubts about the president’s ability to rescue his reeling party and take the fight to Republicans.
Many Democratic officials and voters bear no ill will toward Mr. Biden, but would like a new face to lead the party.
Midway through the 2022 primary season, many Democratic lawmakers and party officials are venting their frustrations with President Biden’s struggle to advance the bulk of his agenda, doubting his ability to rescue the party from a predicted midterm trouncing and increasingly viewing him as an anchor that should be cut loose in 2024.
Such has happened in our history before; most notably to TR - considered amongst our greatest Presidents (he did run as a Third Party candidate - and was predictably defeated).
The article throws out on the table "the usual suspects" - Bernie, Liz, Amy; but I'm surprised the article does not mention Gretchen (Whitner Gov MI). Columnist Brett Stephens mentions her in his past Tuesday Conversation column, but then I admire and respect the Times' long standing "firewall" between the opinion columnists and the newsroom.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Bernie the off the left edge of the continent socialist? No Eliabeth Warren? What ethnicity is she claiming this week? No way! pathological liar. If she said the sun is shining, I would go look out the window before believing her. Amy who? Whitner? Do we really want what she has done in Michigan done to the rest of the country? Another no.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
OK, everybody; I'll "blow" one of my "ten a month" to answer the questions Mr. Harris immediately raises:
Sorry Gray Lady, after shelling out now $1600/yr to hear your "thump on the porch", I think it is mighty "chintzy" of you to limit your subscribers' shared content as you do.
Yesterday, at Breakfast in Indianapolis with my Social Worker friend (Executive Director; not-for-profit adoption agency) who "doesn't know what a Republican is other than that they are evil" (her husband X's party lines, and with my Presidential voting record to date of 7R, 7D, 1I, no one can say I don't), did not instantly recognize "Gretchen". This is telling me that if a "die hard Dem" did not instantly know her (and in a contiguous state to boot), there need be a lot of name recognition indoctrination if Gov. Whitmer is to be a viable candidate come '24.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Originally posted by MontanaJim: All I can say is I've learned since 2016 how cults get started, how they get so many people to join (even highly educated people), and people who one would think would have critical thinking skills. This country is finished. Period.
With all due respect: no thanks for your pessimism. And do please be candid about what you think to be a cult and how it applies here.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Read the Times article. The Times article and many others in an uproar about building access (they seem to forget building codes) and gun control shows ignorance of both. Building access control, that is one (or more) guarded entrances, does not equal one way out. Guess they have never heard about exit doors required for fire safety, that is you can have limited access and the other required multiple exits have locked doors that can be immediately opened from the inside by a push bar. Likewise, if we suddenly outlaw gun ownership, that does not make all the guns in hands of criminals magically disappear. They are all still there, and for that matter so would all the guns held by people that are wanting some protection who would rather be illegal than unsafe. I think it was one of the Founding Fathers that said something like, those who would trade freedom for safety deserve neither.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
It's hard to believe that this is even being circulated; especially by The Times.
Fair Use:
Mr. Biden has been eager for signs of loyalty — and they have been few and far between. Facing intensifying skepticism about his capacity to run for re-election when he will be nearly 82, the president and his top aides have been stung by the questions about his plans, irritated at what they see as a lack of respect from their party and the press, and determined to tamp down suggestions that he’s effectively a lame duck a year and a half into his administration.
Mr. Biden isn’t just intending to run, his aides argue, but he’s also laying the groundwork by building resources at the Democratic National Committee, restocking his operation in battleground states and looking to use his influence to shape the nomination process in his favor.
Kamala "wouldn't have a prayer", but much as the thought of losing an effective Governor out here, and who will "blow away" any opposition come Convention (November maybe), "JB" could be a viable choice for the Dems. "Joe the Other", according to The Times, might consider a Third Party run . To "that Joe", who I personally could accept as a Democratic (I'll never vote Third Party again; did that once and once only) nominee, "either seek the prize of get out of the ring".
But otherwise, time to accept that the "anointment" of Donald John Trump as the 47th or 48th POTUS begins during this November after the Mid-terms have been counted.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I assume by "JB" you mean J. B. Pritzker, current governor of Illinois. In a word no. Don't know much at all about how he has performed as governor, however he has done better than some of the past governors simply by staying out of prison. Looking him up, he is a man of great inherited wealth which to me is a strike against him, in that people in that position are usually clueless as to how it means to paddle your own canoe. However, given the current abortion under all circumstances position of the Democratic party, plus several other priorities that to me are either negative or nonsense and the complete cluelessness of anybody in this administration in economics, international affairs, military and several other things I can't see me voting Democrat even with a gun to my head. Biden himself? The man has made himself wealthy off of being in public office. He fits the definition of a person who should be the subject of a fraud investigation, that is a person having a net worth or living beyond the means understandable by their legitimate income. I do agree completely that given the New York Times being essentially a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party anything negative said about Biden, et al, is beyond surprising. I know you (Mr. Norman) seem to have great respect for them, I just do not understand why.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: [I assume by "JB" you mean J. B. Pritzker, current governor of Illinois. In a word no. Don't know much at all about how he has performed as governor, however he has done better than some of the past governors simply by staying out of prison.
Mr. Harris, the "State works again". That hardly can be said of his Republican predecessor when the State was without a budget and had no authority to disburse funds to any party absent a court order. Fortunately, a child welfare agency client of mine, holding contracts with the State to provide Foster Care was well-funded and survived. Others with worthwhile programs did not.
Anyone campaigning with a slogan of "shake up Springfield" won't get my vote - the State is impervious to such.
That JB is wealthy (Hyatt Hotels; five nights YTD for me) lessens the possibility he will end up in "the clink" where three former Governors have since I've been around these parts.
Finally, I've been reading The New York Times since I was eight years old; not about to change as I close in on 81 (also read The Journal).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The Democratic brand has been utterly ruined by now, if it was not before now. The party’s utter disdain for constitutional limits is out in the open, as is the same contempt shown by the members of the supposed opposition party commonly called “Republicans in name only” (RINOs).
I advise a cessation of reading both Times and Journal. If the former’s reputation has not been ruined by its lack of apology for the propagandizing ways of Walter Duranty, then attempting to normalize 1619 Project hacks such as Nikole Hannah-Jones simply has to be the last straw. As for the latter, the late-80s op-ed in which their editorial board demanded “a five-word constitutional amendment, ‘There shall be open borders’” (a demand of the communists), should have consigned their reputation to the dustbin of history.
FWICS, Pritzker has been business as usual for Illinois, having seemingly bought the election with his billions and not growing the state one bit (largest population departure thus far was last year). His predecessor, Rauner, was a stereotypical RINO who similarly bought the office and could not win in spite of left-wing policies.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: I advise a cessation of reading both Times and Journal.
Then what SHOULD I read, Mr. Helfner; that Taiwanese based "Epoch Times"?
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Well, I would leave that up to the individual rather than entertain red herrings and false dilemmas, with all due respect. I can only relate what I know about the two aforementioned sources, which have not repented of their past sins and seem bent on committing more. Of course, begging the question as to what is wrong with being based in Taiwan in particular (versus where else? I will not presume that a city whose name translates as “Northern Capital” is implied) leaves one with more questions than answers, aside from whatever other characteristics must be considered.
It is perhaps drudgery sifting through sources to find the unbiased truth (the Times in particular publishes it seven or perhaps fourteen paragraphs in, wearying the reader into not noticing that the previous paragraphs of editorializing have been refuted), but ultimately rewarding. Treat all sources in such a fashion, is all I can advise.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
How about Gavin Newsome as the Dem candidate in 2024? Sounds like he is thinking about it and seems to feel that DeSantis will be his most likely Repub opponent. Seems that Newsome has been running ads in Florida saying, leave there and come back to the land of the free in California. My first thought on that is that maybe he should be on some medication for hallucinations.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Emboldened by his victory in last year’s recall election and looking toward an easy November re-election, California Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his presidential ambitions over the Fourth of July weekend. He challenged potential opponent Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis with a television commercial in the Sunshine State
I guess his motive is to offer voters an alternative to Joe seeking a second term - and of course an endorsement.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Not too sure what Joe or his handlers will think about this front page article in the double the weekday circulation Sunday Times.
Fair Use:
When President Biden leaves Tuesday night for a four-day swing through the Middle East, he will presumably be more rested than he would have been had he followed the original plan.
The trip was initially tacked onto another journey last month to Europe, which would have made for an arduous 10-day overseas trek until it became clear to Mr. Biden’s team that such extended travel might be unnecessarily taxing for a 79-year-old president, or “crazy,” as one official put it.
Aides also cited political and diplomatic reasons to reorganize the extra stops as a separate trip weeks later. But the reality is that managing the schedule of the oldest president in American history presents distinct challenges. And as Mr. Biden insists he plans to run for a second term, his age has increasingly become an uncomfortable issue for him, his team and his party.
In addition to myself, my Dental Hygienist doesn’t think he will complete the term.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The Atlantic has some criticism for Mr. B., in a piece titled Middle Eastern Autocrats Embarrassed Biden at Will.
quote:President Joe Biden’s much-touted trip to the Middle East—his first as president—was almost entirely devoid of drama or excitement. It produced no significant deliverables, nor was it meant to. To be underwhelmed, however, is to miss a more troubling story. The visit may have been pointless and performative, but it was also a major setback for American interests, confirming what many long suspected: Supposed allies can disrespect, embarrass, and undermine the United States at will.
The costs are already evident. On Saturday, less than 24 hours after Biden left the region, the United Arab Emirates sentenced an American citizen, Asim Ghafoor, to three years in prison on nebulous charges. Ghafoor, a lawyer for the slain Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, was detained only two days prior while transiting through Dubai International Airport.
This is the sort of thing that happens under dictatorships. But it is not the sort of thing that happens under dictatorships that are ostensibly close U.S. partners. In effect, the leaders of the UAE either are taunting Biden or are indifferent to the perception that they are taunting him. …
The president’s very public deference to a brutal but weak regime is not just a problem for American strategy; it is a problem for American identity. On the world stage, is this what we’re intent on becoming? …
Also mentioned is the deference to the effect of requesting the house of bin Saud to up their oil output, with only the matter of the USA looking weak as context.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Even though, I'm prepared to accept the White House "spinmeisters" at face that Joe is not all that sick from his COVID infection, it may be enough to push him and say "I've had it".
Time to get a book deal and a ghost writer for your memoirs, and have "wrestling matches" with Major.
Had Dinner with a friend, more "libby" than I as a "Clinton left-centrist", last evening who has been an ardent Joe supporter, for reasons more than he "got rid of Trump" (well, for four years). She held he was to be a "bring us together" president. Help those economically impacted by COVID? Of course. Infrastructure? Too many politicians have ignored it for too long. But buying into Bernie, Liz W, and The Squad's agenda. No thanks.
But unlike me, she does think Joe will "stumble through" the rest of his term, will not run, and Trump will defeat any Democrat. I too hold that Trump will be the 47th POTUS, or 48th, should, on Jan 19,2025, the President is named Kamala.
All this from a gal who I'll bet "wouldn't know how to vote Republican". Me; well I've done that half of the time (Presidential record: 7R 7D 1I).
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Washington Post columnist Steve Isenberg is calling for Mr. B to be a one-termer.
quote:President Biden should announce now that he will not run for reelection in 2024.
He should not ask the Democratic Party, or the nation, to assume the risk of a second four-year term that would begin after he reached the age of 82. …
I guess only the left can get away with so-called ageism.
Further down in the article, Isenberg claims that if Biden did not run in 2024, the 2022 midterms would no longer be about his policies, which is utterly false; the policies in question are not his alone.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Good points are raised with this Times column appearing today.
Fair Use:
Just months after being sworn in as president in 1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave an unusual task to his vice president, Richard Nixon.
Years earlier, when Eisenhower was the supreme commander of the Allied forces in World War II, he had been distressed over the unpreparedness of Vice President Harry Truman upon President Franklin Roosevelt’s sudden death. Now president at 62, a former four-pack-a-day smoker with what would become a serious heart condition, Eisenhower understood the importance of training a vice president for the presidency; Nixon had just six years’ experience as a congressman and senator from California before becoming Eisenhower’s running mate.
The president had no great liking for Nixon, whom he barely knew, but he gave him a lot to do — including dispatching the vice president and his wife, Pat, on what would become a 68-day trip through Asia and the Middle East. In the fall of 1953, the Nixons visited Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, India, Pakistan, Iran, and Libya — the first of many chances for the vice president to establish personal ties with foreign leaders.
If Joe "doesn't make it" for whatever reason, the Constitution defines that Kamala will become President. Ike, amongst the Notable Scholars' "top five", immersed Nixon in foreign affairs, which before he self-imploded his own presidency, paid the world dividends. Whie I will respect Mr. Helfner's likely disagreement, the world is a better place for Nixon opening the doors with China.
Obama gave Joe visible and meaningful "chores" with the result of him being known as the VP. While short of "getting popped", Obama, considering his age and fitness level, was going to serve out his term/s, but Joe's visibility was paramount to him.
Now the "shoe is on the other foot". While I like to think the "spinmeisters" are being straight up about Joe's COVID, there is always the chance it is otherwise. So it matters not, Joe, what you think of her personally (I really don't think "he's in love with her"), get her out there.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
So China aggressively asserting its rule over Hong Kong, and likely to copy Russia’s Ukraine example with respect to Taiwan, has made the world a better place? With all due respect, please connect those dots because they are not self-evident; and remember that our making them a MFN trading partner contributed to that aggression on their part.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Wow, did Times columnist, Bret Stephens, ever "lay it on" today:
Fair Use:
The central fact about the democratic world today is that it is leaderless.
Twenty-five years ago, we had the confident presences of Bill Clinton, Helmut Kohl and Tony Blair — and Alan Greenspan. Now we have a failing American president, a timorous German chancellor, a British prime minister about to skulk out of office in ignominy and a chairman of the Federal Reserve who last year flubbed the most important decision of his career. Elsewhere: the resignation of Italy’s prime minister, a caretaker government in Israel, the assassination of Japan’s dominant political figure.
I sincerely believe that the sooner Joe announces he will not seek a second term will be all the better for the Democratic party. Let's see, LBJ announced he would not seek the second term during March '68 (I predicted it to two other guys at Lunch in Saigon during October '67; to my Mother and Father in a letter during Feb '68). Harry Truman announced same during March '52. So, with twenty nine months remaining, Joe would be announcing considerably sooner than did two of his predecessors, but they were not 79yo.
Now it is "almost true" that such nomination is always held open for the incumbent president, but I'm not sure how many presidents have been "underwater" with job approval than is Joe (he is worse off than was Trump nineteen months in).
So I really think the sooner Joe makes such an announcement will be the better for all concerned. This of course is independent of whether my March '23 prediction of a resignation comes to pass.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Again, it is not about Biden himself, but the policies. I see no evidence that the party as a whole is ready to disavow them and pull back from the left—otherwise they would do something quite remarkable to prove that, e.g. get together with the Republicans to expel Nancy Pelosi and other radical Congresspeople and even Senators (think Charles Schumer, the so-called “Squad” et al).
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Helfner, lest we forget that Members of Congress, short of impeachment, are expelled by the voters - and for all noted, that could come as early as three months from now.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
That's true, but invoking Article I Section 5 would send a stronger message to the electorate that the current Congress does actually care, rather than waiting to be evicted by the electorate which sends the message that they are actually the anti-law people the electorate perceive them to be.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Two Thirds to expel a member under Section 5 is a mighty high threshold to meet.
A side note to keep in mind; "Squad Leader" AOC is eligible to run in '24, as she will be 35yo on Jan 20,'25.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Such a threshold would be an easy one to meet if the 118th Congress wanted to prove they had the USA’s best interests at heart.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:… After taking a five-day course of Pfizer’s antiviral drug Paxlovid when he first tested positive on July 21, Biden tested positive for a rebound case of COVID-19 on Saturday and resumed isolation. He has not left the White House in 14 days.
“Given his rebound positivity which we reported Saturday, we continued daily monitoring. This morning, his SARS-CoV-2 antigen test remained positive. The President will continue his strict isolation measures,” (Dr. Kevin) O’Connor wrote in a memo to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, which was shared with reporters.
Thursday will mark “day five” of his second isolation. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “People with recurrence of COVID-19 symptoms or a new positive viral test after having tested negative should restart isolation and isolate again for at least 5 days.” …
I get the feeling that some people might be trying to run this man into the ground.
I also have to wonder about the use of antigen tests, which are regarded as far less accurate than the PCR test; I was required by my employer to have a negative PCR test last year before I could return to work after being ill with this virus.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Even Maureen Dowd in The Times today is saying "Joe, even if you've had a win or two of late, this does not mean it's a cue to seek another term".
Fair Use:
The timing of your exit can determine your place in the history books.
This is something Joe Biden should keep in mind as he is riding the crest of success. His inner circle, irritated by stories about concerns over his age and unpopularity, will say this winning streak gives Biden the impetus to run again.
The opposite is true. It should give him the confidence to leave, secure in the knowledge that he has made his mark.
Ms. Dowd further references RBG in that she was on some kind of "pop culture roll" and ignored calls from the Obama administration to step down now "Just in case Trump wins".
She missed the moment to leave the stage, ignoring friendly nudges from Democrats and entreaties from Obama allies. She fell in love with her late-in-life image as a hip cultural icon: “Notorious R.B.G.,” the octogenarian cancer survivor who could hold 30-second planks. She thought she was the indispensable person, and that ended in disaster. Her death opened the door to the most conservative court in nearly a century. Her successor, a religious zealot straight out of “The Handmaid’s Tale,” is erasing Justice Ginsburg’s achievements on women’s rights.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
While the "Sea to Lake raid" is being discussed at another topic, I believe "it's going to end badly" for the Democrats' interests. Even if one of my Sister's "news sources" has reported that the Judge signing the warrant has been associated with Liberal interests, the mainstream sources, i.e. mine, will pick up same soon enough if not already.
I'm predicting a "Democrat blood bath" less than 100 days from now, and I further predict that Joe's resignation will come shortly after the 118th is seated - possibly in conjunction with the SOTU. Maybe, just maybe, Amtrak will have an Aviella train set accepted by then so "Amtrak Joe" can leave town as he has in the past (I don't think the Secret Service would deny a Former President such).
So, even if Kamala is "behind the desk in the Oval" after that time, her chances of not having to write a letter to her successor during January '25 are "slim to none". She will join the ranks of ascending VP's, which presently are "split 50-50" with election success. On one hand we have TR, "Silent Cal", Truman, and LBJ who got elected in their own right, however none sought a second term. On the other, we have Fillmore, A. Johnson, Arthur, and Ford for whom it was a "less than one and done".
Kamala will tip that scale for the "less than one's".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Joe's speech from Independence Hall last evening was indeed forceful, well-delivered, and needed to be said.
But I'm fearful it was a campaign speech - and government apparatus - Marines, government property - beyond his security and his seal, which are "his" wherever he goes, was used.
Trump is a criminal; he violated numerous sedition laws culminating with Jan 6, he removed classified documents that are government property - even if to date, he had not disseminated them.
All I know is that "when I was in", I had a Top Secret clearance, and I handled enough of such to need that clearance. But had I, along with Mr. Harris, Ocala Mike, and any others I've overlooked who have worn the uniform of our country and served, done as Trump has, we'd all be in jail - and the key would have "gotten lost".
I'm waiting for Tucker, Hannity, and their ilk to start "making something" of that.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
So labeling anyone who voted for Trump as an “extremist” needed to be said? Really? That is an attack on well over half the nation.
Never mind the attending visuals, or the fact that USMC directives forbid any of their personnel from participating in political activities. The color of the background lights is very telling as well.
And with all due respect, enough with the “Trump is a criminal” rhetoric. The powers that be tried and failed when it came to two “impeachments” and they are currently failing in their continuation of their Lavrenty Beria tactics to find us any crime. The USA is supposed to uphold the principle of innocence until guilt is actually proven, not Code Napoléon which is the exact opposite of that.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Frankly, I have had it to my eyebrows with all the "get Trump" that has been going on for the last several years. These "January 6" hearings approach or possibly surpass a Soviet show trial. This whole "democracy is in fatal danger if you don't agree with me" perspective gives me the creeps. If anyone has attempted to govern by decree to the extent that Biden has been allowed to get away with, please tell me.
How Mr. Norman gets "needed to be said" is beyond me. What I heard of it comes more under the heading of should never be said and could be dangerous if believed. The whole scene of standing there making pronouncements to the effect that "democracy is dead" if his opponents are allowed any power stated with marines in the background would be more appropriate for tinpot dictators.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, I agree that both timing and venue for the "made for TV" Hearings and the Speech would make the nearly 50% of voters who support FPOTUS45 Trump quite suspect. I believe there will be repercussions over the choice of venue for the Speech as well as the timing of both.
But Mr. Harris, just like me in order to perform your official duties, you had a security clearance. Since we were practically contemporaries over in The Nam, and had we done what FPOTUS Trump irrefutably did, guess we'd be sharing the same cell at Leavenworth.
Finally, for those here who have not served, a security clearance is not some kind of "merit badge"; it is simply a device granted, after a background check, to those personnel, military or civilian, who have a need to know and/or access classified information in order to perform their official duties.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
What did Trump “irrefutably d(o)”? Still hurling accusations without base and can actually be refuted?
Just to illustrate that the leftists behind Biden realize that they actually have gone too far, they are currently backpedaling. If the Mar-a-Lago “panty raid” (what became of Melania’s clothing, I still wonder, never mind the 4th Amendment being shredded) has gained a slew of new voters who support Trump-backed candidates, I wonder how many more of such will indeed show up at the polls this November.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Mr. Norman, as to violations of security clearance, you are absolutely correct so far as we were concerned as we were toward the bottom of the pecking order. When it comes to POTUS, then who determines what is top secret and what is not? Since this I suspect to be an Executive Branch decision, then as head of the Executive Branch, would the final decision be his? Think about this for a moment when considering the character of the person holding the office.
As to security clearances themselves, I basically played the game. Too many times I saw clearances used to cover up the embarrassing and things the powers that be wanted to keep hidden that had absolutely nothing to do with any real security issues. One thing that comes to mind is the rule about photographing anything near the generals' compound in Long Binh. It was well inside the middle of the base, but the reality is that they did not want the public to see how well they were living in "combat". OF course, everyone knew where it was so there was no real secrecy issue. I have quite a few stories from a now long deceased Military Intelligence LTC of some of the absolute sillies that got classified solely to cover either stupidity or embarrassment.
In the same flavor is "Non-disclosure Agreements" commonly used in engineering contracts particularly in public works. It seems that most of these serve primarily to cover bad decisions by the owner. In the same vein, "Value Engineering" is frequently used by contractors to reduce costs, as these clauses allow the postulated savings to be shared between owner and contractor, but commonly they result in saving of say, $100,000 that results in a reduction in value of the project by $1,000,000. Been involved in the fix of a couple of failures due to this, but thanks to the "non-disclosure" I can say no more, other than that they involved component failures on constructed facilities located somewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, and not involving the project that was my primary at the time.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, so you at LB were fifteen or so miles "upstream" from me at Tan Son Nhut!!!
So far as the Generals both at MACV and at TSN, yes they did have nice "double wide" house trailers - and Vietnamese servants, but how long had we "been in" to learn RHIP - "Rank has its privileges" Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: What did Trump “irrefutably d(o)”? Still hurling accusations without base and can actually be refuted?
Mr. Helfner, I think it hard to refute that government documents, classification notwithstanding, were found at Mar-a-Lago. The Presidential Records Act of 1978 is clear that these documents are government property and are to be turned over to the National Archives.
They weren't.
Further, I am very fearful, just as much as you are apparently joyful, that first the Hearings, followed by the Raid, and topped off with the Speech, as good as assure that Congress will return to Republican control during Jan '23, that Joe will resign shortly after delivering the SOTU during February or March, that President Harris' "caretaker succession" will expire Jan 20, '25, and at that time, POTUS48 Trump will take the Oath.
It will be tempting to follow in the steps that my Maternal family made during '34 and live out my years on the shores of Wolfgangsee - of course, never mind why they returned home during '38.
Finally, there is one item presently deemed under PRA78 to be government property that should be exempt. That is the letter the outgoing POTUS writes to his successor and places in a desk drawer. I hold such is personal property; and contrary to what some might think, Trump did write Joe such a letter, and such was reported to be quite cordial.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The presence of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago is not a crime. There is no obligation to turn them over to the National Archives. And classified status rests in the hand of the POTUS under which they became so. Notwithstanding, Trump was cooperating long before the FBI stormed in and rifled through Melania’s closet.
The warrant specified nothing. That is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment and employment of the “general warrant” abomination of George III of England that was one cause of the move for independence of the colonies.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Mr. Harris, so you at LB were fifteen or so miles "upstream" from me at Tan Son Nhut!!!
So far as the Generals both at MACV and at TSN, yes they did have nice "double wide" house trailers - and Vietnamese servants, but how long had we "been in" to learn RHIP - "Rank has its privileges"
Oh, did I ever learn RHIP. The General housing at Long Binh were not double wides. They were essentially very nice individual houses in a compound with separate entrances and guards, the guards being MP's that looked like they never knew what dirt was.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
As this is written, the Mid-Term elections are a little more than five weeks away.
Well, out here in my "Demofied land", JB will "trounce" whoever that "cornball" the Republicans came up with, and that Tammy will keep her Senate seat (does she actually have an opponent?).
Aside from around these parts, I hold the Republicans will take control of both the House and Senate, or very simply, Congress. If Joe has visions of any further legislative initiatives, those are now in the trash barrel. Should there be a SCOTUS vacancy to fill, the Senate will decide who either Joe or Kamala will appoint.
I guess that kind of leads into reiterating my long-held contention that Joe will not complete the term. I believe he will resign during March '23, and could even announce that resignation as part of the SOTU.
"Too much stuff is piling up" that, right or wrong notwithstanding, Joe will be blamed for. Afghanistan, inflation, interest rates, the "Bear" market (think I'm happy about how my portfolio has declined?), the "overstep" with education loan forgiveness, maybe even Ukraine's inevitable defeat or China rattling sabers at Taiwan. Further, the strong possibility he will be impeached will be lessened by his resignation.
Maybe Amtrak will have an Aviella set available by then for Joe's return home. I don't think a Former President's security is on the front burner.
The high points of Kamala's twenty month "caretaker presidency" will be rolling Easter Eggs, throwing out first pitch at a Giants-Nationals game, and pardoning turkeys.
But otherwise, she will preside over Ukraine's defeat. Sure, we are providing them arms, but if this Journal editorial is to be believed, we are "getting tapped out". As I noted earlier at this Forum, it's not that the Russians are superior fighters, it's just that there are so many more of them available - especially to a leader who cares little if they simply become cannon fodder.
Finally, absent losing "the battle of Big Mac", I foresee Trump being nominated and winning during '24.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Maybe Amtrak will have an Avelia set available by then for Joe’s return home. I don’t think a Former President’s security is on the front burner.
? Not how things work. Ex-presidents have SS protection for life, per the Former Presidents Protection Act of 2012.
There has not been a case of any Republican Congress utterly stymieing a Democratic POTUS’ agenda, particularly when the majority are RINOs.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Amongst my "first reads" in Tuesday's Times is the weekly column comprising a conversation between two columnists - "Fairly Conservative" Bret Stephens and "rather Liberal" Gail Collins. The column addresses a wide number of points, but one appearing today addresses the "fate of Joe" and, for that matter, the Democratic party come '24. Here is a Fair Use quotation regarding such:
[Bret]And the Democrat who is going to turn around the party’s fortunes is …
Gail: Sorry to say it won’t be Joe Biden. I think history will give Biden a lot of points for the way he brought us out of the Trump presidency, but his strong points — good at bipartisanship, powerful history of congressional negotiating, fatherly image — aren’t holding up well in the current still-quite-Trumpian political world.
Bret: History will definitely remember him as a transitional president, but whether it’s as George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford or John Adams — all former veeps, I might add — remains to be seen.
Gail: I’m still hoping Biden will change his mind about his vow to run again and open up a competition among the more promising Democrats. That would include the names we’ve been tossing around for some time, like Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris — although I absolutely do not think Harris’s position as vice president should give her automatic support.
Bret: Of those three, the only one I think of as a strong contender is Klobuchar, who is smart, experienced and competent, her salad-eating habits notwithstanding. Another favorite of mine is the commerce secretary, Gina Raimondo. But like so many would-be centrist politicians, she could win handily at the national level but would have no chance of making it through the primaries. It seems to be part of a larger problem we have in this country, which is that in one institution after another, it’s almost impossible for the best people to rise to the top.
Finally, in the interest of fairness and balance, my "first read" in Saturday's Journal is "rather conservative" columnist, Peggy Noonan.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Asked in an interview with NBC News on Wednesday about a second term, the first lady made an argument for keeping the president in the job.
“He understands government better than anybody else,” Jill Biden said.
She said she’s not deterred by another vitriolic campaign or the prospect of Republican-led investigations into her family should the GOP win control of Congress in November’s midterm elections. And she was adamant that her son Hunter Biden, who is under federal investigation and is a potential target of congressional probes, has broken no laws.
Both Houses will be controlled by Republicans come New Year's; and further legislative initiatives beyond defense and spending are a "DOA". Jill will have change of heart and that it is time after the SOTU to go back to Wilmington (on Amtrak; maybe?); Champ and Commander are ready for some "rassilin".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I'm simply astounded by "Dr. Jill's" comments.
Likewise. Sometimes I wonder what alternate universe she is living in. Maybe she is a Mrs. Wilson enjoying being the power behind the throne?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I think NBC News in the immediately captioned quote misleads.
Hunter, along with Beau, were born of Joe's first wife, Neilia, who, along with a daughter Naomi, was killed in the car crash (never hear too much regarding who was at fault; "we report, you decide") that Beau and Hunter survived. However, Jill, after marriage to Joe, did legally adopt both.
The daughter, Ashley, who stays out of the limelight (think she works in Social Services), belongs biologically to Joe and Jill.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here's what this Times Guest Columnist holds Joe will be looking at should he choose to hang around until his term expires:
Fair Use:
But if forecasters — who currently give Republicans about a four-in-five chance of taking control of the House and an even chance of taking the Senate — are correct, the next Congress may well provoke whiplash. It will not come as a surprise that a Republican majority will be a less willing partner to a Democratic White House, but a G.O.P. House majority in 2023 is shaping up to be combative to an alarming degree.
Yes, some will hold that Joe's resignation that I still hold will occur after the State Of The Union address will look like "desertion in the face of the enemy", why should anyone with over fifty years of commendable public service, or put another way, a career politician who achieved the ultimate prize, be "tarred and feathered" as he will if he hangs around for another two years. It will be so painful to watch - and Champ and Commander are ready for some good "rassilin matches".
addendum: now that Former President Trump is starting to drop the hints that come '24 he will seek to drop the "Former" from his title, the Democratic party, with no one who could potentially beat him, could persuade Joe to "take one for the team". Customarily, the nomination for a second term within either party is held open for the incumbent, and the likes of "sacrificial lambs" such as Beto and Stacy will be "in hiding" hoping for a better day come '28. It will simply to be too tragic, for a man who has endured so much publicized personal tragedy in his life, to go out the way too many a professional athlete that have "stayed too long", does so.
But that is what will happen.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Personally, I have no positive view about Biden's political history, recent or more distant past. I have my doubts that he will resign, as there seems to be a lack of perception of the reality of recent events, particularly economic, that makes it appear that they feel that somehow they shall prevail. I really think one of Joe's best insurances against Impeachment for use of multiple executive orders that usurped congress's authority is Kamala.
Hopefully, should the turnover of party in power prevail, one of their first acts will be to deep six the Soviet Style Show Trial that is the January 6 hearing and turn loose all those persecuted therewith.
Beto and Stacy? I would say not a chance. Both are perennial losers in their home states.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris; Beto and Stacy? we're "on the same page"! I noted them because, as you also note, they can't win an election (maybe somewhere for dogcatcher ) in their home states, which sure would make either of them a "sacrificial lamb" unto Trump's altar come '24 (grief: first primaries are fourteen months away; "announcements" in six).
Jan 6 hearings; they're history on New Year's Eve.
I grant that all Joe ever wanted to be in this life was a "career politician". He was active in High School politics, went to the "not exactly renowned for much of anything" University of Delaware (that wasn't nice of me; Blue Hens around here), after attaining a bachelor's, graduated from their law school (towards the bottom of his class but he got that law degree - the "ticket" for aspiring politicians) and from there went on his way to the ultimate prize all too often held by those with Yale, Stanford, et al on the CV. So let's give him credit for that.
Now as to the possibility of Joe's resignation, let's take that up on Nov 9 (or later depending upon how many disputed elections there will be).
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Well!!!!
As this is written, it does not appear that the "Trump Red Wave" is about to crash on shore. As such, the likelihood that Joe will resign is somewhat diminished.
It appears the House will go Red; and I'm sure the Republican leadership has an office on a high floor in the oldest House Office building with a view of a service alley all picked out for Nancy. If Joe can accept the Investigations will be against him, and not Trump, and that Impeachment articles will be sent to the Senate, then maybe he will choose to hang around.
Now if the Senate stays Blue (Fetterman in PA is a "pick up"), then Joe can still control appointments (Justice Thomas retires? There are plenty of well-qualified Black jurists out there, but they're by and large "Libs"), further he still has a veto should any "whacko" legislation, such as repealing some of Joe's agenda or cutting off Ukraine, get passed.
A second term? Oh, please!!!
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
After another nine days to "think it over" and see the largely final election results, we must note that the House is "razor thin Red" and the Senate (regardless of what happens in Georgia between Walker and Warnock) "razor thin Blue".
Here beginneth "Divided Government".
Predictions: Anything remaining of Joe's legislative agenda is dead, however "Spending" ($$$ to keep the lights on; also, Amtrak) and Defense will be funded at consistent levels, and for which both sides will claim "Bipartisanship". For these to pass, it matters not if we have a "First Gentleman".
However, House Investigations will continue but with a change of direction. The January 6 investigation is "finito", and impeachment articles will be filed against Joe (of course going nowhere and for what who knows).
So "I have done what I can to leave our country in better shape than I found it, but it's time to step aside and allow Vice President Harris to sit at The Desk...."
Again, I still hold this will occur after the State Of The Union address.
Joe just looks so tired; as did FDR at Yalta.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Well, I will say something just to keep the thread from dying. To say the lack of a true "red wave" has left me disappointed is putting it mildly. At least given the loss of a Democrat majority in the House the J6 show trial should end. How many times can they say, we've got him and nothing happens? It is almost like the old joke about the incompetent high school team that finally made a touchdown. The opposing team failed to show up and after three plays they managed to finally score.
Yes, I remember the pictures of FDR at Yalta. Frankly, Stalin wiped the floor with him. Churchill just did not have enough political clout to stop him and, what was the French guy's name?, was fairly well useless. I think Biden is far worse than that and would have been even when firing on all cylinders, which he obviously is not.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Harris, I have to acknowledge that given Joe's "success" with the mid-terms, i.e. avoiding a "Red Tide" in both houses, I must acknowledge that it is not likely he will voluntarily step down.
All "we the people" can hope for is that no major unforeseen event occurs, e.g. "nukes a popping", and that Joe can hold it together for another 759 days. When it's over, I think the Notable Scholars, who presently rate Trump as 41st of 44, will place Joe in their Fourth Quartile between 35th and 45th.
If Joe chooses to run again (while the second term nomination was denied to elected Franklin Pierce and four other successor VP's in our history - Tyler, Fillmore, A.Johnson, Arthur, the nomination is customarily held open for a sitting POTUS to decide if he wants it), De Santis will mop the floor with him. While I have friends (educators, social workers) who would strongly disagree with any policy a "President DeSantis" would set forth, I acknowledge that he is rational and sane. I don't know who the Democrats have on the bench with a chance of beating him.
The only hope the Democrats have is that Trump, with his "star becoming dimmer by the day", runs as a third-party candidate. That could "siphon" enough votes from the Republican nominee to allow the Democrats "four more years".
Finally, so far as Investigations go, just look for "a change of players" with Trump being replaced by Hunter and Dr. Fauci - and of course, Articles of Impeachment filed against Joe.
And very lastly, I had to "look it up" myself, but the French were not represented at Yalta:
From Wiki--
The French leader General Charles de Gaulle was not invited to either the Yalta or Potsdam Conferences, a diplomatic slight that was the occasion for deep and lasting resentment. De Gaulle attributed his exclusion from Yalta to the longstanding personal antagonism towards him by Roosevelt, but the Soviets had also objected to his inclusion as a full participant. However, the absence of French representation at Yalta also meant that extending an invitation for de Gaulle to attend the Potsdam Conference would have been highly problematic since he would have felt honor-bound to insist that all issues agreed at Yalta in his absence be reopened
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
Ah, yes. De Gualle. I should have remembered that. Yes, I do remember the picture at Yalta showing only those three. (Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin)
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Nothing divided about this government, which seems hell-bent on getting Hakeem Jeffries installed as the new Speaker, particularly with the blather and noise over voting (which a man once known on air as Jeff Christie called “Kabuki theater”).
At least the January 6 komissariat ended as it should have, i.e. with nothing whatsoever. Overdue to release all the political prisoners now.
Also, Trump’s “star” does not fade merely because the Uniparty and media try to wish it away.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Away from topic, Mr. Harris, but then this is Open Discussion!!!
We should note that the French, while not invited to either Yalta or Potsdam - and for that matter Teheran - there were "Four Powers" recognized with the occupation zones of both Germany and Austria.
I doubt if I was aware of such until I visited Berlin during May 1990, and at Checkpoint Charlie, there were security guards all wearing "quaint and curious costumes" (Class A Dress) with boots that saw more "spit" than dirt from the US, UK, FR, and USSR.
There was also Four Power representation with the division of Vienna; became aware of that watching the movie "The Third Man".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Story from CNN about Biden and classified documents in his possession from the time he was VP.
quote:Among the items from Joe Biden’s time as vice president discovered in a private office last fall are 10 classified documents including US intelligence memos and briefing materials that covered topics including Ukraine, Iran and the United Kingdom, according to a source familiar with the matter. …
The documents were dated between 2013 and 2016, according to the source familiar. They were found in three or four boxes also containing unclassified papers that fall under the Presidential Records Act.
The vast majority of the items in the office contained personal Biden family documents, including materials about Beau Biden’s funeral arrangements and condolence letters, the source told CNN. It is not clear if the boxes with classified documents contained personal materials. …
(Merrick) Garland chose to have (John) Lausch conduct the Biden documents investigation because he is one of two remaining Trump-appointed US attorneys, and to avoid the appearance of conflict of interest because he wasn’t appointed by Biden, people briefed on the matter said. …
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Surprise anyone, but Hannity is "just getting tuned up".
Joe, best give up any thoughts about a second term (you'll lose), and start thinking about resigning. You will simply be unable to do much more for the next two years than roll Easter eggs, pardon turkeys, and light Xmas trees.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
If Biden were to resign, or be successfully impeached, at this point or any date forward, whoever completes his term could, in theory at least, run for two full terms. However, should this be Kamala, I don't see here as being electable to anything, so this part of history making will not happen.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Joe, you are sinking into this classified "dung" as deeply and quickly as has Trump.
Where's next? your beach house in Rehoboth Beach?
All I know is that if Mr. Harris or myself, who both held security clearances when we served, pulled anything like what now Hillary, Trump, and Joe have evidently done, our home address, even if we served over fifty years ago, would still be Fort Leavenworth.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: All I know is that if Mr. Harris or myself, who both held security clearances when we served, pulled anything like what now Hillary, Trump, and Joe have evidently done, our home address, even if we served over fifty years ago, would still be Fort Leavenworth.
Well, maybe not that long, however, my PE licence, which I will have held for 50 years before my next renewal expires, would never have been a possibility, regardless of education and experience. And, along with that lack of license or criminal history or both would have disqualified me for much of what I have done over my working life, plus my wife would have lost her job if she married me, if not been in trouble just for dating me. (Whether or not it serves any purpose to renew my engineer's license, I definitely intend to do so.)
When I began dating my wife, of now 49 years, I was just out of the army and she was an employee of the CIA. Regardless of my history and service, the CIA still investigated me. How do I know? Because people that were friends of my parents started asking them, "What has George done? We have had strange people coming around asking questions about him." (When she was about 9 or 10 our granddaughter asked me, when do you meet Grandma? I answered, we were both working in DC. I was in the Army and she was working for the CIA. The look on her face was priceless. It was like, who are these people? I have never seen them before. She knew us as a grandpa worked on big construction projects and a grandma that was a schoolteacher.)
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Hey it's open discussion (and it's really the only activity going on around here).
When I retired, for real, during '17 (tried during '03, but I had clients who wouldn't let me), I surrendered my CPA license. I wasn't going to practice anymore and forty class hours of Continuing Professional Education a year (about $30hr) to keep it was a "for what"; professional pride?
The title however, just as I believe is the case with Mr. Harris, is mine for life.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Trump was POTUS and was in the right as far as document possession. Garland violated the Fourth Amendment, but the united Democratic Republican uni-party will cover for him.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: Trump was POTUS and was in the right as far as document possession.
Agree, Mr. Helfner; so long as he was POTUS. But, absent holding some unfounded belief that he is STILL POTUS (that is what my sister holds and that Joe is some kind of "illegitimate acting POTUS"), he is no longer such and those documents, CLEARLY MARKED with the same cover sheets as when I was "in", should have been surrendered to the Archives.
Reiterate; same equally applied to Joe during '17.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
No, not so long as he was POTUS. If that was the case, then the spotlight has to be shone on Obama, Bush and Clinton here. And no VPOTUS has the authority that a POTUS has in this arena.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
OK; I think this will have to be left with that Mr. Helfner holds that President Trump (the title is his for life) is "POTUS in exile". Accordingly, he is empowered to hold the classified documents found at his "Sea to Lake residence in exile", and that when he returns to his rightful "home office with a street number of 1600", so will the documents.
Joe however, upon leaving the VPOTUS during '17, was not lawfully afforded the same privilege and could be subject to prosecution.
Incidentally volks, the State Of The Union address has now been set for Feb 7. I somehow think that will be the venue for Joe to announce "Door #1") seek a second term, "Door #2") not seek such, or "Door #3") resign.
While as I noted above, considering that the mid-term "Red Wave" was only a "Red Ripple" and in only one of two Houses, his legislative victories (COVID relief, infrastructure, and the grab bag titled Inflation Reduction), that Ukraine is a stalemate and not a rout, inflation heading in the right direction, I still hold that "Door #3" remains on the table.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
An extremely balanced opinion piece regarding Joe's re-election chances "post-docugate" appears in The Times today:
Fair Use:
Imagine instead that the president takes a leaf from Nancy Pelosi and decides not to run. Mr. Comer and the clownish members of his committee would probably end up training most of their fire on Democrats not named Biden. Democrats would “turn the page,” as Mr. Obama recommended in 2008, to a crop of fresher candidates, probably governors, who contrast better with Mr. Trump and would have good odds of beating a younger Republican. And the smiling old gentleman in the Corvette — his shortcomings forgotten and his family protected — would assume his proper place as a bridge between political generations and arguably the most accomplished one-term president in American history.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Quoting from the NYT:
And the smiling old gentleman in the Corvette — his shortcomings forgotten and his family protected — would assume his proper place as a bridge between political generations and arguably the most accomplished one-term president in American history
Do what?? Guess we have to differ. I would call this person to be the most inept person to ever hold the office. I cannot think of one positive accomplishment. With this, I had better shut up.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Do what?? Guess we have to differ.
Mr. Harris, I presume the caption is directed at The Times columnist, and not necessarily me.
Given the classified documents matter I think Joe will not seek re-election and, even if lessened since the Afghanistan fiasco, there remains the possibility of his resignation.
The Notable Scholars that we have discussed here I continue to hold that they will rank Joe in their fourth quartile, or between 33rd and 45th (Lincoln #1, Buchannon #45, Trump #42)
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman:
quote:Originally posted by George Harris: Do what?? Guess we have to differ.
Mr. Harris, I presume the caption is directed at The Times columnist, and not necessarily me.
Given the classified documents matter I think Joe will not seek re-election and, even if lessened since the Afghanistan fiasco, there remains the possibility of his resignation.
The Notable Scholars that we have discussed here I continue to hold that they will rank Joe in their fourth quartile, or between 33rd and 45th (Lincoln #1, Buchannon #45, Trump #41)
Absolutely, I was referring to the NYT. That they continue being a cheering section for Biden baffles me. I often wonder if the choice of Kamala as VP was intended to be Joe's assination and impeachment insurance, as it result in her becoming Pres.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I have had to make a slight correction to my immediate that which I have now edited. However I cannot edit Mr. Harris' immediate captioning of that post.
The Scholars ranking of Trump as #41 was based upon 44 presidents who have completed their terms (the three below - Pierce 14th, Johnson 17th, Buchannon 15th, are really considered to be the rogues gallery). Now when the Scholars include a ranking of Joe's term(s???), Joe's would need to be placed below Trump's present 41. If not the case, and Trump otherwise holds his own, he would move downward to #42.
Finally and again, here is the survey to which I have made reference throughout this topic:
Looked at the C-span list. Some of it makes no sense to me. Why is George Washington not number 1? I would place Lincoln several points further down the list, but maybe being a Southerner has something to do with that. Several of the lower placements make no sense to me either.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr.Harris, it's a poll taken of notable scholars. As such, they are certainly more liberal than are you - and for that matter, I.
I have issues as well when reviewing the Presidents since I've been around (born during FDR, cognizant of world and national affairs since Ike). I think Obama is quite overrated being placed in the First Quartile, but I hold Carter deserves more (he saved the railroad industry). Some are so hard to rate; Nixon with his groundbreaking foreign policy achievements of course offset by "guess what". Bill for standing up to Gingrich, yet sitting down to work with him, but offset by his "alley cat morals". If there ever were a President that deserved a second term, it was Bush41, had he prevailed, his low end Second Quartile rating could have easily been within the First displacing Obama.
And Trump? My Evangelical Sister holds he was one of the top five. The Scholars obviously disagree.
But it will be interesting to see where Joe gets placed, whether he has little more than one more month in office (resigns immediately after SOTU) or almost six more years. My prediction, again noted, he will be in the Fourth Quartile, or "neck and neck" with, say, Harding, who also did not complete a term.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Another point to consider with these ratings is how the nature and scope of the presidency has changed. Somehow, I think the Fathers envisioned an "almost ceremonial" role (after all, the President is enumerated in Article Two and not first of the Constitution) and being CEO of a "small business". The only real power he had was Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to which it could be said "what armed forces?". The real power laid with the States and those their people directly elected (House) and those appointed by State level elected representatives (Senate). The President was elected by a select group (Electors) who came from however a particular state wanted them to come from. I suppose Trump's '20 electoral challenge was based upon that original intent of the Fathers, considering such remains unwritten in the US Constitution.
But now the President is CEO of the largest entity on Earth, with the power to dictate with the purse how entities the Fathers reserved for the States conduct their affairs.
So, I must wonder how the nature and scope of the presidency has changed, have the supposedly fluid Scholars' ratings reflected such?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, if you were invited to join the Notable Scholars panel, where would you rank Joe's presidency to date? Lest we note, such may only have 50 DTG if my thoughts of a resignation announced next week, and, say, to take effect March 31, comes to pass (now, Mr. Harris, did you "Commissioned Officers and Gentlemen" also have those countdown charts??? )
I hope you can say other than "dead last"; for that would place Joe down with Confederacy sympathizing seditionists. As I've noted, I think he will be in the Scholars bottom Quartile, or 35th to 45th. His was to be a "bring us together" presidency. To help those who were financially hurt by COVID, of course. But why didn't the legislation include a provision to exclude Capital Gains and Losses (we CPA's call that MAGI - Modified Adjusted Gross Income), which allowed some to qualify for the Stimulus on a technicality? Infrastructure? yes, too many politicians had ignored it for too long. But legislation like this so-called Inflation Reduction Act as well as all too much of the Infrastructure act, which look like a grab bag of social projects, are not how to go about healing a divided country. Classified documents? Best have laid low on Trump, for Joe has same problem going back far longer than has Trump's.
While I won't call Joe's a "failed presidency", I certainly will call it "disappointing".
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
I would go for dead last, based on general incompetence for both him and cabinet. I would call it a failed presidency. The press cheering section for him is amazing. It is like a ball game where the referees are pushing for one team to win, no matter how bad they play. And yes, we did do countdown charts in some form or fashion for the Nam tour. My tour got shortened by 6 weeks due to the cut in obligated time due to an oversupply of junior officers by mid to late 1971. (For OCS inmates, we referred to OCS time as equivalent to stockage time, as your obligation clock did not start running until your date of commission.)
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here's the Scholars'Fourth Quartile and my addition of Joe @38 within such:
35 Taylor 36 Hoover 37 Harding 38 Biden 39 Fillmore 40 Tyler 41 W H Harrison 42 Trump 43 Pierce 44 Johnson 45 Buchanan
I place Joe immediately behind Harding because I still hold that he will not complete the term that will end with a resignation. Such could come as early as tomorrow's SOTU.
Harding had a corrupt administration and died in office; be it assured that there will be 223 House Republicans looking for such in Joe's - in or out of office will matter not.
Finally, I trust it is noted that six of this "rogues gallery" did not serve a full term (seven if Joe joins them)
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
The basis of this is…?
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Just my instinct from having followed world and national affairs for over seventy years.
Simply to be in the Scholar's Fourth Quartile is disgrace enough.
However, on the other side, here is a Times columnist holding that Joe has been a "Great" president Presumably worthy of the Scholar's First Quartile, but who should rest on his laurels and not seek a second term:
Fair Use:
When President Biden gives his State of the Union address on Tuesday, he will have a lot to boast about.
He’s presided over record job creation and the lowest unemployment rate in over 50 years. ... His Inflation Reduction Act made a historic investment in clean energy; the head of the International Energy Agency called it the most important climate action since the 2015 Paris climate accord.....Biden rallied Western nations to support Ukraine against Russia’s imperialist invasion and ended America’s long, fruitless war in Afghanistan, albeit with an ugly and ignominious exit. ...and shot down that spy balloon everyone was freaking out about. He’s on track to appoint more federal judges than Trump.
In other words, Biden has been a great president.... But he should not run again.
Messrs. Harris and Helfner, it is my duty to respect that you both appear less Liberal than am I. I also must respect I am considerably less so than my Sister (Bachelor's Smith; Master's Columbia), who considers Trump to have been - and will be again when his eight year term is resumed - as one of our five greatest presidents.
Now I think all should recognize that the Scholars are from academic backgrounds, and as such are likely Liberal leaning. I certainly disagree with their First Quartile rating handed to Obama, who to me was just in the Second. True, he got healthcare, which withstood an attempt to repeal during the Trump administration, but what else? I don't consider him overly successful in pursuing other parts of his legislative agenda, such as gun control.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
SOTU;
Well, he didn't (resign)
And, he didn't "answer the big question" (will he run in '24?)
addendum: an NBC News correspondent noted Joe's "let's finish the job" was a signal that "he's running".
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Grief; ostensibly conservative Peggy Noonan, writing in The Journal, as good as holds that Joe has already been re-elected to his second term. The biggest issue to attaining that goal is "the Kamala problem":
Fair Use:
“Their problem is Kamala Harris. She’s an absolute, total lightweight. She doesn’t have the touch.” The touch is that indefinable thing that makes people like you, root for you, sense some magic in you. “Some people have it and some people don’t.” California politicos in both parties, he says, were shocked when Biden chose her as vice president in 2020.
What to do about Ms. Harris? “It’s a real problem. Biden has to show leadership on it and let the party know what he wants—and enforce it. It’s a messy situation but Biden has to be involved in it. He’s gonna have to decide.”
The source of the immediate quote is Stuart Spencer - a now 96yo Reagan operative.
Within the column, there are inferences that Trump is "done for" and that, if the "fire" that Joe had on display to the world at the SOTU, "he's in for '24".
Furthermore, Times columnist Maureen Dowd is even more direct than is Peggy:
Fair Use:
WASHINGTON — Everyone is frantically hunting for clues about whether Joe Biden will run again.
His State of the Union speech was dissected for intimations. When he kept using the phrase “finish the job,” was that a hint?
Where is Daniel Craig’s “Knives Out” detective when we need him?
Asked about his decision in a Telemundo interview on Thursday, the 80-year-old president replied, “I’m just not ready to make it.”
When my colleagues Frank Bruni and Michelle Goldberg, and I write “Hey, Joe, Don’t Give It a Go” columns suggesting that he bow out on top, is the president listening and pondering what we say?
Nah. Guess what, political sleuths? It’s not really a Scooby-Doo mystery. No need to consult a soothsayer and tremble on the edge of your seats.
Joe Biden is running. And that’s no malarkey.
Well, so much for my thoughts that the SOTU was going to be the "Sunset" of Joe's two year presidency. What remains for me is will I vote for him? Could Joe captain the domestic "Ship of State"? Probably; he has shown that he can assemble a group of competent advisors that represent strength and stability (compare turnover to date with Trump's after two years). But what happens when Joe is sitting down "one on one" with Putin, Xi, or whoever the "Mullah of the Day" is in Iran. Will he "give away the store" without realizing it?
Food for thought when trekking to the school, library, or fire house on "that Tuesday in November".
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
quote:Messrs. Harris and Helfner, it is my duty to respect that you both appear less Liberal than am I. …
I try to avoid that loaded term as much as I can, particularly when it has been co-opted by the Marxists for many decades, and again when the term “libertine” would be better with respect to social libertinism such as it is. From the perspective of the USA, one is either pro-Constitution or anti-Constitution.
quote:Now I think all should recognize that the Scholars are from academic backgrounds, and as such are likely Liberal leaning. I certainly disagree with their First Quartile rating handed to Obama, who to me was just in the Second. True, he got healthcare, which withstood an attempt to repeal during the Trump administration, but what else? I don’t consider him overly successful in pursuing other parts of his legislative agenda, such as gun control. …
Again, this redounds to the question as to whether a POTUS is pro-Constitution or anti-Constitution. Obama is infamous for openly stating his desire to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”, which implies either ripping up the Constitution or twisting it into something unrecognizable by the Founding Fathers. That is a goal of the communists:
quote:In (the United States of) America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party that will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat …
That quote from Friedrich Engels’ The Principles of Communism shows how far back the targeting of the Constitution goes, whose “negative liberties” (as Obama put it) guaranteed that government could not invasively control people’s lives and protected the rights listed in the Bill of Rights. One of those rights is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”; the societal irony continues to be that those areas where that right is unconstitutionally removed are the ones most plagued with violence, whether with gun or other weapon. And as for health care, that was extant before the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, and frankly, there is far less of it now.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
From Hilton Suites Boca Raton--
There is a photo on the front page of today's Journal showing "Ukrzaliznytsia Joe" and "Volo" standing in front of an oft-photoed church in Kiev.
Sorry to note that Joe simply looks like "a stiff"; honestly to see this photo simply makes one wonder if he can last through the the 23 months remaining in his term (guess I was mistaken with my prediction of his resignation).
That, as a "not exactly" popular politician standing next to likely the most popular one in the world, does not help in showing off any vitality he may have left.
Addendum:
The Times covered the event.
Posted by irishchieftain (Member # 1473) on :
Politico now speculating Biden may not run after all, saying the wait seems too long.
Newsom, Pritzker and NJ’s Murphy cited as possible contenders/pretenders.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
I'm pleased to learn of the Politico report that Mr. Helfner has shared.
As a "career politician", Joe attained the highest prize - the Presidency.
Now why would he wish to go out with a loss - the only one in his career - to the likes of Trump or DeSantis. I think he is starting to recognize that he will lose to either Republican front runner, so it is time now to rest on his laurels from a fifty year political career.
Joe; Champ and Commander want to have a little 'rasslin, and you also would like to take an X-country rail trip or two (the Secret Service will not deny that to a Former President), and maybe leave this planet as revered as Jimmy Carter (Scholars;26th of 44) has become.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Here's one Times Guest Columnist and longtime political operative, who to ruling out Kamala as either an effective force to fill out an unexpired term, or as the Dems '24 nominee, is a "not so fast".
Fair Use:
I have watched politicians up close for decades. And I have known Vice President Harris for years and urged Joe Biden to make her his running mate in 2020. I believe that the criticism of her is unrelated to her performance as vice president and fails to account for the role she plays in the White House.
As a consequential and successful vice president himself for eight years under Barack Obama, President Biden has a keen understanding of the job he once held and he has tasked Vice President Harris with major responsibilities. She has done an outstanding job and her record in two years stands up to that of her predecessors. Has she solved every problem? No, but name me one vice president who has.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Real Clear composite of polls show that, at this time, Trump will walk away with the '24 GOP nomination. For Joe, should he seek the Democratic nomination, the Convention will simply be a Coronation.
But those same polling sources reviewed as a composite by RCP show that Trump will narrowly beat Joe and become POTUS47.
Surely, there are "powers that be" within the Democratic party that think Joe - because there is a chance he could win - should "take one for the team". That, as I noted earlier, is simply too much to ask of a "career politician" who attained the top prize. Let some of the names Mr. Helfner immediately noted "take the fall". They have still much of their political career ahead and could recover from the "hit".
Now there is much evidentiary out there suggesting that polls, in this day when there has been a communications revolution not seen since the days of Alexander Graham (and maybe even Guttenberg), have lost their way, and it's time to echo the refrain of many a sure loser in the past's favorite quote that "the only poll that counts is that taken on Tuesday November 5th".
Just some additional thoughts arising from Mr. Helfner's astute observation that "there must be indecision in 'Joedom'" as the experts thought he would have announced, one way of the other, by now.
Lest we forget; less than a year to go before the first primary or caucus.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
. To "that Joe", who I personally could accept as a Democratic (I'll never vote Third Party again; did that once and once only) nominee, "either seek the prize of get out of the ring".