Quicksand

Sinking Deeper, Deeper...Glug?

“The most damaging things in politics are the things that confirm people’s pre-existing suspicions, and those are the things that travel very fast. It’s a problem.”

—David Axelrod

Well, before we get to Biden’s Quicksand Moment, three caveats:

First, Trump ain’t so swift, either. His rage camouflages his senility. We hear him speak in soundbites, mostly. We do not hear—blessed are we—his long, rambling, incoherent crazy speeches. He makes aphasic mistakes, as Biden does, all the time: Remember when he mistook Nikki Haley for Nancy Pelosi? (Note to Democrats: You really want women in Trump’s face as much as possible. They drive him crazier. More on that below.)

Second, I yield the floor to Joe Scarborough, who delivered unto the Special Counsel Robert K. Hur a mortal butt-whipping yesterday morning:

It certainly seems like a politically charged document," Scarborough said. "It used to be, pre-James Comey, you would either indict somebody or not indict somebody. But now in the political sphere... He didn't have any evidence."

"So many people immediately heard the random, irrelevant conclusions, politically-charged Trump-like ramblings. I wonder, why in the world he would put that in the report, his neurological assessment of Joe Biden? And secondly, why Merrick Garland would release garbage like that at the Justice Department," Scarborough said. "Because it sure sounds like James Comey in 2016 who couldn't indict Hillary Clinton legally so he decided to hold a press conference and indict her politically."

Third, what about Merrick Garland? He seemed so solid when Barack Obama nominated him for the Supreme Court. But Biden, as Democrats so often do, places too much value on juridical authority. Garland was a teflon judge, but Biden needed a wartime consigliere for Attorney General—Doug Jones from Alabama would have been a great pick—and wound up with a wimp. Garland chose a Republican hack to investigate Biden and also, reading between the lines in Liz Cheney’s memoir Oath and Honor, he dragged his feet going after Trump in the January 6 case. Very judicious, I suppose, very high-minded. But stupid. Garland cannot be trusted in a presidential campaign. He should resign—or be fired—immediately. It would be better if Biden canned him: that, at least, would be decisive.

Ok, on to Biden: As David Axelrod says above, this is very bad. It plays into Biden’s mortal weakness: his all-too-apparent mortality. We won’t know exactly how bad for a week or two. But I suspect it’s a crippler. Biden seems doddering even when he’s romping; his understated, deadpan humor doesn’t cross The Great Irony Divide, which cleaves American politics. Have you seen this compilation of hot moments from Biden’s press conference, courtesy of The Washington Post?

I especially love the bit where Biden is questioned by the oleaginous tool, Peter Doocy of Fox News. “How bad is your memory?” Doocy asks, idiotically.

“My memory is so bad I let you speak,” The President responds, wiping out the jerk.

But still, in all honesty, even when he’s rolling strong, Biden doesn’t seem very sharp. He seems old. He doesn’t seem up to the strains—and they are monumental—of a presidential campaign, which are even more so when running against a nutball anarchist like Trump.

Steve Schmidt, who knows a thing or two about presidential politics, sets the stage in this essay:

What is the toughest, hardest and meanest competition on Earth? What is the toughest and most brutal test that exists outside of war?

The answer is an American presidential campaign.

It is a brutal test of character, discipline, nerve, stamina and determination. The process is a profound psychological test for everyone involved. The pace is relentless, the demands constant, and the malice very real. Each day is a battle, and every moment matters in a fight where the stakes are existential…

What makes American presidential campaigns unique is their longevity, and across a vast span of time, torpedoes will materialize out of thin air from unexpected directions and hit directly. The explosions can reshape the race in an instant. They can become the defining moment, and in the end, the defining moment is always a character test.

Schmidt’s suggested strategy after the Hur torpedo:

The Biden campaign cannot become aggrieved or victimized. They cannot look affronted, angered or defensive. There is no space for weakness of any type. The Biden campaign must brawl and fight and brawl some more. The greatest liability is now in the middle of the ring. It is either true or not. The burden is on the president. A lack of rebuttal will become evidence of truth. Joe Biden has to demonstrate he is able. Period.

But is Biden up to that? The Joe Biden I used to know was. He got his Irish up, as my Jewish grandparents—constant victims of Irish thumping on the streets of New York—used to say. Over the course of decades, I’ve spent hours with the guy on and off the record. I always learned something. He was a very smart pol, especially when it came to understanding the ceremonies of leadership. He had a good policy head, especially on foreign policy. But now? His staff wouldn’t even expose him to the ultimate journalistic patty-cake, the Super Bowl interview. It is entirely possible that Biden is more acute than he seems but, as Steve Schmidt says, he’s going to have to prove it. That will be a steep climb. I’m a spry 77, but I couldn’t cover a presidential campaign with the energy I used to expend; under the best of circumstances, Biden, at age 82 much less 86, is probably too old to be an effective President.

And worse, he’s made a classic Democratic mistake in his choice of a vice president. It was a very Merrick Garland sort of choice. He chose on the basis of identity, not on skill set. Kamala Harris is a puzzle. When she ran for President, she seemed perpetually wobbly, like she was struggling to keep her balance on roller skates; at other times, when she was a Senator, she seemed sharp and smart in committee hearings. But does anyone think she would have been Biden’s choice if she were a white man? Again, Harris could turn out to be a brilliant President—as the unlikely Harry Truman did—if given the chance. But she has shown precious little evidence of that. She does not inspire confidence.

The conversation about Biden’s age is constant among Democrats. It ranks right up there with concern about his inaction on the Southern Border. The end product of these conversations is, inevitably, befuddlement. We’re stuck with this guy now. It’s too late. There’s nobody obvious out there to replace him. And if we open the door to a real contest, the crazy left will have the same impact that the crazy right has had on Republicans. (In 2020, Biden was able to capitalize on the fact that his primary opponents overvalued the political power of the left.)

But I would argue: It’s not too late. Political time flows at a different pace than the civilian clock. Things can change overnight. A politician can move from obscurity to inevitability in a soundbite. There is plenty of time for Democrats to choose a different candidate—but only if Biden agrees not to run again.

He could, plausibly, pull a Lyndon Johnson: He could argue that the pressure of events—the border crisis, Gaza, whatever—requires his full attention. He could also argue, more plausibly than Johnson, that he has accomplished what he set out to do. He has passed monumental legislation; he has walked a delicate balance overseas, bolstered NATO, stood with Ukraine and Israel without committing a single American soldier to combat. He has provided a sane, humane and decent presence in the Oval Office. Mission Accomplished.

But then what? One area where the chronology is brutal: trying to mount a traditional primary campaign for a newbie candidate. It’s too late to get on the primary ballot in some states; raising the necessary money at this point would be a bear. What to do? There is at least one possibility: Biden could keep his name on the ballot in the remaining states and then pledge to release the delegates he’s accumulated at the convention. A brokered convention is a grand American tradition and, arguably, produced better results that the activist-tilted primary process has.

And who would those candidates be? There are many possibilities, but I would favor a woman—not for identity or glass ceiling reasons, but because it would drive Donald Trump crazy. It would bring out the worst in him. And disposing of Trump is the most important tasks for the American Republic. So let there be a contest, some sort of non-binding national referendum among the following: Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, two classic middle American moderates; Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, obscure but a great governor of Rhode Island, intelligent, practical and tough, my personal favorite; Elizabeth Warren, the smartest of the liberals with a legitimate, consumer-oriented, populist vision for an electorate tilting that way; and Kamala Harris should also be given an opportunity to show what she could do.

No doubt, some men would want to be involved. Gavin Newsom, obviously. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania. Let them play, but I hope—and sort of expect—a woman would prevail. And just think of the political energy, the excitement, that sort of contest would release! The Democrats would be revived, the Republicans terrified, the country relieved. Suddenly Donald Trump would seem very, very old. And Joe Biden would have the legacy he deserves: a very good President who saved the nation from political disaster.

And in the spirit of the First Anniversary of Sanity Clause, let me extend our special Valentine’s Day subscription offer: