Wall Street Journal runs stunning hit piece on Biden
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
www.dailykos.com /stories/2024/6/4/2244815/-Wall-Street-Journal-runs-stunning-hit-piece-on-Biden
Wall Street Journal runs stunning hit piece on Biden
by Kaili Joy GrayDaily Kos Staff 9-11 minutes
The Wall Street Journal published a seemingly damning story on Tuesday night about President Joe Biden’s diminishing mental acuity, with a headline guaranteed to cause panic: “Behind Closed Doors, Biden Shows Signs of Slipping.”
With a header like that, you might think the Journal really has the goods on Biden this time, with quotes from dozens of sources within the White House, likely speaking anonymously for fear of appearing to betray their boss with the damaging confessions about how he, in fact, is too old and unfit to be president for another term.
But no. Who does the Journal have? Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson. And former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. And Idaho Sen. James Risch, who is—as you might have guessed—a Republican.
Contrary to its terrifying headline, what the Journal has is a blatant hit piece from Republicans who are shamelessly pushing the Republican talking point that Biden—who is only four years older than Donald Trump—is oh so very, very old. Concerningly so.
Let’s take a closer look at this smear masquerading as reporting.
In a February one-on-one chat in the Oval Office with House Speaker Mike Johnson, the president said a recent policy change by his administration that jeopardizes some big energy projects was just a study, according to six people told at the time about what Johnson said had happened. Johnson worried the president’s memory had slipped about the details of his own policy.
In other words, Johnson is concerned about Biden’s memory, according to “six people” Johnson told. Were those six people Democrats? The report doesn’t say, but it’s probably a safe bet that the answer is no. So, the Republican speaker told six other Republicans about Biden’s supposedly bad memory. And those six Republicans dutifully informed the Journal of Johnson’s definitely not partisan or biased or perhaps entirely bullshit concerns.
Amazingly, you know who else shares those concerns? Johnson’s predecessor—also a Republican.
Last year, when Biden was negotiating with House Republicans to lift the debt ceiling, his demeanor and command of the details seemed to shift from one day to the next, according to then-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and two others familiar with the talks. On some days, he had loose and spontaneous exchanges with Republicans, and on others he mumbled and appeared to rely on notes.
“I used to meet with him when he was vice president. I’d go to his house,” McCarthy said in an interview. “He’s not the same person.”
No reason at all to think that McCarthy is anything but an objective and unbiased source, except for the fact that he’s a dethroned former House speaker with a reputation for being so excessively and cynically partisan that his fellow Republicans tanked his first run for the top job in 2015 because his big mouth got the party in trouble.
So what else does the Journal have to justify such a shocking headline?
Questions about Biden’s age were amplified in February when Special Counsel Robert K. Hur, who interviewed him for roughly five hours over two days in October during the probe into his handling of classified documents, reported that Biden’s memory had been “significantly limited.”
Ah yes, questions about Biden’s age were “amplified.” The classic passive voice that allows reporters to avoid having to spell out who exactly did the amplifying.
Well, there was The New York Times, where the opinion pages were filled with hand-wringing about Biden’s age and how voters are so much more concerned about the 81-year-old president than his 77-year-old opponent.
And of course there were the Republicans in the House, who quickly announced they would launch an investigation into just how very old Biden is. Their hearing on the matter didn’t exactly go as planned , though, and they ended up embarrassing themselves more than anything else.
Does the Journal offer any other evidence of Biden’s “signs of slipping”?
The president moved so slowly around the Cabinet Room to greet the nearly two dozen congressional leaders that it took about 10 minutes for the meeting to begin, some people who attended recalled.
The famously gregarious Biden, taking his time to make his way around a room of more than 20 VIPs and share a personal word with each one? The same Biden who spent over half an hour gabbing with attendees after his State of the Union address—long after Johnson closed the House session and turned off the lights? Hard to believe.
The Journal does at least include a quote from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who has an entirely different—and on the record—take on that same meeting. And the Journal did talk to several other on-the-record White House staffers who disputed the anonymous GOP gossip about the meeting. And there’s also Gene Sperling, a Biden aide, who said that it’s perfectly normal and standard practice for presidents to read from their notes in such meetings.
But that’s somehow far less compelling than what Republican leaders and former leaders and their staff have to say. Thus, a headline that Biden is slipping, not a headline that Republicans say Biden is slipping even though a bunch of other people disagree.
“What you see on TV is what you get,” said Sen. James E. Risch, an Idaho Republican, who attended the meeting but shared only his general impression of meetings with Biden. “These people who keep talking about what a dynamo he is behind closed doors—they need to get him out from behind closed doors, because I didn’t see it.”
Oh, is that the smoking gun? A Republican senator says Biden isn’t a “dynamo.” Certainly he has no agenda.
The article goes on and on—and on and on; it’s over 3,000 words long—like this. Unnamed “people” say negative things about meetings with Biden. Named Democrats and government officials dispute those descriptions.
“I found him to be the same Joe Biden that I’ve known since I came to Congress,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks, a Democrat elected in 1998, who attended one of these supposedly problematic meetings.
But on and on the Journal goes.
Another story suggests that Biden didn’t understand his own energy policy. At least, that’s Johnson’s version of events, as filtered through “several people familiar with Johnson’s version of what happened.” Those unidentified Johnson confidantes also claim Johnson was “dismayed” by Biden’s failing memory.
But then, that’s just Johnson’s version.
Meanwhile, White House spokesperson Andrew Bates calls that take “a false account.”
So who's telling the truth? Of course, the Journal doesn’t say. It lets the readers decide with its extremely objective headline definitively telling them that Biden is “slipping.”
Naturally, Johnson didn’t want his fingerprints on this hit job.
“Johnson declined to be interviewed for this article,” the article says. But not to worry—Johnson’s spokesperson, Taylor Haulsee, confirmed that Johnson stands by all of it.
And on and on it goes.
Does it matter that Democrats refute the Republican version of each incident in the report? Apparently not. Does it matter that Republicans are pushing a campaign talking point they’ve been pushing for months about Biden’s mental fitness? Apparently not.
What matters is that “people” are concerned, and that’s quite enough to justify the story and its headline.
The article ends with this anecdote:
As Republican negotiators drove away from the White House, they called a colleague to update him on the talks, according to someone familiar with the call. One topic of discussion: the president and his acuity.
What did those Republicans say about Biden’s “acuity”? Did they say, “Gosh, he might be older than dirt, but he’s sharp as a knife”? After all, one top Republican, according to a New York Times report last year, " told allies that he has found Mr. Biden to be mentally sharp in meetings."
That top Republican, by the way, was Kevin McCarthy.
Who knows? The Journal leaves that to you, dear reader, to choose your own adventure.
There’s another version of this article that Journal reporters Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes could have written.
It’s the story of a Republican Party desperate to regain control of the White House even as their presidential nominee is convicted on 34 felony charges and faces dozens of further counts in multiple criminal cases.
It’s the story of a chaotic Republican House caucus in a constant state of civil war frantically searching for some way—any way—to tarnish the president.
It’s the story of a transparent attempt by that very Republican Party to convince voters that Biden, who is old, is somehow more unfit for the office than Trump, who is almost as old and is also a convicted criminal and universally recognized as a deplorable human being.
It’s the story of a pathetic partisan hit job attempt that veteran reporters should be too savvy to fall for, especially in the face of such consistent reporting to the contrary.
But alas, that’s not the story the Wall Street Journal decided to tell.
Tags
Who is online
533 visitors
This would be like Huffington Post doing a story on Trump's mental illnesses and using Joy Reid and Eric Swalwell as the sources.
Are you claiming that the WSJ is skewed right?
what do you think ?
Their op-eds and editorial staff are ... their journalists not so much.
This story is preposterous - Biden obviously has the mental acuity of a nonagenarian and clearly displays it every day.
It is also ludicrous for anyone supporting former President Trump to question the mental acuity or intellectual focus of anyone.
The import thing then is their policies.
One of Trump's stated policies is to be a dictator.
The import thing then is their policies.
Their policies are given to them by panels of bureaucrats, hardly "their policies"
The most important thing is their leadership and the confidence that the American people have in them - I am no advocate of Trump but I certainly do not think that Biden is the answer to what ails the country. either.
There is no mystery in what they will do.
Trump will give us what he gave us in his first term and Biden will continue what he has done.
Closing the border and drill baby drill is in no way being a dictator.
That is how Trump meant it and you know it.
So a populist autocratic government espoused by 33% of the people.
Bullshit. Is that your spin? Ignore everything Trump says about exacting revenge for his perceived wrongs, and respond with "This is what he really meant"......
We barely made it through his 1st four years. He failed as POTUS in every conceivable way.
My favorite was the "tax cut"....
How quickly people forget what pieces of shit the democrats were at the start of Covid.
Biden managed to kill more Americans through his mismanagement of Covid than Trump did and he had vaccines and treatments for his entire presidency.
It should be or you one of these people that think it was only for the rich.
The former 'president' will give us what he gave us in his first term.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
No, it's not.
Who would want the disaster(s) of a criminal enterprise of an 'administration' of the former 'president' AGAIN?
All you state is true. The former 'president' is a major fuck up and loser.
He said: he wouldn't be a dictator except on his first day when he would drill baby drill and close the border.
To seize on the words "except on the first day" out of context is epitome of dishonesty.
Approving more lands for drilling and closing the border are both actions which he could do as POTUS. What actions require a dictator?
Correct!
What actions require a dictator?
None. What he is saying is if you think that is being a dictator then so be it.
GET IT?
Keep spinning, maybe something will stick.
No. what he is saying is that he will decide what the country will do and all of his little toadstools will follow along because he said to. Just look at them now. It'll be great when the Trump Reich is upon us...
Some may believe that Biden is fit for another four years, but the videos and tapes don't lie.
Time for the left to face reality. Biden is going to be put out to pasture come January
The award for the least biased American news media has not, for obvious reasons. been awarded for decades now, for obvious reasons.
There are statistics for everything, for instance the U.S. ranks 26th in the world in the percentage of citizens that trust their government.
11% below the global average and 46% below the world leader in the category\
Trust in government worldwide by country 2023 | Statista
There's a reason for that and it was voiced many years ago....
What he said was a lot more nuanced:
Einstein's opinion was IMO absolutely brillliant, but is bound to be pooh-poohed by those who live in a democratic capitalistic society. However, the fact that I have lived long enough in both a democratic capitalistic society and then a socialist society with capitalistic characteristics that are not predatory allows me to enjoy comprehending the difference. Many who criticize me do so without that experience. In his opinion, Einstein writes this:
That paragraph illustrates IMO one of the greatest differences between the American and Chinese people. In America, the primary philisophy is the first mentioned, because that paragraph leads to the requirement that personal rights and freedoms take precedence over the good of a person's fellow human beings, whereas in China the good of the family and the community is of more importance than that of the self. The result of that difference was aptly illustrated by when the Covid virus first broke out wherein it was extremely well controlled in China not just by government edict but by the efforts of the individuals to adhere to the necessary guidelines to curtail the spread, whereas in America the necessary guidelines to curtail the spread were ignored, even ridiculed, by many on the basis of personal rights and freedoms being more important than being the cause of death of one's own close relatives if not others - a necessity that is still resented and cursed by Americans to this day.
Socialism in China is not the extreme of "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs", but a form of capitalism exists, or else how do you explain Jack Ma of Alibaba, and many others. Yes, there are Chinese millionaires and billionaires, but at the same time, although it took the government 10 years to accomplish it, there is no longer abject poverty, and you will not see anyone sleeping under bridges unless they truly are sick in the head and even they would probably be taken in and cared for when they appear.
I have read that the economic divide between the ultra-wealthy and most others in America is growing, and that a larger percentage of the wealth in America is falling into the hands of the very few, while so many struggle to survive. Where is that headed, and where will it end up?
whereas in China the good of the family and the community is of more importance than that of the self.
How do this values lead to lying about the outbreak to the WHO and the world about it’s contagiousness, imprisoning doctors who spoke out , and engaging in a massive coverup including evidence destruction?
but in general I think you are correct. The refusal to value the individual throughout Chinese history has led to numerous Holocausts in which tens of millions have died in numerous outbreaks of almost incomprehensible violence that show a total disregard for human life.
It's a good thing China isn't what you think it is or I might actually be unhappy and uncomfortable here. I'm not even thinking of the fact that 85% of the Chinese people trust their government, as compared to only 40% of Americans trusting theirs.
LINK ->
Of course you wouldn't be able to spew your criticism unless you read the intentionally damning media about it.
thinking of the fact that 85% of the Chinese people trust their government, as compared to only 40% of Americans trusting theirs.
that’s funny on so many levels. Saddam got 99.9% of the vote in his elections. He must have been the best leader ever.
Either the numbers are absolute bullshit and bear little relationship to reality like every other number reported out of China or being immersed In propaganda and lies from birth works and the Chinese people are too brainwashed to have an informed opinion.
So we can assess how informed the Chinese are about their government, How much honest coverage did the anniversary of the government machine gunning thousands of innocent protesters generate last week?
if the Chinese are so happy with their government, why does Chinese birth tourism exist and why are thousands of Chinese sneaking across the border to enter America illegally?
Yes, the number of people willing to criticize their own government is statistically proportional with the freedom they enjoy to do so...
[deleted][✘]
[Buzz is not the topic]
[✘] I know the ccp has murdered tens of millions of its own citizens. Seems relevant to a discussion about trusting one’s own government.
I asked a question. How much honest coverage did the anniversary of the government machine gunning thousands of innocent protesters generate last week?
in order to have an informed opinion, citizens have to have access to information. How much coverage of the massacre was there.
[deleted][✘]
[✘]