438 Comments

Trump again was stupid self-promoting Trump. How else can we explain why he jumped at his first unprecedented debate with Biden BEFORE the convention. Had he waited to debate until after the convention it would have been much harder to replace Biden. Trump once again played right into the Democrats' hands.

Expand full comment

Substantively the Democrats started to lose Oct. 7, 2023. Gaza is what's sinking them, and will continue to sink them. If ONE of the constituents of their fringe coalition starts to bleed they're cooked. It's the only explanation for their lunatic hard lurch to the left since then. They're going to have to shoot Trump to keep him out of the White House.

Expand full comment

I don’t entirely agree with your explanation. The lunatic lurch is because they let the fringe in: they are not just constituents, they are at the top levels of the party apparatus. Only an internecine party bloodbath can save them, and only then does your scenario come to pass.

Expand full comment

I just noted in a comment the primary system allows the crazies and the single-issue axe-grinders to run the show.

Expand full comment

I have long agreed with this. IMO only ending closed primaries can save the Republic.

Expand full comment

Hasn't helped much in California. In the general election, the 2 Democratic canidates recieved combined 2 to 3 million votes LESS than the combined votes for Hillary and Trump.

I seemed to be the only person in the whole state that noticed this.

I casted a blank.vote myself.

Expand full comment

I'm confused: I wrote about primaries, and you brought up the general election as a counterpoint. Without more info I can't see where you are headed (other than the fact that California has too many kooks, a fact that no electoral reform will fix).

Expand full comment

There is a longer history to primaries. Until the early 20th century, party regulars met and nominated a candidate, there were no primaries. That was OK as long as their was fluidity to parties -- when the old parties were out of touch, new parties emerged, and voters had choices, like the Republican Party in 1860. But, when those doors were closed and the "Two Party System" was engineered to make sure the GOP would be the last insurgent third party to actually reach a position of power and influence and electoral success, voters began to worry that they had no voice in who their choices would be. So progressive reformers began instituting primaries. The point was to take nomination out of smoke filled rooms and let the people decide. When it comes to presidential politics, in particular, only a handful of states had primaries, and some of those were non-binding "beauty contests," while others had laws requiring delegates to vote on the first round for the candidate who won the primary. It wasn't until the 1970s and 1980s that most states held primaries. Since these were generally first past the post, and, in most states voters had to register a party affiliation to vote in a primary, this meant that, e.g., Donald Trump could win about a third of the vote in a series of states and come to a convention with an overwhelming majority of pledged delegates. That is the problem JonF is pointing to. This is all complicated by back and forth litigation in the courts about whether political parties are private associations with the right to set their own rules. I agree that a wide open primary in which everyone can vote for anyone, combined with order of preference voting or a top two or three runoff, or both, would come close to representing the will of the people.

Expand full comment

Don't you think that each party got the candidate they wanted in this election? As much as I (like Mr. Dreher) would have preferred DeSantis, he's not who Republicans wanted. No tweaking of any system would have changed that.

Expand full comment

Substantively the Democrats started to lose Oct. 7, 2023. Gaza is what's sinking them, and will continue to sink them.

Foreign policy is never crucial to elections except in situations where American troops are fighting and dying. People care about the price of gas, and the like. Very few people without direct personal connections to overseas fracases are going to let the antics of a bunch of feuding foreigners halfway around the world decide their vote.

Expand full comment

It’s not about foreign policy. It’s about antisemitism.

Expand full comment

It's not antisemitic to oppose the Netanyahu regime. And it's an old tactic to tar an entire party with the rhetoric of some crazy pants activists-- the Democrats did it to the GOP for years with old Fred Phelps and his band. But I don't think elections are decided by that.

Most Americans don't care about these gotcha games, which work better as confirmation bias for those whose minds are already made up. They'll vote according to the usual factors (e.g., "It's the economy stupid") and now Joe Biden's mental fitness will likely prove a factor too. As may unforeseen events between now and November.

Expand full comment

Opposing Netanyahu isn't anti-semitic, but once you start flying the flag of Hamas (as has been widely done) I think you've crossed a line.

Expand full comment

In the 60s there were anti-Vietnam protesters who went around chanting Ho Chih Minh's name and even waved Mao's little red book. Were they pro-Communist? Or just going over the top in their opposition to the war?

Expand full comment

Netanyahu funded Hamas though

Expand full comment

Have you seen the "protestors"?

I very much doubt enough Jews will desert them Dems to make a difference. But enough BIPOCs may stay at home. It doesn't matter Biden is cooked.

Expand full comment

BIPOCs? What, are the protesters dressed in KKK robes?

Expand full comment

Yeah even before the debate, Biden was being criticized by Jewish Democrats for not being pro Israel enough & by Arab & Muslim voters for being too pro Israel.

Expand full comment

It's hurting him bad.

Expand full comment

When it comes to Israel, there is no difference between Biden and Trump. Both are Zionists.

Expand full comment

Not according to the donors.

Expand full comment

Not that there’s anything wrong with that in my opinion. The Jews are the indigenous people of Israel & the Arabs are the Johnny come latelies & colonizers. So Zionism is just the belief that the Jews need a homeland. So in that sense, I’m a Zionist. But there’s a difference in believing Israel has a right to exist versus being down with Bibi & the settlers. The people criticizing Biden & siding with Trump are the Bibi crowd.

Trump moved the US Embassy to Jerusalem & said Israel should “finish the job” in Gaza. Biden has been calling for a ceasefire. So there is a difference.

Expand full comment

Re: The Jews are the indigenous people of Israel & the Arabs are the Johnny come latelies & colonizers.

Palestinians are not "Arabs". They are the distant descendants of the people who have lived in the region since the Bronze Age-- in other words they descend from the ancient Jews too.

Expand full comment

A lot of Muslims supported George W. Bush in 2000, because of moral issues like abortion and gay marriage. They swung hard to the Dems because of Bush's "crusade" as he ineptly put it. Not that they supported Al Qaeda, but the pretextual invasion of Iraq, when Saddam Hussein was an avowed enemy of bin Laden and vice versa, really spooked them. Where they'll go now is anyone's guess.

Expand full comment

My guess is they’ll stay home. Can’t see them voting for Trump.

Expand full comment

That no one in the entire government realized what the word “crusade” meant, especially after 9-11, spoke volumes about American ignorance.

Expand full comment

Gaza will be the death of Biden this cycle. He has no.good answer to this trying to.please both.sides.

Expand full comment

Yes. That’s it. Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.

Expand full comment

Americans do not vote on foreign policy grounds as long as American soldiers are not dying.

Expand full comment

Usually true, but this issue divides important elements of the Democract party.

Expand full comment

It divides the GOP too.

But it's not a top issue for almost anyone.

Expand full comment

Biden will not step down, and they cannot force him out. Also, they chose the format. Which played to Trump's strengths and took the edge off his weaknesses. They played themselves.

Expand full comment

I disagree. Watch: the media will start grooming us for the invocation of the 25th amendment. Biden could be gone in a month.

Expand full comment
Jun 28·edited Jun 28

I'm waiting for the announcement that Biden has died. Then they don't have to deal with any controversy, and whomever gets appointed will get the sympathy vote, and the left can admonish Trump any time he says something negative because shame shame, how dare you disrespect the deceased President.

Expand full comment
founding

A wise take I hadn’t thought of. Thanks

Expand full comment

That means Kamala becomes president.

Expand full comment

And maybe that's who becomes the nominee then...

Expand full comment

And she is already polling worse than Biden against Trump. California doesn't play in Peoria -- which means Gavin Newsome is a non-starter too.

Expand full comment

This is the play I’ve been expecting for a while. If the D’S cared about governance they would have invoked the 25th a while ago.

Expand full comment

Kamala Harris will be "appointed".

Expand full comment

If Biden dies, it's Kamala.

Expand full comment
founding

If they do the 25th amendment thing does Biden have a choice?

I was very suspicious last night as the reactions to Biden were so uniform, so devastating and so widespread that they seemed coordinated. They have to have a clear plan going forward. And that clear plan could be to have Harris coordinate a 25th amendment response for the good of the country. This would make her look like a good leader in a crisis which might be enough for her to beat Trump. In this scenario she could actually run against Biden’s record too.

Expand full comment

You seem to have thos idea they are this well oiled machine. I don't see it.

Expand full comment

Ever see an engine with a blown gasket? It, too, is a "well oiled" machine.

Expand full comment

Took me a minute to get that.

Expand full comment

True. A well oiled machine would have have rallied behind Biden as they have in the first place.

Expand full comment
founding
Jun 29·edited Jun 29

I really hope they’re just buffoons.

Expand full comment

No Biden is out if he is declared incapacitated under the 25th Amendment. I agree with you on Harris.

Expand full comment

No amount of "makeover" can hide Kamala's flaws but, yes, she smells blood and is circling the waters like a shark.

Expand full comment

The 25th Amendment is actually a little complicated. A short version is that Vice-President Harris and a majority of the cabinet can remove President Biden. However Biden can challenge his removal. The challenge is voted on by Congress with a two-thirds majority in each house required to maintain Biden's removal. Otherwise Biden is back. Hypothetically, here is how it would go.

1. Vice-President Harris and a majority of the Cabinet would sign a letter asserting that President Biden is unable to discharge the duties of President. The letter would be sent to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate. At that point, Vice-President Harris becomes Acting President and assumes the duties of the President.

2. However, President Biden could challenge this action. He would sign a letter asserting that he is now able to resume the duties of the President and send it to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.

3. Vice-President Harris and a majority of the Cabinet would then have four days to dispute this assertion by again sending a letter asserting that President Biden is unable to discharge the duties of President to the Speaker of the House and the President Pro-Tempore of the Senate.

4. The dispute of President Biden's assertion of competence then goes to Congress. The Senate and the House have 21 days to vote on the dispute. A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress is required to keep Vice-President Harris as Acting President. Otherwise, President Biden resumes the duties of President.

Also, Biden is not limited to one challenge. If he loses his first challenge, he can challenge again . . . and again . . . and again.

Expand full comment

Perhaps Mitch McConnell might ride to the defense of Biden and fight any 25th Amendment attack on Biden, his friend.

Expand full comment

Hmm. We could start a conspiracy theory. "They" drugged Biden before the debate to get rid of him. No, I don;t mean that seriously-- but it is odd that the very next day he seemed fine when giving a campaign speech. We all have our bad days, even in our youth (though alcohol and all-nighters may play a role at that age), but is it normal for someone to swing so wildly? I live with an 87 year old cousin and she's on pretty even keel, with an allowance for different energy levels.

Expand full comment

Bet.

Expand full comment

Ok! What was the currency on Triskelion?

Expand full comment

Quadloos. Whoever wins buys the winner a year sub to this forum

Expand full comment

And then we've got Harris, who by my best guess is hooked on benzos (sort of like drunk, but not quite)? This will be fantastic; the Dems have no bench.

Expand full comment

Look at the bright side: having Harris on the ticket will keep Gary ‘mommy-killer’ Newsom and every other crazy Californian off it.

Expand full comment

Aren't you forgetting that she is also a crazy Californian?

Expand full comment

Nope, I didn’t forget. That’s why I wrote ‘other’. 😁

Expand full comment

A majority of the cabinet, the vice president, and a 2/3 majority in both houses of Congress would be required to remove an unwilling Biden via the 25th.

Highly unlikely.

Expand full comment

You think the Republicans will be able to keep Biden in after saying he's not competent? That's highly unlikely.

The outcome really depends on what the media decides.

Expand full comment

Of course. It only takes a few.

Expand full comment

Republicans would vote that he is indeed well qualified and capable, the way Democrats voted to sustain the current Speaker of the House.

Expand full comment

Bingo. Or perhaps Obama, Schumer and Pelosi visiting the White House to implore Biden to hang it up.

Expand full comment

Meh, Biden was so bad it doesn't matter. When literally the entire Democratic establishment is freaking out and either calling to replace Biden or saying (as I heard this morning) "You have to understand you're electing and ADMINISTRATION when you vote for President..." Biden is toast.

Expand full comment

The administration is far worse than the candidate.

Expand full comment

Or they might have come up with some way to put off or alter the debate. Maybe after the court ruling the democrats could have said Biden had no need to speak to a convicted criminal or something.

Hitting the debate right now was the best idea, it basically takes all the heat off the new york case shenanigans and gets people panicking about Biden's dementia

Expand full comment

honestly the Dems created this clusterfuck. there is nothing that can save them now IMHO.

Expand full comment

"Stuff" happens, and I wouldn't be surprised by anything happening. I won't elaborate, but it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that neither candidate will be on the ballot when we go to vote in November.

Expand full comment

Exactly right if you believe the debate was an insider effort to force Biden off the ballot in November. There's never been a presidential debate this early in the season. After Biden's pathetic performance, there's now a 30 percent chance Biden will not be the nominee in November. Biden and Harris are probably the only two Democrats Trump can beat. But Trump wanted TV time so he agreed to the debate.

Expand full comment

The problem is that the Democrats have allowed themselves to become a Politburo of sorts, a gerontocracy that is sclerotic and dedicated largely to preserving its own power and wealth. Joe Biden is the perfect example of this and is now showing how broken the Democratic Party is as well. The nation is ill, but there is no leadership to handle what is coming up. I don’t think Biden is going to be replaced. It is too late into the election season, and the reality is that these problems have been known for a while. The big question is how the failing regime will respond to the next coming crisis.

Expand full comment

They should have known better than to expect "Its Hillary's turn now" to play after Obama won the nomination in 2008. Unfortunately, Obama himself was complicit in that play.

Expand full comment

"Can anybody not all-in on the Trump personality cult really believe that the garrulous braggart who helped Biden demolish himself last night is the best we can do?"

Was Franklin Pierce? Rutherford Hayes? Warren Harding? Harry Truman? George W. Bush?

Expand full comment

Anyone of those guys, yes even Bush, was Trump's superior in multiple ways. whatever their follies they were fundamentally decent men.

Expand full comment
deletedJun 28
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

I see no connection at all between those two sentences.

Expand full comment

Trump also got us closer to energy independence than we ever were. He also nominated 3 solid Supreme Court justices. And as a businessman, he understands Econ 101. I wanted De Santis, but I'm glad to be able to vote for Trump against our Potemkin president.

Expand full comment

Not Bush. I've seen Bush's policies, as opposed to Trump. Being "fundamentally decent" doesn't matter if you suck as president.

Expand full comment
founding

Carter, by all accounts, was really smart and really nice.

Expand full comment

Exactly. And a disaster.

Expand full comment

And terrible presidents. I'd rather have an executive like Nixon or Trump with a massive ego and also a competence to match

Expand full comment

Nixon had a paranoia problem, but he was politically highly competent. Trump is anything but.

Expand full comment

Oh, I don’t know…Trump has been ahead in the polls for months. I don’t know how you define “politically competent”, but he’s got the GOP, even McConnell, in the bag. Plus a bunch of swing voters out in the provinces that matter.

Expand full comment

He's had a slight lead in some polls, but within the margin for error. Biden had been eroding that to the point that a few polls were giving him a slight kead. Really, it's been neck and neck.

Trump in his first term was clueless as to how to work with even a GOP Congress. His one attempt at making an immigration deal was torpedoed by that shrill harridan, Ann Coulter- you'd think he could at least have blown her right off.

Expand full comment

Or it was a GOP Congress that didn't want to make a difference.

Expand full comment

Nobody has a majority in any polls, which says more than splitting hairs about who has the biggest minority.

Expand full comment

Nixon was highly intelligent but I don't think he was politically all that competent. And he wanted John Connelly to replace him.

Expand full comment

Trump lacks the competence. He blows an errant thought out of his mouth every five minutes, having no connection to the last errant thought, and substitutes larding his sentences with random adjectives for familiarity with relevant facts.

Expand full comment

I thought Truman did a good job handling the huge burden that fell on him especially since FDR didn’t keep him in the loop. Talk about history repeating itself! By 1944, FDR was a very sick man & he should not have run for a 4th term. The Axis powers were substantially defeated by November 1944. FDR let Stalin roll him because he was just too ill to stand up to him.

Expand full comment

Truman had only been in office for a few months as VP. He presumably would have been read-in eventually.

Expand full comment

Truman was one of our better presidents. He had a lot on his plate when he became president in 1945.

Expand full comment

How dare you, sir. Warren Harding is the most underrated president in American history.

Expand full comment

Caligula was crazy, but I've always thought he was in one of his lucid moments when he appointed his horse, Incintatus, to the Roman Senate, for it was an act of contempt rather than madness, showing how little he respected any authority other than his own.

Biden has been the elites' horse; we weren't supposed to notice, or care if we did, that his presidency has been an exercise in the elder abuse of a man in very useful cognitive decline; he doesn't get in the way. Now, they've ridden that broken-down horse as far as it will take them, so it's off to the knacker for Ol' Joe to join Animal Farm's Boxer.

Expand full comment
author

Matt Labash said in the NYT today that Biden came off like he was "auditioning for the glue factory"

Expand full comment

Well, it is a political horse race after all .... first past the post and all that.

Expand full comment

I am convinced that Frum is a pathological liar. I didn't have to read the rest of the Atlantic column to get the gist.

Expand full comment

Problem is, they cannot make him step down. He and DOCTOR Jill are going to hang on by their wretched fingernails. Dems made this bed, now they get to lay in it.

Expand full comment

Look for the Dems to do everything they can to make Jill an 'offer she can't refuse' to have Joe step aside. If the Bidens refuse nonetheless, it will be fascinating to see what crooks and hooks come out to effect Joe's removal because I think they will try. Whether they succeed is another question, but I think they'll find a way.

Expand full comment

The Dems are not nearly the all powerful cabal they pose as. They have not the wisdom, intellect or wit. The world they seek to create and the policy they execute is proof. I think there may be some flailings, but it won't be good for much more than comedy. Those the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

Expand full comment

Yes I think I'm with you on that one. I'm not buying the "Trump fell into the diabolic Democrat's trap! Now they can get rid of Biden and nominate someone who will beat Trump!" (And if they did think that it's a remarkably stupid plan for reasons I outlined elsewhere, essentially kicking the checkerboard when you think you're going to lose)

Expand full comment

What would need to happen would be for a majority (or at least a large percentage) of the Biden delegates at the convention to buck and declare that they are not supporting Biden. That is, I believe, against the "rules", at least for pledged delegates. So it would be kind of a rules crisis.

The Democrats have superdelegates (insiders) who are all unpledged, but there are not enough of them to determine the outcome unless the pledged delegates break the rules (assuming Biden doesn't withdraw -- if he withdraws, his pledged delegates are free to vote for whomever).

Expand full comment

My understanding is that in the first vote, pledged delegates *must* vote for Biden. After that, they're free. Biden has enough to assure selection, so if the powers that be are hell bent on removing him, they will have to get creative.

Expand full comment

Right -- unless they break the rules, which would create a rules crisis. Those are party rules (each party has its own rules). I could imagine a vote to suspend the rules due to a state of emergency, or some such thing, at the convention.

Expand full comment

That will definitely happen if President Harris is already sworn in.

Expand full comment

Rules? Rules?? Rules??? Before money and power? You break me up!

Expand full comment

Rules are meant to be broken.

Expand full comment

The bylaws specifically state that delegates can't do that. Biden has won 3900 of the 4000 delegates, and there are no take-backs.

Expand full comment

Right. I am well aware it would be against the rules, as I said. These are party rules, though, not laws. The party ultimately enforces them.

Expand full comment

No, I'm pretty sure these bylaws are enforced via some sort of contract. you can break a Democratic party rule, but not a contract.

Expand full comment

Even if they are laws, the Democrats would not let themselves be bound by them.

Expand full comment

Right. If Schumer, Pelosi, Obama, Taylor Swift, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar came out to dump Joe Biden, he will be dumped.

Expand full comment

They will get their media allies to start the drumroll, and in a few weeks dumping Joe will be seen as inevitable.

Expand full comment
author

Keep in mind that Jill Biden is not a physician. She's an, um, "doctor" of education

Expand full comment

Yes. Rod. Hence, the mockery. Usually, those who have docorates in her field who pretentiously wave around their degrees are mediocre douchbags

Expand full comment

Also the EdD is not a real doctoral credential; it's more akin to a master's degree.

Expand full comment

It used to be considered a breach of etiquette to flash around a non medical doctorate outside of academic circles. Signing a hotel register for example as Dr. could waste valuable time in an emergency if someone needed medical assistance. She is really a piece of work.

Expand full comment

Some people are obsessed with titles, usually worthless ones. And those same people are the ones who place their pronouns beneath the online degrees.

Expand full comment

I know someone who has the title "Honourable", being the grandson of a duke. It's only his mates in the pub who call him that, though!

Expand full comment

Academic titles have become our titles of nobility.

Expand full comment

Or within. At neither my undergraduate nor graduate schools did any of the faculty use their PhDs as honorifics. And these were people with PhDs from Harvard etc., in many cases.

Expand full comment

But they go quietly up the salary scale.

Expand full comment

Exactly, I have a PhD. For about 3 months after getting it, I started styling myself "Dr.", and then thought better of it. It took me about 20 years to get the bank, etc., to take "Dr." off my address, and people who saw my letters used to react with surprise!

Expand full comment

So she's not even qualified to pull out a splinter?

Expand full comment

Well, Wilson's wife and chief of staff set a precedent of sorts... of course that was near the end of Wilson's second term...

Expand full comment

When Senator Carter Glass of Virginia learned that Louisiana had sent Huey Long to the Senate, he remarked that "At least Caligula sent the whole horse."

Expand full comment

I actually wonder if this debate was a humiliation ritual because Biden pissed off some donors behind the scenes.

Knowing his mental state, they could have had him quietly step down much earlier. Instead they put his Swiss cheese brain in front of the entire world to see

Expand full comment

Never underestimate the Israeli lobby and their willingness to backstab or worse...

Expand full comment

Honestly was my first thought too. I noticed a definite turn when Biden didn't immediately bend the knee to Likud

Expand full comment

No. It was an effort to get Biden off the ballot.

Expand full comment

Here’s where the comparison of the US to the Soviet Union- while perhaps exaggerated- becomes apt: A supine, propagandist media covering up for a senile leadership.

Expand full comment

Exactly. The idea that the media has now done us a favor by exposing Biden’s mental incapacity is three, four years too late. They are fully complicit in this state of affairs.

Expand full comment

The difference is that our supine, propagandist media is voluntary, which is far worse.

Expand full comment

Re: I think it might have been the case that Democratic Party elites pushed this early debate because they knew how it would go, and they wanted to give themselves time to implement a Plan B.

I thought this update from Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit was interesting fly in the ointment:

UPDATE: A friend comments: “You know what’s really hilarious here is that ORDINARILY they might be able to replace him at the DNC. But they held the phony “virtual” DNC a few days back so as to make the Ohio ballot. He’s locked in! They nominated him! He’s their guy! They’re riding the bomb down like Slim Pickens on Wing Attack Plan R!”

I’m sure they’ll come up with some not-really-legal scheme that will nonetheless be upheld in court.

Expand full comment

“They’re riding the bomb down like Slim Pickens on Wing Attack Plan R!”

Yikes!

Expand full comment

“I’m sure they’ll come up with some not-really-legal scheme that will nonetheless be upheld in court.”

My expectation exactly

Expand full comment

Not going to happen. He's in. This is their just desserts. And lets see them choke on it.

Expand full comment

It looks like the update from Instapundit is likely incorrect. Did some digging and it looks like the DNC held a virtual meeting on whether to formally nominate Biden and voted to do this, but it has not yet held the virtual vote to formally nominate Biden. But the Ohio legislature passed a law to extend the time frame to accommodate the DNC, so the virtual vote to formally nominate Biden is unnecessary. Confused yet? Me too.

Expand full comment

The DNC virtual meeting that voted to approve a virtual vote to officially nominate Biden was held a few days ago... so that may be what the Instapundit commenter mistook for the official nomination? And who knows if my info or the commenter's info is correct? Sheesh! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Expand full comment

Another option is that no one is steering the ship, and we're seeing the results of a party being led by geriatrics, the worst of which being Biden.

They will probably try some trick to pull another candidate I'm, but at this point I doubt it's highly coordinated

Expand full comment

“If American liberal democracy has brought us to last night’s debate, between two candidates of that caliber, then people aren’t wrong to wonder if the system is still fit for purpose.”

That observation echoes the chilling question that Anton Chiguhr asked Carson Wells in “No Country for Old Men”: “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”

Expand full comment

https://youtu.be/xIRbBF0lLto?si=PXizb7HpeEHzCM-d

"It's the dismal tide. It's not the one thing."

Expand full comment

I think the Coen Brothers (or maybe Cormac McCarthy?) were being a little ironic with that scene (as with the title of that film!) but your point is well taken - there is a “dismal tide”.

Incidentally I think Tommy Lee Jones’ portrayal of Sheriff Ed Tom Bell is one of his finest performances. The last scene in the film is one of the most moving I have seen.

Expand full comment

i couldn't agree more! the last scene is just perfect. No Country is a movie i watch a couple of times a year.

Expand full comment

My 14-year-old son surprisingly wanted to watch the debate with me. After it was over I put my arm on his shoulder and said, "I'm sorry to leave you with a country like this"

Expand full comment

The main question is the last point! Who is running the country?! Should the 25th amendment be invoked? Lots of questions. What a mess!

Leaning on the true King to get me through this as there is only one Truth, and we need to embrace Him now!

Expand full comment

No matter who’s President, Jesus is King.

Expand full comment

But King Jesus never disputed that this world is Satan's kingdom.

Expand full comment

Absolutely. Amid all the yammering about how to replace Biden is there anyone that actually cares about our country among the Democrat party?

Expand full comment

"Reality will always re-assert itself"

Reality always snaps back. And when it does, it snaps back hard. We're witnessing it in real time.

Full disclosure: I'm a lot more forgiving of Trump than many of you folks here. We'll always be in his debt for keeping Hillary Clinton out of the Oval Office.

Expand full comment

"We'll always be in his debt for keeping Hillary Clinton out of the Oval Office."

Amen, and I feel that way about Obama in BOTH elections (though for different reasons)

Expand full comment

Oh, I don't know.

If Hilary had been elected, we'd have had the signal pleasure (if that's the word) of hearing Bill Clinton tell some ambitious, sweet young thing, "Hey sugar cookie. Nothing I do is an impeachable offense anymore."

Futurama would have accurately predicted the future.

Expand full comment

Unless poor old Bill met with an "accident".

Expand full comment

Until Mrs Obama appears at the last minute.

Expand full comment

If she's willing to do it she's hiding it really well. Her past comments about being annoyed about changing her life for her husband being president were unnecessarily strong if not honest. She claimed she hated him for 10 years of their marriage, more or less I think that would be working parent stress morphing into being in the public eye stress. She noted in retrospect that the press was unfair to her on her school lunch initiatives and what she wore on vacation. The annoyance seemed honest.

Expand full comment
Jun 30·edited Jun 30

You are right. I used to be friends with a Democratic Party inside. He said Michelle Obama hates politics. And now she and her husband are worth at least $100 million. She can live a life of luxury and not be bothered of the thousands of iritances that go with being president.

Expand full comment

“Reality always snaps back. And when it does, it snaps back hard. We're witnessing it in real time.”

But as T.S. Eliot observed, drawing on a major theme in both ancient Greek literature and the Scriptures, “Humankind cannot bear very much reality.”

Expand full comment

Reality is a dirty word for God, huh?

Expand full comment

No - just for fallen humanity

Expand full comment

Anyone but Trump would have beat her in a landslide. Anyone but Hillary would have beat Trump in a landslide. Yes, that includes Bernie Sanders. Trump's margin in some northern states was provided by people who had voted twice for Obama, then for Sanders, but couldn't stomach Clinton.

Expand full comment

Wish Rod understood that. He remains blinded by his own version of TDS. One doesn't have to be "a MAGA cultist" to see that. While I'd have preferred De Santis, I'm glad for the opportunity to vote for Trump against our Potemkin president.

Expand full comment

Great one, Rod!

I was really looking forward to your analyis on this today, checking my inbox every half an hour or so, and it didn't disappoint.

Just one thing I would like to say. Everyone, who wasn't a Democrat, already knew about Biden's cognitive decline and let's face it, senility. This is especially true in Europe, where people have more of an outside view on US politics. But, there is actually a problem with a sort of conspiratorial thinking on the Left, which isn't new, the Soviets were also susceptible to it.

It is simply the belief that the truth is a right-wing conspiracy theory.

So, for instance, whenever something bad happened in the Soviet system, it was always denied first and labelled a western or fascist conspiracy. Only when the truth became overwhelming and could not be denied any more, were the authorities and media outlets that spread their propaganda, forced to admit that the so-called conspiracy was the truth all along. This happened a lot with industrial accidents, such as Chernobyl, or even natural disasters. It's still something that China does to a ridiculous degree, suppressing all bad news and calling it Western or reactionary / fascist, etc... propaganda, until the truth can no longer be denied, which rarely happens due to the tight hold the party has on events.

I see a lot of parallels with the Democratic party establishment, obviously they are not on the level of the CCP, but they use a lot of the same shaming tactics and labelling everyone they don't like fascist or a conspiracy theorist. We certainly had a good taste of this in Hungary until 1991.

But, this is the problem, this sort of leftist conspiratorial thinking is its own worst enemy as people who are under its spell are simply unable to see obvious truths until it hits them right in the face. Biden's dementia is just the latest example, but we could go through the list from immigration, through crime, to the economy. The blinders are on and it takes events like this to bring a semblance of common sense into brainwashed people's thinking.

And yes, I know, the right also has an equivalent, but the right is not currently in power and conspiratorial thinking on the left is currently the bigger problem, impeding the normal functioning of democracy, the electoral process and the functioning of the government and media.

Expand full comment

Most people nowadays don't form their own opinions anyway. They read a headline which tells them what to think and go on from there.

That's why you'll notice do many liberals suddenly realizing Biden is decrepit--none of the years of video evidence mattered. They needed their signaling from the news headlines to change their view

Expand full comment

The Right is largely just reactionary. And it’s reacting to obvious stupidities in many cases. The Right therefore tends to avoid the problem of trying to justify a faulty program of positive measures. It’s when the Right also begins to pursue ideological programs—as W did in Iraq—that it gets into similar problems. One could also describe indiscriminate free trade, even with potential adversaries like China, as similar ideological stupidity. Had U.S. trade policy kept its free trade impulses contained within the portion of the world that doesn’t employ slave labor or harvest organs from Uighurs, we might be able to supply our military with enough ammunition today.

Expand full comment

My take is that party insiders pushed for the early debate in order to take things to a head: either Biden would dispel concerns about his viability, or he would fail to do so, but early enough to allow support for an alternative to coalesce. A risky strategy but perhaps the only one available to them in the face of a weak candidate who refuses to withdraw -- it creates a ton of pressure for him to do just that, that didn't exist 24 hours ago.

The pressure being brought to bear on the White House this morning by "friendly" media is nearly overwhelming. Biden is stubborn and he may just give everyone the finger anyway (quite possible that he does that), but the insiders had to at least try -- because they know (and certainly quite a few people in the WH itself would know) that Biden is cognitively cooked.

Sure, there are lots of practical difficulties with fielding a replacement. It remains to be seen what the party could do about those, but we shouldn't assume that they are insurmountable in theory or in practice. It's a high risk approach, but not a completely unreasonable one in the face of an unviable candidate who refuses to recuse himself.

In any case, if Biden does withdraw, this would not be good for the Republicans, necessarily. It would be a new situation, with new risks, for both sides, and it would be hard to predict what would happen there without knowing who the replacement is, the reaction of the party to them, and so on.

Expand full comment

A Biden middle finger just might invoke the 25th amendment

Expand full comment

And he can give them another middle finger if they do that.

It would take a 2/3 majority in the House AND the Senate to remove Biden via the 25th.

Expand full comment

It's not out of the question. Far from it, if the media storm is strong enough.

Expand full comment

I was going to skip the debate until I read how poorly Biden was doing. Wow.

As for the back-and-forth on "worst president" and then golf game, what was striking was how much Biden couldn't let these things go, and I wonder if Trump threw them in there to hijack Biden's train of thought or get him off script. Yeah, Trump gets hijacked with the "petty" as well, but he's still with it. Biden seemed to get confused as to how much of a lie he was trying to yell (6 or 8).

Expand full comment

As the philosophers say, Trump is not a liar, he is a bullshitter. Liars know the truth and avoid it, whereas bullshitters say whatever they wanna say, without the concept of truth ever even entering their heads. They might sometimes tell the truth by sheer inadvertence, since they don't care either way.

And honestly, I find Trump's commitment to bullshit to be very impressive, at an aesthetic level; it's almost beautiful. He's in his own league, there. He's more loyal to bullshit than he's ever been to his wives.

Expand full comment

Hits the nail on the head.

Expand full comment

He's also ignorant of history unless it is about himself. So Trump can say idiot things like he's the most popular Republican president amongst blacks ever because he doesn't know that blacks voted uniformly for Republicans until 1930. Even Nixon in 1960 won about one-third of the black vote.

Expand full comment

Again, though, I think the sheer lack of care for truth is his defining characteristic. You're still thinking like a rational human being and pointing out things like "facts", whereas he just really doesn't give a damn. He might tell the truth sometimes by accident, sort of like how if you throw darts blind, you'll hit the target every now and again.

Expand full comment

Puffery. You're gonna love it, I guarantee.

Expand full comment

Yes - it was weird how much Biden couldn’t let the golf thing go.

All I could keep thinking is that golf is a rich man’s game.

In the end, That was the least important thing in the debate, yet it was like the light finally came on in Biden’s head. The whole exchange was weird. I knew Biden had been declining, but -wow-the lights really aren’t on in there. It’s way worse than I thought and I thought it was pretty bad going into it. And he gets animated over golf. At a time when most people can barely keep up with their grocery bill. I don’t want Biden near a golf cart, let alone the nuclear codes.

Expand full comment

It does show his competitive nature. Which may be why he continues in the election race.

Expand full comment

Biden always was the corrupt incompetent stooge for the Establishment. That is why Obama picked him for VP and why the Dems picked him in 2020. They should have dumped him as the candidate and handpicked their next puppet, but there just wasn't anyone good enough, at least one they knew they could control.

Their best bet is RFK, Jr., but he opposes a number of Establishment issues and likely isn't controllable. Maybe they just throw in the towel, and just ride it out with Biden, and revert to full "destroy Trump presidency" mode.

They should just accept the loss and adopt the "let Trump self-destruct" mode. Stop opposing Trump and he will screw things up himself.

Expand full comment

We've seen four years of TRump policy. It was not a "screw up" presidency in policy terms.

Expand full comment

No kidding. Look at the recent SCOTUS opinions. Overruling Chevron deference is a BIG deal and good for freedom and the USA.

Expand full comment

Right?

Expand full comment

And, unbelievably, SCOTUS also decided rightly to overturn the use of a law enacted to address ENRON document shredding to apply "obstruction of an official proceeding" to J6 defendants.

There is no way that anyone thinking clearly would apply this. And this application also resulted in significantly lengthening (what I see as absurd in most cases) prison sentences.

Violent folks yes, but those just protesting Heck no.

Expand full comment

Nope. The judiciary simply transferred the regulatory from unelected bureaucrats to unelected judges, including themselves. A power grab in defense of powerful corporations and one that shall make reforming ourselves much more difficult if not impossible absent actual revolution.

Expand full comment

Jon,

Actually the power goes back to the legislature where it belongs. The project of restoring separation of power won't be one in a few decisions, but Roberts reasoning was clear. Not power for administrative judges nor for appointed judges.

If only Congress won't write their own legislation, clearly, rather than delegating it to lobbyists. But then the huge $$ bonuses available to these supposed "experts" would be diminished. And they don't want that.

Expand full comment

You are very wrong about this. First off, Congress always had the power to override any bureaucratic decisions by passing an update to whatever regulation that was based on. It did not need a Court decision for that to be true. But the recent Court decision says in effect "Bring any disagreements with the regulatory agencies to the courts." This is a recipe for chaos and confusion on a mass scale. And for further aggrandizement of the judiciary over the elected branches of government, An elitist result much beloved in corporate boardrooms.

Expand full comment

The best treatment on this subject was a book written 30 or more years ago: “The Litigation Explosion,“ by Walter K. Olson. The book alleged that Congress writes vaguely worded laws on purpose. By doing so, the individual candidates avoid making the hard choices that would tie themselves to explicit positions that would hurt people. Instead, they get to campaign on headlines and slogans advertising their empty accomplishments while maintaining plausible deniability when Americans butt up against their laws. The details are left for litigation to decide. If the decision of the courts become unpopular, well then, the same politicians can claim that they’re coming to the rescue.

Courts and bureaucrats serve as political cover. We need to wake up to this and hold the feet of politicians to the fire.

Expand full comment

Jon,

This is NOT what is happening in practice at all. You are misrepresenting the opinion, but then again, it appears you know more than the SCOTUS justices.

Expand full comment

Well I was interested in RFK Jr till I found out that a worm ate part of his brain, he’s a conspiracy nut & he drove his first wife to suicide.

Expand full comment

He appeals to enough casual voters that the Dems could use him to win. If they just want to stay in power, it is the best option.

Expand full comment

Pretty good reasons not to vote for Bobby Jr.

Expand full comment

The problem is there may be a lot of collateral damage in Trump's self-immolation.

I'm a "plague on both houses" kind of guy- but plagues tend to spread.

Expand full comment

How exactly do you imagine Trump will screw things up?

And since I'm a policy voter, I won't vote for pro abortion and pro-climate hysteira RFK.

That and I'd rather be shot dead (heh) than vote for a Kennedy

Expand full comment

Think Arnold in California. The Democrats opposed him, but then decided to flatter him. Arnold ditched his conservative policies and passed a bunch of left-wing garbage trying to be popular. Much of the current issues in California result from Arnold selling out.

The Dems could do the same to Trump and did with the Kardashian prison reform, which let out drug kingpins. As long as Trump got a few issues, he would give in on a bunch of others.

Expand full comment

As I remember, this was the worry some had about Trump's first term. But the visceral disgust the Democrat Party faithful have for the man seemed to put a stake right through the heart of any chance of this. I'm sure you've seen these people—they can't sit through five seconds of hearing Trump speak. So, while there may be some "bipartisanship" on the margins, I don't really worry too much about him going to the dark side.

Expand full comment

This will be the most consequential selection of a vice presidential candidate since Truman.

Expand full comment

I was just saying that last night. Trump often is as nonsensical as Biden & he’s 78, eats a terrible diet, doesn’t exercise, & is overweight. No matter who wins, I think the chances of the winner serving out 4 years are about 50-50 with Trump & 30-70 with Biden. 25th Amendment or dying in office.

Expand full comment

I think your odds are about right.

Expand full comment

There's a video out of Tucker Carlson speaking on Australia recently. After raking journalists over the coals in his speech about how they are trying to impress each other, not seek out truth, one of the journalists at the end was so "out there", it sounded like the Jordan Peterson BBC interview from a few years back.

Expand full comment
founding

I enjoyed these clips too

Expand full comment

I think there's grave doubt as to whether a sufficient number of Americans know or care enough about the constitutional system to keep it functioning as it should and could. We may be reverting to what may be the intrinsic desire of people for a king. The problem crosses party and ideological lines. Here's something I wrote about it a few years ago:

https://www.lightondarkwater.com/2022/07/a-republic-if-we-want-it.html

Expand full comment

I remember this discussion, Mac. Hard to believe it was almost two years ago.

Expand full comment

I missed it back then, but have just now interrupted my reading here to read that there. It's a great post and a fine exchange.

Expand full comment

Thank you.

Rob, yes, I was surprised by that, too. And it's actually six months older than that (July 2022), as I had originally written it at the beginning of the year

Expand full comment