Hey Dems, Biden is only getting older


There is an element of Scooby-Dooism to the Democrats’ erroneous conviction that, if they just insist vehemently enough that Joe Biden is not, in fact, clearly too old to be president of these United States, they will be able to persuade the public that it is true. “We would have got away with it,” Biden’s apologists seem to be muttering aloud, “if it hadn’t been for that pesky Robert Hur!”

Which, of course, is quite inordinately silly. There is no chance that the Democrats will be able to get around Joe Biden’s obvious decline, given that the people to whom they are talking are privy to the same information as they are. At this point, the observation that Joe Biden is for all intents and purposes defunct is not an opinion so much as a self-evident fact. Were Biden to seek a job in the private sector, he would be rejected. Were he to apply for a driver’s license, he would be denied. Human beings know full well what decline looks like, and they can see it in their president. The man is decrepit, enfeebled, unsound. To pretend otherwise in the year 2024 is all-but to out oneself as a hireling. That ship, I’m afraid, has been sunk.

“An overwhelming majority of Americans,” ABC News noted yesterday “think President Joe Biden is too old to serve another term.” And an “overwhelming majority” it is: 86 percent of respondents — including 73 percent of Democrats. When, I wonder, was the last time we saw a number like that connected with a political question? Social Security, the “third rail” of American politics, has an approval rating of 76 percent. Medicare’s favorability is at 68. 86 percent is the sort of number you get when you ask if the sky is blue or if cars have wheels or if water is important to sustaining life. One would struggle to find 86 percent support for pepperoni pizza at the We Love Pepperoni Pizza convention. That Biden has hit that level already is, if I may borrow a colorful phrase, a “Big f***ing deal.”

Do the Democrats comprehend this? Apparently, they do not. At Politico, Jonathan Lemire proposes that “Democrats want to see Biden engage with the press and voters in the off-script and punchy exchanges he’s been known for in the past, which they believe will help chip away at concerns about the president’s mental acuity.” But there are two fatal flaws to this exceedingly cunning plan.

The first flaw lies in the claim that, if he wished to, Joe Biden would be capable of delivering “off-script and punchy exchanges” in a way that would “chip away” at the public’s “concerns.” Lemire notes that Biden has been “known for” such conduct “in the past.” This is true. And yet the key words there are “in the past.” Biden used to be capable of extemporaneous belligerence. Now, however, he is not. If he tries this, he will fail, and, in failing, he will make his situation considerably worse.

The second flaw lies in Lemire’s peculiar assumption that, if Biden did behave in this manner, a sizeable portion of the voting public would thrill to it. As an alternative to Donald Trump, Joe Biden is palatable. As an offering per se, he is not. There is nobody in America who is yearning to watch a “punchy” Joe Biden press conference, and, in all the annals of American history, there never has been. For decades, Biden has been a bad joke — a Prince Philip without the charm or extenuating circumstances. To “let Biden be Biden” has never been a solid plan, and it’s not now, either. It was no accident that, during his last election campaign, Biden stayed almost completely out of view.

The other avenues of defense seem equally disastrous. Shortly after the release of Robert Hur’s report, the White House insisted that Biden’s “diminished faculties and faulty memory” were the product of his having been exhausted by the fallout of the October 7 attacks on Israel. But what, exactly, are voters supposed to take from that? The presidency is a hectic job, and the world is invariably chaotic. Are we to conclude that, from this moment on, those two things are set to change? Per Robert Hur, Biden appeared to be a “well-meaning elderly man with a poor memory,” who could not “remember when he was vice president,” nor “even within several years, when his son Beau died,” and whose “memory appeared hazy” when discussing the war in Afghanistan. To which the counterargument is what? That if nothing important happens in the world before January 20, 2029, the president of the United States will remain capable of recalling basic details about his life? That’s not much of a bumper sticker, is it?

Asked whether she would rather be beautiful or smart, Donald Trump’s ridiculous lawyer, Alina Habba, explained recently that she’d prefer to be beautiful if given the choice, because she expected to be able to “fake being smart.” As it turned out, Habba was wrong: She could not fake being smart, because the people who were expected to buy her act also got a vote on the question. Joe Biden and his team have the same problem in a different form: President Biden cannot fake being competent because the people who are ultimately empowered to judge his competence have no great obligation to pretend that they cannot see the truth. It is obvious why the Democratic Party would urge the public to close its eyes, and it is obvious, too, why the institutional progressive movement and the mainstream media would consent to go along. But for most people, the question is straightforward and unencumbered: “Is Joe Biden too old to be president?” The answer, naturally, is “Yes.”

Dan Butcher

Dan Butcher (aka HP Pundit) is not a Democrat or Republican. He is a free thinking independent bringing you news and commentary with a dose of much needed common sense.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post