The sky is falling!
I guess I'm one of those rare individuals who doesn't expect my elected officials to entertain me. I don't expect them to be exciting, or witty, or even play a mean round of golf. I also don't expect the president to single-handedly support the weight of the entire country, let alone the world, on his or her shoulders. I was a manager for most of my adult life, and the way I understand the role of a manager, a leader, is that they are not responsible for doing things, on the contrary, they are tasked with getting things done. Of course the leadership positions that I held were pretty puny compared to the job of President of the United States, but the principle is the same. The president is the head of a huge bureaucracy, which includes hundreds of thousands of federal workers and the world's largest military. His responsibility, as George W. Bush once said, is to be "the decider" - to delegate the details to subordinates and make the big decisions. As long as those big decisions are ones that I feel are best for the country I don't care if he sounds like one of the hillbillies from Deliverance.
President Biden is an inconsistent public speaker, especially if he's speaking without a script (i.e. a teleprompter) At times he sounds bold and dynamic, at other times rambling and off on tangents. He stutters, which requires him at times to stop, take a breath and allow his brain and mouth to coordinate. I don't think people fully grasp how difficult it is to answers questions and give long detailed answers on the fly like that, even when you don't have a speech impediment. I don't stutter, but I would never officiate a wedding without a script. Even in meetings at work, I always come prepared with notes that I can refer to. I even stammer a little when I get an unanticipated question. The fact that Biden is, and always has been, a meandering and uninspiring speaker with a penchant for embroidering his stories shouldn't have been news for anyone. The fact that an 80+ year old man is not that steady on his feet and walks with a stiff gait shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone either.
I watched all 90 minutes. In reviewing my Facebook comments about it I didn't once make any reference to Biden's demeanor or presentation as problematic, nor indicative of his inability to continue as president. Not because I'm brainwashed into thinking Biden can do no wrong, but I just didn't see it that way. I thought he started off somewhat uninspiring, but that he picked up steam as he went along (although he let himself get sucked into an argument about golf handicaps towards the end). I concentrated on the substance of what he was saying, not the optics. I thought we had progressed past the days when Nixon's o'clock shadow was a deciding factor in a presidential election. I was wrong - we have not. I had expected the mocking and attacks by the adherents of Losin' Don, but the panic and calls for Biden to end his candidacy by Democrats and by Democratic-leaning news organizations was quite surprising. (Although I shouldn't have been surprised by the complaining by Sanders supporters that Sanders got screwed out of the nomination [twice] and we can blame the DNC cabal for bringing us to this point)
I've always thought that determining who "won" a debate was mostly subjective and can be spun by both sides by spotlighting what each wants to emphasize. So, who "won" the debate on Thursday night? Who did a better job of presenting their own accomplishments and policies? Who did a better job of pointing out the other's weaknesses? We should ignore comments like "my opponent is the worst president in history" - or "my administration was the most successful in history", They're subjective statements and are basically meaningless. So what did each do right to present themselves as the better choice? Biden answered the questions put to him by citing specific policies. He muffed some details (he initially referred to insulin co-pay as $15, but corrected himself with the right number - $35; he incorrectly said the Border Patrol endorsed him - they did not - perhaps he was talking about the BP Union's support for his border bill that the Republicans would not support - he corrected himself there too). A subject that he should have stayed away from was the "very fine people on both sides" quote. A lot of people think this was debunked by Snopes, when it is more nuanced than that, as this article lays out. It made him look uninformed.
At the risk of engaging in whataboutism - what about Trump? Trump didn't bring his usual debate style of interrupting and yelling to this event. He was restrained and very un-Trump-like. (maybe he was the one on drugs?) He didn't interrupt (likely due to the muted microphone), he stood up straight and looked calm and, dare I say it, presidential. This was a smart move by Trump, as I'm guessing that Biden's debate preparation involved a Trump stand-in who was yelling and interrupting, throwing him off. So the optics looked better for Trump than for Biden, what about the substance? Here's some fact-checking by CNN's Daniel Dale. Trump, whether he was just lying or just uninformed ,was largely fact-free for most of the debate. He didn't answer at least half the questions that were put to him, circling back to his favorite misrepresentations. Most concerning was an actual answer and a response to Biden. Biden had brought up Trump's promise to engage in retribution if re-elected. If you paid any attention to Trump's public statements, he's very clear that what he means by retribution is going after his political opponents with the legal system. In the debate he first claimed that it meant that his success as president would be his retribution, but quickly pivoted to a rant where he called Biden a criminal and was very clear that he thought Biden should be prosecuted for his (according to Trump) mishandling of the border and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trump was asked by one of the moderators whether he would accept the results of the election, no matter who won (he was given the wiggle room of "after all legal challenges are exhausted"). His answer was "if it's free and fair"...and we all know he didn't think the last election was "free and fair". Related to this was his insistence that he had nothing to do with encouraging what happened on January 6th, and blamed it all on Speaker Pelosi.
President Biden was shaky and inarticulate at times during the debate, had a facial expression that a friend of mine described as "slack-jawed", and presented some inaccurate information. Trump on the other hand refused to answer questions, rambled on with lies and misrepresentations, and once again confirmed that he had no respect for our elections and would not accept any election results where he was not the winner. If you think Trump won anything on Thursday night, I question your standards.
Do I wish that our president was younger, stronger and a better communicator? Absolutely. But you go to elections with the candidate you have, not the one you wish you had. The calls for Biden to step aside are not helpful, and would, in my opinion, cause chaos, division and possibly hand the election to Trump.
The sky is not falling.
