In the opening post, Tiny quoted another poster who, in a different thread, apparently wished to dispute the view that Biden's cognitive decline renders him unfit to serve as president.
To wit:
"Such silliness. He’s clearly still running the country. I’ve give you an example. Some years ago we had a partner who was way past his prime as a litigator. His mind moved slower than when he was 40 or 50 but he was brilliant still. He was maybe 76 at the time and practiced law for nearly 5 decades. I’d never have allowed him to try a case or argue before the appeal’s courts where you are grilled by judges in a very short time and quick succession. Nonetheless, in the relaxed atmosphere of our office when discussing cases, he could give you amazing analysis and tell you the perfect litigation approach.
Biden is that old lawyer. No, I’m a debate he isn’t quick witted or fast talking but when determining policy he is just fine. There is no need to use the 25th amendment and for him to not complete his term. He likely could make policy and run the country for another 4 years but most people fall for silly Fox News silliness."
I couldn't disagree more.
By what measure is Biden "just fine" at "determining policy?"
As Lustylad (and no doubt plenty of others) pointed out, Biden was no one's idea of a cognitive powerhouse even when he was decades younger, as is painfully obvious from his disastrous presidential campaign in 1988 and his continual missteps throughout his all-too-long Senate career.
No matter where he may be on the cognitive decline curve, the hallmark of a competent executive is the ability to delegate wisely. Does anyone seriously believe that Biden has demonstrated wisdom or competence in that regard?
One very bad choice was the selection of Brian Deese to chair the NEC. But Deese, a partisan political hack and Obama administration retread, has little in the way of academic background appropriate to the position and apparently no understanding of basic economics.
He was one of the primary promoters of the horrendously wasteful $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, as well as the comically misnamed "Inflation Reduction Act."
If that isn't bad enough, the choice of Kamala as a running mate might have been an even more irresponsible decision. One would think it would be incumbent upon a president who would turn 82 before his term is up to choose a responsible successor; someone fit to hold the office.
But take a look at this:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/04/polit...lan/index.html
Seriously, does anyone believe that a candidate who espoused this sort of nonsense is fit to hold
any high office? (Let alone the presidency of the US!)
So, I think the comparison of the (possibly valuable) musings of an aging attorney to the critical responsibilities of a US president are quite inapt. After all, younger lawyers could easily effect a course correction when warranted and get the necessary filings in order while avoiding pitfalls and blunders.
But keeping all the appropriate guardrails around a US president? Well, that's a little more difficult!
Biden -- and those around him -- should have recognized long before that fiasco of a debate in June that he should have "pulled an LBJ" and announced that he wouldn't be seeking re-election. Then there may have been time to have an "abbreviated primary" of some sort, or at least a convention process whereby a more acceptable nominee may have been chosen.
Instead, Democrats got stuck with Kamala Harris, arguably one of the worst candidates in American history.
Now her intellectually vacuous campaign leaves people like the irascible Carville asking questions along the lines of, "How can we be losing to this fucking idiot?"
