Republicans by massive numbers, a growing number of independents and even some Democrats by now are actively suggesting that Joe Biden not seek reelection in 2024, in large part based on his frequent verbal stumbles and fumbles and the strong suspicion they are the product of mental failings.
Now a column in the New York Times, which unabashedly opposed President Trump in almost every respect, is encouraging Biden to announce he’s calling it quits.
Fox News commented on the idea from Times columnist Bret Stephens, a longtime critic of Trump, that Biden should decide not to run, and announce that, “as soon as possible so potential Democratic contenders could begin making preparations to replace him.”
Stephens wrote, under “Biden Should Not Run Again – and He Should Say He Won’t,” that Biden’s “uneven” mental condition needs to be discussed.
Biden has been known for his verbal failures for years, but in the last 24 months or so they appear to have gotten significantly more embarrassing.
He’s forgotten people’s names, the offices they hold, and what city he’s in.
Multiple times he’s delivered a word salad, where he keeps trying to express an idea that doesn’t come out amid the “uhms” and “aahs” he uses. One time he apparently got lost on the grounds of the White House, wandering off the sidewalks while on video, and forcing Secret Service officers to scramble to keep their distance.
Polls show huge numbers of Americans, including many Democrats, believe he’s no longer competent to be president.
Fox reported Stephens cited Biden’s age as well as his cognitive state.
“Is it a good idea for Joe Biden to run for re-election in 2024? And, if he runs again and wins, would it be good for the United States to have a president who is 86 — the age Biden would be at the end of a second term?” the columnist wrote in the Times. “I put these questions bluntly because they need to be discussed candidly, not just whispered constantly.”
The report cited questions about President Ronald Reagan’s age in the 1980s, when he took office at 69, as “fair game,” but added, “It had somehow become ‘horrible manners’ to raise similar concerns about Biden, who turned 79 last month.”
“It won’t do. From some of his public appearances, Biden seems … uneven. Often cogent, but sometimes alarmingly incoherent,” the column warned. “What’s the reason? I have no idea. Do his appearances (including the good ones) inspire strong confidence that the president can go the distance in his current term, to say nothing of the next? No.”
Further, he said if Biden would confirm his non-candidacy for 2024, it would free up his administration to work on what it wants now, without worry over a future vote.
He explained, “The man who once gave his party hope now weighs on his party’s fortunes like a pair of cement shoes.”
Biden, in fact, has been burdened with horrible poll numbers recently, probably based on the nation’s surging crime and inflation, his failure to gain an advantage over COVID-19, the southern border crisis, the Afghanistan-pullout disaster and more.
One Democratic Party leader with worse ratings, however, is Vice President Kamala Harris.
“So what’s the president to do? He should announce, much sooner than later, that he will not run for a second term,” Stephens wrote. “Right now he’s worse than a lame duck, because potential Democratic successors are prevented from making calls, finding their lanes and appealing for attention.”
WND reported only a day ago that several commentators are seeing that twice-failed Democrat presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton could be positioning herself to be the Democrats’ 2024 candidate.
She was on television just days ago to explain she thinks President Donald Trump will run for the White House again in 2024.
And, she threatened, if voters put him in the Oval Office again, it “could be the end” of American democracy.
Her sudden interest in the 2024 race came just days after she appeared on video reading a portion of the “victory” speech that she never delivered when she lost the 2016 race. (She years ago lost a Democrat primary to Barack Obama.)
At National File, a report explained Clinton “fought back tears as she read the five-year-old victory speech she had planned to deliver before being soundly defeated by 45th President Donald Trump in the 2016 election.”
She read part of the speech during an interview that was to promote her videos, which she plans to sell online.
Hillary Clinton gets emotional as she reads her “would have been” 2016 victory speech pic.twitter.com/ClAHdVsyoD
— Jewish Deplorable (@TrumpJew2) December 8, 2021
She explained how the speech included that she would be the first woman president.
In the excerpt about the speech, she references her mother, who died several years ago, “I dream of going up to her, and sitting down next to her, taking her in my arms, and saying, ‘Look at me, listen to me, you will survive, you will have a good family of your own, and three children, and as hard as it might be to imagine, your daughter will grow up and become the president of the United States.'”
Columnist Robert Spencer at PJMedia raised the question about why was the speech being promoted, and her interest in the 2024 race was suddenly appearing.
Spencer explained, “Considering the fact that Hillary is one of the most artificial and calculating human beings on the planet, the question must be asked: Why now? Hillary has had over four years to release this speech, of which she is clearly proud. What is different about the situation today that led her to inflict this speech on an unwitting world?”
He noted, “Former Trump adviser and current Gettr CEO Jason Miller has an answer: Hillary is positioning herself to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee in 2024.”
Spencer wrote, “By the time the 2024 election rolls around, Hillary will be 77, but Joe Biden, if he is still with us as much as he is now, will be nearly 82, and Kamala Harris will still be as obviously unfit to be president of the United States as she is now, even if by then she has served some time (heaven help us) in the Oval Office. The Democrat bench, as Stacey Lennox recently detailed, is even weaker. So why not Hillary? After all, she maintains that she won the election in 2016 in the first place; she clearly believes that she can defeat Trump (if he is indeed the Republican nominee, and again, in her view) in 2024.”
The column pointed out the weakness of the Democrat Party.
“A new poll has a humiliatingly low 22% of Americans and 37% of Democrats wanting Biden to run again in 2024; meanwhile, only 12% (and 16% of Democrats) want Kamala Harris to be the Democrats’ standard-bearer in the next presidential election. And who comes after that? Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, who enjoyed a long unannounced vacation as the supply chain crisis spiraled out of control? Gavin Newsom, the authoritarian governor of the California SSR? Stacey Abrams, who worked against the people of her own state for the sake of woke posturing against Georgia’s voter integrity law?”
Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].
This article was originally published by the WND News Center.