Berl Falbaum
To be or not to be (the presidential candidate), to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Hamlet, is the question facing Joe Biden after a disastrous performance in the debate against Donald Trump.
Why it happened is another question that will be discussed endlessly in the coming days and weeks and we will probably never know the real answer.
Was Biden affected by a cold that he said he suffered from? Was it that he was unprepared despite holding mock debates with aides at Camp David for several days. Or was it (the most serious question) because of a deterioration of mental acuity?
What adds to the puzzlement is that Biden’s calamitous debate came after the president delivered an energetic address at the State of the Union in March and, inexplicably, gave a forceful, confident upbeat speech a day after the debate at a campaign rally in North Carolina.
Thus, I won’t even attempt to answer any of these questions about what or why it happened because it doesn’t really matter. The public perception, whether justified or not, will be that he is too old to run for another term. We can be assured that the Trump campaign will replay parts of the debate continually in advertising; it will not let us forget.
I wrote a column in February arguing, very reluctantly, that Biden, who I believed was an excellent president despite some differences I had with him, should step aside not because he was unfit, but because at his age, (he will be 82, some 15 days after the November 5 election), he is more susceptible to illnesses.
After the debate, calls for him to quit came from numerous media outlets who recommended that Democrats pick someone else at the party’s convention in Chicago August 19-22. The New York Times, in its lead editorial, minced no words in asking Biden to step aside as did several of its political columnists.
If Biden holds firm, and at this writing he said he would not step aside, the country will have to choose between a president who many in the country believe may not be up to the task mentally or a man whose resume includes being impeached twice, is a narcissist, a pathological liar, a sexual pervert who not only bragged about assaulting women but was found guilty of doing so, was found guilty of 34 felony charges and has three more trials awaiting him, has threatened to tear the Constitution to bits, has alienated Allies worldwide, has lied about the 2020 election, incited a deadly insurrection that threatened the peaceful transfer of power, and embraced white supremacists fomenting racism and anti-Semitism. And that is just a brief summary.
This contrast notwithstanding, the major question not being addressed thoroughly is whether there is time for Democrats, to use a cliché, to change horses in mid-stream.
I, for one, believe it is too late for several reasons. It was even late in February when I suggested Biden “retire.” That is why I argued the decision needed to be made immediately. It takes time, lots of time, to build an effective organization and it may be too late to raise the massive funds required to be competitive. Laws covering a transfer of funds from Biden’s campaign are complex and have strict limits.
Most important: Potential candidates need a national public identity even before announcing a campaign for president. On average it requires a year or two to penetrate the public consciousness. On this point, politicians most frequently mentioned as possible candidates to replace Biden are: California Governor Gavin Newsom; Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker; Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer; Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown; Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro; California Representative Ro Khanna; and Vice President Kamala Harris.
I conducted some very unscientific polling by asking people in the last few days if they ever heard of any of these possible candidates. Only Whitmer and Harris had name recognition for obvious reasons. I expect that the name “Whitmer” would draw a blank in other states.
To stress: I only asked if they knew any of these people not, more importantly, what they stood for or if they knew of their policies.
Could any of these possible candidates succeed in a mere two months, from the convention in August to election day in November, in developing a national identity and an understanding of their political philosophy and policies? Highly unlikely.
In addition, there are others who enjoy some national recognition having run unsuccessful campaigns for president. They might be tempted to try again should Biden step aside. They include Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar; Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren; Dean Phillips, a former U.S. representative from Minnesota; and Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. These four challenged Biden for the nomination in the 2020 primaries.
If a movement were launched to nominate a replacement for Biden, we can expect some serious, nasty infighting, which would weaken the ultimate winner and damage efforts to keep the White House in the hands of Democrats.
Should Biden remain in the race, he needs to adopt a strategy that puts him in front of the American people constantly. He must conduct as many one-on-one interviews as possible, conduct press conferences and appear at impromptu events (no teleprompters) to reassure the electorate of his mental lucidity. He can’t walk back his dismal performance at the debate, but he might do some effective damage control.
So, weighing the risks of another Biden administration against the dangers of a Trump White House, the answer to Hamlet’s question is “to be.”
Why it happened is another question that will be discussed endlessly in the coming days and weeks and we will probably never know the real answer.
Was Biden affected by a cold that he said he suffered from? Was it that he was unprepared despite holding mock debates with aides at Camp David for several days. Or was it (the most serious question) because of a deterioration of mental acuity?
What adds to the puzzlement is that Biden’s calamitous debate came after the president delivered an energetic address at the State of the Union in March and, inexplicably, gave a forceful, confident upbeat speech a day after the debate at a campaign rally in North Carolina.
Thus, I won’t even attempt to answer any of these questions about what or why it happened because it doesn’t really matter. The public perception, whether justified or not, will be that he is too old to run for another term. We can be assured that the Trump campaign will replay parts of the debate continually in advertising; it will not let us forget.
I wrote a column in February arguing, very reluctantly, that Biden, who I believed was an excellent president despite some differences I had with him, should step aside not because he was unfit, but because at his age, (he will be 82, some 15 days after the November 5 election), he is more susceptible to illnesses.
After the debate, calls for him to quit came from numerous media outlets who recommended that Democrats pick someone else at the party’s convention in Chicago August 19-22. The New York Times, in its lead editorial, minced no words in asking Biden to step aside as did several of its political columnists.
If Biden holds firm, and at this writing he said he would not step aside, the country will have to choose between a president who many in the country believe may not be up to the task mentally or a man whose resume includes being impeached twice, is a narcissist, a pathological liar, a sexual pervert who not only bragged about assaulting women but was found guilty of doing so, was found guilty of 34 felony charges and has three more trials awaiting him, has threatened to tear the Constitution to bits, has alienated Allies worldwide, has lied about the 2020 election, incited a deadly insurrection that threatened the peaceful transfer of power, and embraced white supremacists fomenting racism and anti-Semitism. And that is just a brief summary.
This contrast notwithstanding, the major question not being addressed thoroughly is whether there is time for Democrats, to use a cliché, to change horses in mid-stream.
I, for one, believe it is too late for several reasons. It was even late in February when I suggested Biden “retire.” That is why I argued the decision needed to be made immediately. It takes time, lots of time, to build an effective organization and it may be too late to raise the massive funds required to be competitive. Laws covering a transfer of funds from Biden’s campaign are complex and have strict limits.
Most important: Potential candidates need a national public identity even before announcing a campaign for president. On average it requires a year or two to penetrate the public consciousness. On this point, politicians most frequently mentioned as possible candidates to replace Biden are: California Governor Gavin Newsom; Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker; Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer; Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown; Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro; California Representative Ro Khanna; and Vice President Kamala Harris.
I conducted some very unscientific polling by asking people in the last few days if they ever heard of any of these possible candidates. Only Whitmer and Harris had name recognition for obvious reasons. I expect that the name “Whitmer” would draw a blank in other states.
To stress: I only asked if they knew any of these people not, more importantly, what they stood for or if they knew of their policies.
Could any of these possible candidates succeed in a mere two months, from the convention in August to election day in November, in developing a national identity and an understanding of their political philosophy and policies? Highly unlikely.
In addition, there are others who enjoy some national recognition having run unsuccessful campaigns for president. They might be tempted to try again should Biden step aside. They include Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar; Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren; Dean Phillips, a former U.S. representative from Minnesota; and Biden’s Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. These four challenged Biden for the nomination in the 2020 primaries.
If a movement were launched to nominate a replacement for Biden, we can expect some serious, nasty infighting, which would weaken the ultimate winner and damage efforts to keep the White House in the hands of Democrats.
Should Biden remain in the race, he needs to adopt a strategy that puts him in front of the American people constantly. He must conduct as many one-on-one interviews as possible, conduct press conferences and appear at impromptu events (no teleprompters) to reassure the electorate of his mental lucidity. He can’t walk back his dismal performance at the debate, but he might do some effective damage control.
So, weighing the risks of another Biden administration against the dangers of a Trump White House, the answer to Hamlet’s question is “to be.”
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
