I just saw that President Joe Biden has dropped out of the presidential campaign for 2024. He has endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris.
Biden made the only sensible decision.
In dropping out, Biden has done the right thing. Given the clear signs of his physical and mental decline, there was no way he could serve in office as POTUS from 2025 to early 2029. I’m not entirely certain he should be POTUS for what remains of his current term.
What I’m left with is lies. All the lies told by the corporate media and the yes men and yes women surrounding Biden that he was perfectly OK, indeed never better. That he was absolutely fit as a fiddle and both ready and able to serve until his 86th birthday.
Attention will now turn to Kamala Harris. Like most VPs (Dick Cheney being a notable exception), Harris has largely been sidelined. Now she’s front and center, with a chance to shine—or to fade into the background.
I haven’t been impressed by Harris’s political instincts. Her record is undistinguished. Her speaking ability is average at best. But perhaps she will show a capacity for growth. It’s not encouraging, however, that’s she’s basically a Hillary Clinton protégé.
Kamala Harris is an establishment figure at a time when Americans are unhappy with the establishment. She has a tough road ahead of her with many treacherous obstacles. They will severely test her mettle.
A couple of snippets from Reuters captures the weirdness of this American moment. The first involves President Joe Biden and his status as a candidate for 2024:
Some officials think it’s only a matter of time before Joe Biden takes himself out of the race, though nobody can say how the party’s presidential-nomination process will unfold if he drops out. Reports say he’s taking seriously calls within the party to quit because of concerns about his cognitive ability, his age and his health. Fundraisers are on hold and July donations plummeted, sources say.
That last part is likely to be fatal. It’s money that talks in American politics, and if Biden can’t raise any, and he’s hurting the bottom line at the DNC, they’ll find a way to get rid of him.
Remarkably, I keep reading articles about how Democrats shouldn’t do anything to embarrass Biden. As if personal embarrassment is the leading issue here. The leading issue is whether Biden is physically and mentally fit to be president this very moment. Is anyone confident that Biden could handle a crisis akin to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962? Does he have the physical stamina and mental acumen to make critical decisions under extreme pressure? It doesn’t appear so. Isn’t this issue a lot more important than Biden’s feelings?
The second snippet involves Israel’s destruction of Gaza, a topic which has become far less salient lately in U.S. corporate media. Here’s the update from Reuters:
I’d set the over/under on Congressional ovations for Bibi Netanyahu at 50; standing ovations at 25.
There are few things more appalling than inviting Netanyahu to address Congress while Israel prosecutes a genocide in Gaza with American-made weaponry. It tells you everything you need to know about the “rules-based order” promoted by U.S. leaders.
Harris has been deployed to calm “jittery” donors. Good luck with that.
With Biden in free-fall and Kamala Harris still not ready for primetime, perhaps the Democrats can draft Bibi Netanyahu to run against Donald Trump.* No man seems to unite Congress in rapturous applause like Bibi. Bibi would certainly revive DNC fundraising as well. Stranger things have happened …
*Yes, I know Bibi can’t run to be POTUS. Why should he bother, when he’s already dictating U.S. policy in the Middle East?
With apologies to Elton John and Bernie Taupin, “peace” seems to be the hardest word, for both Democrats and Republicans.
This is hardly surprising. The National Security State is the unofficial fourth branch of government and arguably the most powerful. Presidents and Congress serve it, and the SCOTUS carves out special exceptions for it. Back in the days of a bit more honesty, it was called the Department of War. And so it remains.
Let’s say you’re like me and you see war as humanity’s greatest failing. We kill and maim each other, we scorch and kill every living thing in the path of our weapons, we destroy the environment, we even have the capacity to destroy life on earth via nuclear weapons. War—it really is good for absolutely nothin’, unless, of course, you profit from it.
Gaza after an Israeli bombing attack. Anyone want more war?
So, who are you going to vote for in America who sees the awfulness of war and who’s willing to pursue diplomacy and peace instead? Democrats? Republicans?
Generally speaking, Democrats are fixated on war with Russia. They support massive aid to Ukraine and are against negotiations. They also support massive aid to Israel in its ongoing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. And they fully support the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC) and soaring spending on weapons and war, including “investing” in new nuclear weapons.
Republicans are much the same, except they tend to see China rather than Russia as the main threat, e.g. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are willing to negotiate an end to the Russia-Ukraine War. But, in the main, Republicans fervently support Israel in its genocide, are outspoken critics of Iran (Got to punch them hard, Vance recently said), are willing enablers of the MICC, and also vote for massive spending on weaponry and war, including nuclear weapons.
Neither major U.S. political party, the red or blue teams, is pro-peace. Both are pro-aggression and pro-empire. They just occasionally choose different targets for their ire, even as they accuse the other team of “weakness,” of being “Putin puppets” or “Manchurian candidates.”
As I’ve said before, the only word or sentiment apparently forbidden among the red and blue teams is “peace.” If you want an antiwar candidate in America, you have to go outside the two main parties to the Greens or similar fringe parties.
In America, “antiwar” is defined by America’s propaganda machine, otherwise known as the corporate media, as weak and unAmerican, because “the health of the state” is war. Every election, whether the red or blue team prevails, the National Security State, the old War Department, wins. And humanity loses.
The last mainstream candidate for the presidency who spoke consistently of peace was George McGovern in 1972. Unless we the people demand peace, we will continue to get war. In fact, in a bizarrely Orwellian way, colossal military spending and incessant wars are sold to us as keeping America safe. “War is peace” is quite literally the message of the National Security State and its Ministry of Truth, the corporate-owned media.
What is the solution? Here’s one possible approach: Whenever America deploys troops overseas, those troops most immediately in harm’s way must be drawn from the ranks of America’s most privileged and their children. So, corporate CEOs, Members of Congress, lawyers at White Shoe firms, private equity billionaires and millionaires and their progeny, Hollywood celebrities and America’s best-known sports stars: those Americans who prosper and profit the most from empire should be the first to serve it. And that service must be made mandatory, no exceptions, no way to buy your way out or plead that you have “higher” priorities.
Those who want war should serve in war, leaving the rest of us alone. This rule, more than any other, might just keep the chickenhawks from screeching for more war with Russia, or China, or Iran, or North Korea, or Syria, or somebody. A few minutes at the front, facing bullets and shells and cluster munitions while hearing the screams of the dying, might just cure these wannabe “warriors” of their fever.
Want a war? Go to war. And leave the rest of us in peace.
Today, I thought I’d write about someone who’s uncontroversial: Donald Trump.
My reflections are impressionistic and random. Regular readers of Bracing Views know I won’t be voting for Trump (or Biden for that matter), so my comments here are not meant as an endorsement. With that said, let’s dive in:
When Trump was trying to get rid of Obamacare, he naturally had no replacement plan in mind. At the time, I read that Trump allegedly turned to his advisers and said, Why don’t we simply give everyone Medicare? It sounds like Trump: a simple solution to a problem he wants to put behind him. Of course, it was also the goal of Bernie Sanders and progressives. Trump’s advisers quickly told him he couldn’t do Medicare for All, and Trump dropped the matter. (I’m not sure this story is true, but it sounds true.)
As a businessman, Trump has a knack for discerning bad deals, so it’s not surprising he hit on NATO as a “bad” one. Why was America spending so much, allegedly to defend Europe, when Europeans themselves were spending far less for their own defense? Does America even need NATO? Once again, Trump’s advisers intervened, keeping the U.S. in NATO even as Trump did win commitments from some European countries to spend more on their militaries.
Trump ran in 2016 on the idea of draining the swamp, after which he surrounded himself with advisers drawn from the swamp, especially retired military generals. They were allegedly the “adults in the room” who were meant to control Trump’s worst impulses. What they ensured was that nothing fundamentally changed in the Trump administration, especially for the military-industrial-congressional complex and similar power complexes.
I’ve read, and I think it’s probably true, that Trump expected to lose in 2016. He ran because the Republican competition was so weak, and it gave him a platform to rebuild his popularity, which he apparently wanted to parlay into another lucrative TV deal. That November, Trump was as surprised as most Americans were when he won. He should have listened to his wife, Melania, who predicted he would win if he ran.
I’ve called Trump a con man, and I stand by that. And he’s a good one! He is absolutely shameless and will slap and stamp his name on anything to make a few bucks, whether it’s Bibles, towers, vodka, steak, sneakers, a university, you name it. This doesn’t make him a “bad” person. It makes him a shameless and therefore highly effective grifter.
Trump recognized in 2015 that the Republican candidates arrayed against him were nowhere near as skilled as he was at attracting attention and selling illusions. That’s how he was able to dispatch JV competitors like Low Energy Jeb, Little Marco, and Lyin’ Ted so quickly. In this, he was aided by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats’ “pied piper” strategy of encouraging Trump. Be careful what you wish for, Hillary.
Trump, unlike so many U.S. politicians, occasionally blurts out a big truth. The Iraq War was a disaster. The U.S. is in decline and is no longer the “greatest” nation. NATO is obsolete. Far too many people are dying in the needless and awful Russia-Ukraine War. We’re in Syria to steal its oil. We want Venezuela’s oil too. If you think Russia has killers, so does the United States. And so on. It’s not Trump’s cons that piss off the establishment. It’s those rare truths that Trump lets slip that they despise.
Yes, Trump is a con man, but he’s a genuine con man. He is exactly what he appears to be. In this sense, Trump is more genuine—more real—than most politicians, Republican and Democrat, who pose as public servants even as they practice their own grifts.
“War Paint” was the first idea that popped into my head when I saw this image
Trump, whatever else you can say about the man, often has superb political instincts. His raised fist and cry of “fight, fight, fight” after the assassination attempt made for stunning theater. The blood smeared on his face looked like war paint.
Trump, in sum, is a complex man, talented and flawed, perceptive and undisciplined, intuitive and uninformed, determined and manipulable. What he is not, in my opinion, is a public servant. What he is likely to become is our next president.
If so, one can only wish he shows a capacity for growth and a spirit of true public service. Whatever else he is or becomes, he is a quintessentially American figure.
Last night, Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt at a political rally in Butler, Pennsylvania.
The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks, was killed. He was apparently a registered Republican. He was armed with an AR-15 and fired eight times. He was 20 years old.
It’s unclear whether Trump’s ear was bloodied by a bullet or from shrapnel.
The shooting produced an indelible image of Trump bloodied yet standing defiant with his fist raised.
Reactions reflect the polarization of our times. With no evidence, people suggested the event was staged, basically a photo op for Trump. Tell that to the one bystander who was killed and another two who were critically wounded.
The usual cry of “violence has no place in America” was nonsensical, given America’s violent history and its ongoing facilitation of violence across the globe.
Some commentators have opined that Trump, in his defiant stance, won the 2024 election last night. Though I wouldn’t go that far, Trump’s supporters will certainly be even more highly motivated to vote for him in November, whereas motivation within the Democratic Party is on the wane.
“We’re off our rockers,” my wife said this morning, and as usual she’s right.
Here’s hoping that this will be the last violent event of this highly polarized election season.
Joe Biden has become a major distraction. Much like Donald Trump, he’s demanding far too much attention.
As genocide continues in Gaza, as war continues to rage in Ukraine, as America continues to pursue militarism both at home and abroad, all the press can talk about is whether Biden should stay or go.
The answer is obvious: he should go.
Sure, Biden remains capable of having a “good” day in the sense of doing OK at a rally while reading prepared remarks from a teleprompter. Yet it’s impossible to ignore brain glitches where he introduces Zelensky of Ukraine as President Putin and suggests his vice president’s name is Trump instead of Harris.
America faces serious issues, especially working- and middle-class Americans who are struggling to make ends meet. Their stories are rarely told in the corporate-owned media as Biden’s flubs and stubbornness and Trump’s lies and showboating grab nearly all the attention.
A new (and desperate) ploy I’ve seen on Twitter/X is Biden supporters arguing that a failing older man is better than a lying one as president. That argument assumes Biden has a strong record as a truth-teller when it was gratuitous lies and flagrant plagiarism that ended his presidential campaign in 1988. Besides, is it really true that Biden, a man visibly in mental and physical decline, is the only choice Democrats can muster to defeat Trump in 2024?
Let’s look at one chart that shows Biden’s record. Since he became President, military spending has soared as social spending has dipped.
And this man, Democrats say in reverent tones, is the new FDR?
I suppose their counter would be: Trump will be worse! So, it’s the old “lesser of two evils” argument.
Biden and Harris continue to run a campaign devoid of any message other than vote for us because Trump will be worse. That empty message, and Biden’s visible decline, produce images like this:
Exactly. Which “job” is the Biden/Harris team so intent on finishing? No one knows since they’re not saying. Vague messaging and a confused candidate are almost certain to lead to a Trump victory in November.
And if that happens, those to blame will be clear, starting with Biden, the DNC, and all the scheming powerbrokers behind the scenes like the Obamas and the Clintons.
Why are progressives so powerless in America? Is there any hope for radical reforms here that favor the 99%? Stimulated by a question from Jeff Moebus, here’s some thoughts on this crucial issue, lightly edited from the comments section of a previous article:
As a kid, I loved to collect stamps, and I still have a small collection
I’m curious, Bill: What do you think the RNC’s Main Goal is?
In any event, given that that is the DNC’s Main Goal [suppressing progressive voices and power within the Democratic Party], why haven’t the Principled Progressives of America formed their own political party so as to give Americans that choice for Systemic Reform come election time?
Is at least part of the problem that a significant number of Americans disagree with and, in some cases, categorically reject the principles, policy proposals, and promises of Progressivism? Which may explain why there are no “Progressives” in Washington, eh?
Jeff, the RNC seems content to ride the Trump wave, knowing that Trump can be controlled and perhaps coopted as well.
Trump lacks core principles, so I think the RNC’s main goal is to shove Trump in directions that are consistent with RNC imperatives, such as lower taxes on corporations, financial deregulation, and the dismantling of the welfare state and anything that smacks of socialism.
I agree completely with your assessment of the RNC, Bill. Especially the part about Trump being controllable and cooptable. If he wasn’t, he would have never become a President who completed a full term in office.
In any event: Do you have any thoughts as to why the Principled Progressives of America have not formed their own political party so as to give Americans that choice for “Systemic Reform” come election time?
My guess: lack of money. Corporate cash isn’t flowing to progressives. Plus some progressives have been coerced, manipulated, or otherwise propagandized to believe they can “push” Biden (or Harris etc.) in progressive ways. Of course, it’s total BS.
Recognize as well that progressives were burned by both Obama and Bernie. Finally, progressive energy is sapped by “woke” cultural issues rather than focusing on class issues and an antiwar agenda that would also prove attractive to some on the Right as well.
That’s my quick take. Of course, the other part is the corporate media that smears progressives as “far left,” Putin puppets, and therefore untrustworthy and unelectable.
So the problem, basically, is that there are not enough Americans ~ especially those with money to spend on politics ~ who agree enough with the proposals of Progressivism to actively support it and actually work to make it happen.
Strangely, Jeff, I wrote a reply and it disappeared on my own site!
Here’s what I think I wrote: What we need, as Bernie said, is a political revolution, but then Bernie decided not to lead it.
How do you effect this “progressive” revolution? It’s extremely hard because so many powerful forces are arrayed against it:
1. Both major political parties in America are against progressive reforms.
2. Corporate elites are against them.
3. Corporate media is against them.
4. Coercive forces such as police forces of all stripes are against them.
What is required is a mass movement willing to be disobedient organized along class interests. A movement of left, right, and center. A movement of the 99% against the 1% (and the .1 -.01%).
Rich and powerful “citizens” (and recall that corporations are citizens now) will not simply hand over power. They will have to be persuaded, convinced, and possibly coerced.
Also, the rich and powerful know how to divide, distract, and demobilize the masses, while keeping the many as downtrodden and debilitated as possible. Hence all the “unhoused” people we see, all the immigrants, all the poor people suffering. Those poor unfortunate souls are partly there to scare the rest of us.
Thomas Jefferson famously opined that “The Tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (That’s from memory.) Who is willing to bleed, and how much blood must flow, and even then, will it get any better?
It’s easy to be cynical and pessimistic here, but those are paralyzing forces. Instead, we have to be optimistic or at least determined, else the USS America will continue to slip under the waves of mass corruption and bottomless bankruptcy. And by “bankruptcy” I mean spiritual and moral as much as financial.
What say you? Is there any hope for meaningful change in the USA, and how can that be implemented without violence?
******
Rather than putting the onus on Jeff Moebus, what about you, loyal readers? Can meaningful change be effected in America that actually helps the 99%? That moves the country into less militaristic waters? That restores liberty and power to the people? If so, how, and at what price?
One essential step: campaign finance reform. A country where money=speech is by definition a plutocracy. Another essential step: a radical downsizing of empire and a Pentagon budget reduced by 50%. But with a corrupt Congress that loves money and the military, how are these changes to be made?
All my life, the punditocracy has told me that being President of the United States (POTUS) is the world’s toughest job, making enormous demands on physical fitness and mental stamina. And now the Democrats are telling me that Joe Biden is and remains the fittest candidate to serve as POTUS for another four years.
Since Donald Trump emerged as a candidate in 2015, the punditocracy has told me he’s a menace to democracy. That he must be stopped at all costs, else America faces authoritarian fascism. And now the Democrats are telling me that Joe Biden is and remains the fittest candidate to stop Trump and the Republican march of fascism.
Well, I have some faith in my lying eyes, and based on them, I know Biden isn’t up to the challenge of being POTUS for another four years, nor is he the fittest man to stop Trump and “fascism.”
The Democrats’ decision to stick with Joe Biden suggests the person who serves as POTUS really doesn’t matter: a cardboard cutout would suffice. It also suggests Democratic powerbrokers really aren’t that worried about Trump being a fascistic dictator, nor will Rachel Maddow end up in a gulag for dissidents.
But let’s assume for the moment that Trump really represents fascism on the march in America. Who’s the best person to defeat him?
He’s ready! Clooney, I mean, shown on the left with then-VP Joe Biden
In what passes for politics in America today, why not a celebrity with name recognition and charisma? George Clooney, anyone? He’s handsome, a relatively young 63, and smarter than your average bear. He can act too, not a disqualification for the position of POTUS.
Alternatively, why not Dolly Parton? Or someone like her? Sadly, Dolly’s husband is suffering from Alzheimer’s and she’s curtailing her schedule to be with him, but she’s got the looks, the business savvy, and the sass to take on Trump.
Assuming Democrats smarten up and stop believing their own BS, they should seek unconventional candidates with the mettle to challenge Trump. Heck, why not Susan Sarandon? The Democrats blame her activism whenever they lose, as in 2016, so why not run her as a candidate? At least there’d be some validity to blaming her for Trump’s victory if he should win again in 2024.
What say you, readers? Who’s the unconventional Democratic candidate who might, just might, hand Trump his lunch while protecting what’s left of U.S. democracy?
(A mason’s assistant who was working on my chimney a few weeks ago suggested Keanu Reeves. If he saved humanity from Agent Smith and the machines in “The Matrix” trilogy, surely he can save America from Trump. Keanu seems like a good dude, but he’s Canadian, so he can’t run. Sigh.)
P.S. Just kidding. We all know Bibi Netanyahu is the best candidate. Talk about bipartisan Red and Blue love. No wonder Bibi wears the imperial purple!
Being President of the United States (POTUS) is not a part-time job.
Apologists for Joe Biden suggest that he’s capable of doing the job during normal office hours. Say roughly 10AM to 4PM. But sadly last week’s debate started at 9PM and Biden was tired, he had a cold, and he just couldn’t think and speak clearly and coherently.
So, let’s remind America’s rivals that if they are to launch any attack that might, just might, activate nuclear contingency plans in the Biden administration, they had best do it when the president is capable of clear thinking, which apparently means a six-hour window, Monday through Friday, 10AM-4PM EST.
Seriously, as an American, all my life I’ve been told that being POTUS is the toughest, most demanding, job in the world. That POTUS has in his charge the nuclear “football,” the codes that would unleash America’s awesome, possibly world-destroying, nuclear arsenal, and that therefore the president had to be a person of sound body and of soundest mind. And now I’m being told that Joe Biden, a man in obvious decline, is exactly that person of sound body and of soundest mind to serve another four years as president and commander-in-chief.
The nuclear “football” is actually a briefcase containing the codes needed to authorize and authenticate a nuclear attack
The nuclear football is not something to fumble. Once those missiles are unleashed, there will be no redo.
Joe Biden’s recent debate performance featured sustained moments where he stared blankly into space, where he was obviously confused, where he spoke nonsense. Put bluntly, there were times when he quite literally didn’t know what he was saying.
Sure, Biden isn’t always confused, muddled, or whatever term you care to use to describe obvious mental compromise. But no POTUS can afford to be mentally muddled or compromised because you never know when he or she may be needed to make a decision (under the severest pressure and in a matter of minutes) involving nuclear weapons. It’s an awesome, almost unimaginable responsibility that requires the most stringent vetting of America’s candidates for POTUS.
Today’s Joe Biden is not up to that responsibility. Anyone who says otherwise is denying the evidence of their own eyes and ears.
Standard Disclaimer: This is not in any way an argument for Trump. It’s an argument for a fitter president, right now, and for the Democrats to nominate someone other than Biden to run against Trump this November.
Last night’s political debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump was a sad spectacle. Clearly, Biden performed poorly. Trump, I suppose, was Trump. The CNN post-debate commentators were universal in saying the Democratic Party is panicking after Biden’s appearance and performance, almost as if they were reading from the same script. It’s finally OK in the mainstream media to state what’s been obvious for years: that Biden is simply too old and infirm to serve as president for another four years. Look for Biden to be replaced as the Democratic candidate, though how gracefully remains to be seen.
Neither candidate did well in last night’s debate
Biden started poorly and never fully recovered. He walked out haltingly. His voice was raspy. He was arguably over-prepared, talking too fast, spouting too much detail, looking confused. A low point came when he lost his train of thought and then concluded by saying “We finally beat Medicare.” Trump pounced. If this had been a fight, the referee would have stopped it then and there.
There’s a catchphrase from a Clint Eastwood movie that “A man’s got to know his limitations.” Biden doesn’t know them, not anymore, and the people around him are doing him a grave disservice in continuing to push him forwards, in continuing to prop him up. It’s time for Biden to retire, to be a one-term president, which was initially the plan when he ran and won in 2020.
After the debate, Trump walked grumpily off the stage. Biden stood there, seemingly at a loss, until Jill Biden came and guided him carefully down a few steps to greet the moderators.
The debate itself was a charisma-free zone. Both men spent most of their time bashing the other. It was a house of frowns. As I watched and took notes, I wrote this: Biden and Trump trade insults while America burns.
In a rare burst of pseudo-agreement, Trump and Biden both said their opponent was the worst president in U.S. history. Both also had surprisingly weak and inept closing statements.
That being said, Biden and Trump did offer a sharp contrast. Biden continues to assert America is the envy of the world, the best country bar none, with the finest military in all of human history. For Trump, America is a failing state, a “sick” country, akin to a “rat’s nest,” overrun with illegal immigrants.
Turning to foreign affairs, both men eagerly supported Israel, with Trump going the extra mile in saying he wants Israel to finish the job in Gaza, the job being genocide of the Palestinians there. Interestingly, Dana Bash, the CNN moderator, said only that Israel’s massive offensive in Gaza had killed “thousands” of Palestinians. She, of course, said nothing of ethnic cleansing or genocide, and neither did the candidates. Pro-Palestinian protests went unmentioned.
“We’re a seriously failing nation,” Trump said, and he’s right about that. The problem is that Biden is too old to run again and Trump remains temperamentally unfit to serve as a public servant at any level. Both men toward the end got into an argument about their respective golf handicaps. It was really that bad—and that out of touch with the needs and concerns of workers and families across America.
Bracing Views 