Stop Hid'n Biden - by Mona Charen - The Bulwark
By: Mona Charen
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The president sounded sharp on his round-the-world trip. More of that please.
OUR OCTOGENARIAN PRESIDENT TRAVELED 8,000 miles to meet with India's premier, Narendra Modi, and to attend the G20 summit in New Delhi. He then flew another 2,000 miles to visit America's new pal, Vietnam—all over the course of just five days. That's a demanding trip even for a younger person. After meeting for several hours with the general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam, Nguyễn Phu Trọng, Biden held a formal press conference. And he did fine.
Yes, his voice is weaker than it used to be, and his gait is stiff, but on the matter that currently has 62 percent of the public seriously worried—namely, whether he has the mental acuity to serve as president—his performance should be reassuring.
The public's perception of Biden's mental decline is out of all proportion to reality. A May NPR/Marist poll found that 69 percent of registered independent voters believe Biden's mental fitness is a real concern. A more recent CNN poll found that 73 percent are seriously concerned that his physical and mental health might not be adequate for another term. Even among Democrats, only 49 percent say he has the stamina and mental sharpness to serve another term. At dinner parties, people say the president has dementia.
To be clear, it would be better to have a younger president seeking re-election—and I would like to be four inches taller and gifted at the cello. But we got what we got, and part of being a grown-up is accepting reality. An 80-year-old president is less than ideal, sure, but there's no reason to catastrophize.
There is just no way to watch Biden's Hanoi press conference and not recognize that his brain is working fine. He responds to questions in appropriate fashion. His words are diplomatically chosen, and his thoughts follow in logical order. He remembers what he just said a few minutes ago and doesn't repeat himself (or not more than the average politician).
Anyone who has ever had a friend or relative with dementia knows that this is nothing like what they sound like. They repeat themselves constantly without self-awareness. They get confused about tenses and facts. They don't distinguish between things that happened that morning and things that happened years ago. They sometimes begin a sentence and just stop midway through. They get angry and tearful for no apparent reason. Dementia is devastating and quite different from normal aging. In fact, while the percentage of people with dementia rises with age, only about 10 percent of those aged 70 and older suffer from it.
Now have a look at Biden's press conference. He was asked about a Chinese official's accusation that Biden was "insincere" about the relationship with China, and also whether he thought Xi Jinping was sincere in light of his recent move to "ban" Apple in China. Biden had trouble hearing the first part of the question (okay, that is his age showing), but then gave a careful answer.
He declined the implied invitation to get into a spitting match with Xi and emphasized that "we're not looking to hurt China. . . . We're all better off if China does well," adding that "if China does well by the international rules, it grows the [world's] economy." To underline that point, he noted that "It's not about isolating China. It's about making sure the rules of the road—everything from airspace and—and space and in the ocean is—the international rules of the road are abided by."
Without overt threats or intemperate words, Biden then noted that he is building and/or bolstering alliances with other Asian nations. "That's what this trip was all about: having India cooperate much more with the United States, be closer with the United States, Vietnam being closer with the United States. It's not about containing China; it's about having a stable base—a stable base in the Indo-Pacific."
In fact, across the political spectrum, people in the United States are highly suspicious of China. Trump fulminated about China eating our lunch, but fawned over Xi's handling of COVID (and general awesomeness). His vaunted trade deal with China was a bust. China never purchased the additional $200 billion in American products that Trump claimed were guaranteed by the deal. Meanwhile, the tariffs he imposed (and Biden has failed to repeal) cost U.S. consumers $80 billion, and that's not counting the $28 billion in aid to compensate farmers for lost revenue.
Biden's policy hasn't been perfect, but he has been skillful at aligning allies. He hosted a breakthrough meeting between Japan and South Korea at Camp David, and has initiated a new initiative with Great Britain and Australia (AUKUS) that the British prime minister called "the most significant multilateral defense partnership in generations." The AUKUS deal includes selling nuclear powered submarines to the Australians (with technical advice from the Brits). One could say that Biden is speaking softly but carrying a big stick.
I could have done without the too-clever-by-half tactic of calling only upon female journalists (a reprise of an Obama gimmick from 2014). And Biden's acknowledgement at the start that the five questioners had been chosen in advance was a mistake. He introduced the Q&A by saying, "And now, I will take your questions. Let me see. They told me—they gave me five people here," which made him seem directed by others instead of in charge. And he stumbled over their names all the same.
But in the course of his basically direct, non-meandering answers, he touted the new rail and shipping corridor just announced at the G20 that will link India to Europe; spoke of the responsibilities of wealthier nations to help the "global south" combat climate change (though how popular that will be with American taxpayers is an open question); noted that the United States has the world's strongest economy; praised a past Republican senator for working with poorer nations to maintain forest land; and mentioned the amount of carbon the Amazon rainforest absorbs.
At one point he did sound like a geezer, quoting from a John Wayne movie, and I held my breath. There was something about an Indian scout and headdresses, and boy, where is this anecdote going? But it turned out that the quote he wanted was from the scout, pointing to a soldier and calling him "a lying, dog-faced pony soldier." Maybe a long way to go for that payoff, but it was apposite for the point he was making and it wasn't inappropriate or crude or offensive.
Some tried to make a story about the way the press conference ended, with the press secretary announcing, "Thank you, everybody!" while the president was still speaking. Fox winked that "Biden wandered off stage" after that. Please. Press conferences are frequently halted by a staffer's "Thank you, Mr. President." It's a convention, as is the tradition of journalists continuing to shout questions after that. The only difference here was substituting "everybody" for "Mr. President." The part that was strange was the decision to play music as the president concluded his thoughts—this wasn't a variety show. Just odd.
Biden's physical presentation—the slow and careful walk, the slightly pitched posture—suggests age more than his words. He is perfectly capable of thinking on his feet. Whoever has been deciding to keep him under wraps for fear of gaffes is hurting his cause. People have come to believe that he is in sharp mental decline. When you see him in a Q&A, it's clear that he isn't, and people need to know that.
Tags
Who is online
141 visitors
The conservative columnist Mona Charen sees the truth about Biden. For her efforts she will now most likely be called a communist by the dregs of right wing media.
Of course he's a little hard of hearing, walks with a stiff gait, hunches over. He's 80 years old for chrissakes! I have all those problems and I'm only 61
That is the whole of the point.
How old was Reagan when he left office? 82?
2nd term
so? Biden would only be 2 years older when he finishes his second term
At that age, 2 years makes one hell of a big difference. Look at Reagan. By the end of his second term he was pretty gone.
The voters didn't seem to care, tho, when they elected him to a 2nd term. He seemed to be suffering while he was still in his first term
Look, I really don't Biden to have a second term. I want the Democrats to nominate some one else (NOT HARRIS!!!!). Biden should do the right thing and not run for a second term.
Reagan was 77 when he left office after 8 years. Biden would be 86 if he serves another term.
77 when he left office. that’s 3 years younger than dementia Joe is now,
Biden will be 86 if he actually makes it to the end of his second term.
At the end of his second term when he left office, Reagan was 77 years old.
Sorry, didn’t see your post.
Both potential nominees are way too old for the presidency. Trump is just 3 years younger than Biden.
What a mess.
Yes, it’s insanity to have the choice come down to guys in their 80s.
It's interesting to see how people react to an article which tends to debunk everything they are saying. Apparently no one gets the point.
Republicans and the political right concentrate mightily on making people believe Biden is mentally addled. The seeded article disputes this with evidence from his recent press conference, yet still all people want to say is that he is too old and mentally deficient. Its like facts dont matter.
Oh..but...but...those 3 years make all the difference!!!!
fuck that
so I was wrong as all my fans below have told me
at least I can admit when I'm wrong and not try to make everybody else look they haven't got a clue
[deleted]
I read the article and I think Ms Charon gave an accurate accounting. His age does concern me. But nobody seem all that concerned when Reagan was elected twice and nobody is saying a word about trmp's age and obvious mental deterioration..well except for you
Trump isn't the nominee....yet, so at least the republicans are putting up viable alternatives for republicans to choose from, Can you say the same about the democrats?
There is a chance that Trump will not secure the nomination but it is, tragically, a long shot.
The Ds should push Biden aside. He is way beyond his prime and there are plenty of better choices.
Suffice it to say that I am not pleased with our dominant political parties.
Do you really not see that you are conforming to the Republican plan? They love it when anyone says "both" Trump and Biden should go. They love it. They pray that such an attitude will grow. It will absolutely increase Trump's chances of winning.
I wish you would stop leaping to both sidesism whenever someone compares D and R.
Trump is a categorical failure by the GOP; he should never be even considered as a candidate. Biden is simply a poor choice by the Ds.
There is no comparing Biden with Trump but I am not going to explain that on every comment I post.
People who continue to insist that neither of them should run will help get trump elected.
I wish we had a different Democratic candidate too, I have never been a big Joe Biden fan and he is too old in my opinion.
But I'm not going to say it every day between now and the election, because that is what the Republicans not only want, it is what they are banking on. If the public can be convinced that they are both unqualified it will make voting for Trump more defensible. I am really surprised you dont see this.
Exactly what I said yesterday about the soviet style "both sideism" argument. You refuse to ever countenance any suggestion that Biden or the Democrats did something wrong or are less than perfect candidates because it will help Trump. You end up like Baghdad Bob.
Trouble is, neither should run. I cannot see myself arguing that Biden should be the D nominee when I find that to be a mistake.
What I see are people blindly defending the likely choices of the parties. What they should do is reject these old men and push for better nominees. The GOP problem with Trump is inexcusably irresponsible and far worse than the D problem with Biden. But both parties, although unequal in severity, have a nominee problem.
I am not going to ignore this.
This type of presentation is much more likely to help Trump than Biden.
Trump needs to have people believe there is no difference, on many levels, between him and Biden. Every argument that neither of them is qualified muddys the water and gets him closer to that goal. Thats just the fact , and one that many people besides me speak of.
Unless Biden takes ill he is going to run and be the nominee. He's not going to step down solely on the basis of "too old". He's already made that clear. As thuis Mona Charen column shows us, much of the "evidence" that Biden is mentally deficient doesnt really exist. We can all wish an 80 year old was not running but he is, and will be. And we have to make sure he wins.
My approach has been to be sharply critical of Trump and GOP members who enable him.
I am not going to be dishonest and pretend I approve of nominating elderly men for the presidency.
There is a point to be made here about how the D's run their primaries as compared to the R's. I've noticed in the last few election cycles the D's only put one candidate per position in front of the voters in the primaries and the R's put up several. This makes the D candidate a shoe in and there is no need to vote for them in the primary opening up the D's to switch to the R side and vote the least likely to win against the D candidate.
The DNC cannot afford to run anyone else other than Biden and have already started rigging the primary to make sure Biden is the only viable one on the D side during the primaries, this frees up the D voters to switch to the R side and vote the least likely to win against Biden.
I see the possibility that at the D convention there maybe a push to dump Biden and install another candidate to run.
That's not entirely true.
In the 2020 primaries, while Trump was the incumbent there were additional candidates running including Bill Weld, Rocky De La Fuente, Joe Walsh & Mark Sanford. Bill Weld was the only candidate to gain a single delegate at the Republican convention, the other three did not get a single delegate as Trump took all the remaining delegates.
In the 1992 primaries, the incumbent was George H. W. Bush. Other candidates in the primaries were Pat Buchanan, David Duke, Pat Paulsen, Harold Stassen & Jack Fellure. I cannot find where any of these candidates got any delegates however.
As for rigging the primaries, wasn't that the uproar in the 2016 primaries when the "Bernie Bro's" bitched about the superdelegates at the convention were instructed to vote as the party demanded? Seems to me that's what happened as the DNC came out with a statement that basically stated it was their convention and they would run it as they saw fit.
Usually, the party will get behind the incumbent regardless of who else is running against them, but they will also discourage behind the scene any potential upset for their choice. Let's face it, our partisan political party structure is broken beyond all repair and no longer works for We the People.
You're making my point, even when the Republicans have an incumbent they still allow challengers that give the primary voters a choice, while the Democrats, as quickly as possible, remove all but one choice allowing the democrat primary voters to switch to the republican ballot and try the best they can to screw the Republicans. That's how the DNC rigs the primaries on both sides.
In 2016 they rigged the D primaries so that Hillary couldn't lose, freeing up the D primary voters to help sway the R side to the easiest to beat candidate for Hillary, Trump.
Not really, you missed my point. The incumbent party will normally align behind their incumbent while still allowing "some" competition in the primaries. The competition is usually not a person who stands any real chance of winning the primary however. For the Democrats this year they have Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson running also but neither one is really expected to win.
Both parties are involved and rig the primary for their choice, I would just submit that the Democrats are more blatant about it considering their "super delegates".
One of this site's favorite authorities admits what Democrats say behind closed doors:
How long will it take the "Biden is fine" crowd to realize their heroes are playing them for fools?
So, why is Joe Biden only mentally sharp when he is selling out the United States? Biden's Asian trip was intended to reinvigorate the neoliberal global agenda which has never been intended to benefit the United States. And we're supposed to be surprised that a Republican(?) journalist is defending a neoliberal President? For the political establishment any neoliberal would be a hero.
Joe Biden is pursuing the worst aspects of last 50 years of supply-side, globalized neoliberalism. Biden is selling out the future of our grandkids' grandkids. Biden is pushing the United States over the cliff. Biden's neoliberal agenda is built upon the idea that deficits don't matter; taxes aren't a requirement. Biden has completely abandoned the neoliberal safeguard of austerity (corporate or government) and has thrown any caution to the wind.
Why is Joe Biden so mentally sharp when engaged in neoliberal speak but so mentally confused and disconnected when speaking to Americans about their problems? Biden is going to turn India into a neoliberal free trade powerhouse. But the only thing Biden can do for hurting Americans is babble and write blank checks.
Biden doesn't even feel our pain. Biden tells some anecdote from his life and we're supposed to empathize and sympathize with Biden. Our problems don't matter. Biden tells us another whopper and writes a blank check. As long as we get the money, we're supposed to be happy. That's how little Joe Biden cares about Americans.