How about the prospects of alternate nominees for the Democrats?

The New Neo Posted on by

After last night’s Biden debacle, there’s increased chatter about who might replace him if the Democrats can manage to give him the boot.

A great many people think that just about any replacement could beat Trump more easily than Biden could. I’ve long disagreed with that point of view. The reason I don’t think it’s any kind of slam dunk is that, if they’d had a good replacement for Biden, they would have gotten rid of him long before this.

Do you think other Democrats poll better than Biden? See this. Now, granted it’s from mid-February of this year, which is pretty old news. But it’s one of the few polls I could find that shows how Trump would do against leading Democrat contenders, and the answer is “pretty well.” Here are the stats at a time when Trump was leading Biden by only 1 point:

In a hypothetical match-up, Trump leads Vice President Harris 46 percent to 43 percent and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) 46 percent to 36 percent. He also leads Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) 45 percent to 33 percent.

Newsom and Whitmer have increasingly gained national attention as prominent Democrats, and pundits have included them as possible future presidential candidates.

Both of the governors are quite well known, and have vulnerabilities on the national level.

Here’s a poll from March that shows an even greater margin for Trump over Newsom, and in the same poll Trump apparently also led Michelle Obama (I can’t find more details because it’s behind a paywall).

Of course, if any of these people – or some other Democrat – is nominated, I suppose they could start to grow on the American public. But I don’t see any reason to automatically assume that will happen. The Democrats are in disarray at the moment, and although they could regroup, it will take some doing.

The day after the debate: the emperor Biden’s new clothes

The New Neo Posted on by

Unlike in the Hans Christian Andersen story, there was no little child pointing and crying out, “But he’s naked!” But last night’s debate made quite a few things clear that apparently had been successfully hidden from at least some portion of the public.

The first is that Biden has lost even more cognitive and physical ground.

The second is that the leftist pundits, press, and politicians have been cynically lying about it in a power-hungry con game.

The third is that in this debate it couldn’t be hidden from the public. Until now, only the right has been reporting on the obvious, showing moments in which Biden seemed confused, physically and mentally froze, and was inarticulate or downright impossible to understand. The Democrats thought if they didn’t show it, the public wouldn’t notice, and people like press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre could do the Orwellian thing and accuse the right of lying with “cheap fakes.”

Even to those of us who have been watching Biden’s mental and physical condition sink and were aware of his cognitive challenges, it turned out that Biden had an especially bad night last night. The hour was late for him. He wasn’t reading from a script. Many people predicted he’d fade as the night wore on, because ninety minutes would be too much for him, but fifteen minutes turned out to be too much for him. Maybe even one minute. They may not have dosed him properly. The extra stress might have gotten to him. Whatever the reason, it was a perfect storm and he wasn’t just terrible, he was shockingly terrible in a way that could not be denied (although some will try, of course).

It couldn’t be denied because it was happening in real time, under a spotlight. This is the reality of Joe Biden, President of the United States, Commander in Chief, and leader of the free world. I think that the various MSM personalities didn’t have to feign shock about that. They truly were shocked, but they were lying about what caused their shock. They had known for a long time that Biden is befuddled and incompetent, and they had cooperated in covering it up for their viewers. But they had assumed that he would do well enough in the debate that they could continue with the con. Their shock was that they recognized almost immediately that the con was over.

There’s an alternative explanation, though, which is that the entire debate was a setup for getting rid of Biden. I think it’s probably true that the Democrats wanted the debate to be held earlier than usual in order to test him out and be able to ditch and replace him if absolutely necessary. But I also believe they didn’t think it would pan out that way; they didn’t think it would be absolutely necessary. But now they see that they have two choices: figure out a way to ditch him and replace him with someone who can win, or find a way to ramp up the fraud to previously unheard-of levels.

Getting rid of Biden as candidate won’t be easy, though. As I’ve said many times, if it were easy and the solution obvious, they would have done it sooner. That’s the big stumbling block. But waiting this long, even if they finally accomplish it, isn’t a good look for the party. The cynically deceptive game they’ve played has become more clear, as has the risk in which they’ve put the nation and the world.

The Democrats have been working the con for four years, ever since Biden was anointed the 2020 nominee. But after last night, I think the con is up – and most of them seem to think so, too. Now it’s time to get a new candidate and/or a new con, and they’re not so sure they can pull it off. I certainly hope they can’t.

NOTE: There’s also the fact that Biden’s decline is now out in the open for all to see. Around the world, every tyrant and enemy of the US is chuckling and rubbing his hands with glee. But you know what? I think they already knew Biden was pretty bad, even before this.

I’ll add that, although I’m not a doctor or a nurse and can’t diagnose anyone, I suspect that Biden has Parkinson’s Disease. How can I say that even though he has no tremor? Although tremor is usually a prominent symptom of the disease, it’s not a necessary one. Biden has many of the other symptoms: a masklike face, slowed gait and small steps, balance problems, cognitive issues, and weak voice.

Open thread 6/28/24

The New Neo Posted on by

I know I’ve previously shown videos of the Moiseyev Dance Company’s “Partisans,” which is a tribute to the partisans of WWII. But I’m going to add this one featuring section of a “Partisans” rehearsal. It’s minus the fancy lighting, the props are spotty – some dancers have them and some don’t – and they’re not giving it their full performance pizzazz. But it’s still impressive. I never tire of the way the dancers create the illusion of gliding. I pretty much know how they do it – small quick movements with their feet, while keeping their upper bodies calm and level. But I still can’t believe what I’m seeing:

After the debate

The New Neo Posted on by

I didn’t watch the debate itself. But I watched some subsequent commentary just now on ABC.

And I couldn’t help but notice that the pundits looked and sounded very somber. It seems Biden was a disaster. They were talking about how he might be replaced on the ticket – except for the problem of who could replace him, and whether Biden could be convinced to give up his grip on the office.

And that was on ABC.

“

The debate tonight

The New Neo Posted on by

Here’s a thread to discuss it.

I fear I may be repeating myself – but I can’t stand debates. They make me a combination of nervous and angry as well as frustrated. Is a lot riding on this one? Biden’s supporters would never vote for Trump, and Trump’s would never vote for Biden. That said, there are the usual people in the middle who could be swayed. They tend to tip the balance of the voting in one direction or the other.

The expectations for Biden are so low that it’s easy to say he’ll probably exceed them. Then again, I don’t think the expectations are sky-high for Trump, either. I can’t put myself in the shoes of an “undecided,” so even if I were to watch the debate – which I might not – it would be hard for me to guess how that group would see it.

One interesting point is that this is a very rare situation – and no, it’s not just the advanced age of the two participants. It’s that they both have already served one term as president.

One of the things to watch is how the MSM will favor Biden, both during the debate via the moderators, and after the debate via the coverage.

Biden is “appalled” at violent anti-Semitism in LA

The New Neo Posted on by

Anti-Semitism was on display recently in Los Angeles, with keffiyehs and masks instead of brown shirts:

As RedState previously reported, disturbing scenes unfolded on a sunny Sunday in Los Angeles, where pro-Hamas agitators showed up to surround and harass worshippers at the Adas Torah synagogue while calling for a bloody intifada.

Chants of “Free Palestine” filled the air.

As we also reported, things escalated quickly as the worshippers attempted to defend themselves, each other, and the synagogue, “with eggs, pepper spray, and fists being thrown. Some people and journalists were thrown to the ground and kicked, while others were bludgeoned.”

Biden (or someone writing for him) made a comment on “X” to the effect that he was “appalled,” and Tom Cotton and Ted Cruz replied:

Good points.

Quite a few people affiliated with the synagogue fought back. This is an Orthodox synagogue in a Jewish area of LA, and my guess is that some of the members are either of Israeli origin, or the offspring of families who came years ago from Iran (LA is home to quite a few Iranian Jews from families who came here mostly after the Iranian Revolution). Those groups are not averse to defending themselves physically, if necessary.

It used to be that synagogues didn’t have to be guarded in this country. Then it used to be that a guard or two would do, because the threat was from a lone terrorist or maybe a couple working in tandem. Now it’s a mob. And if the police don’t defend the congregation – which they did not in this case, although they were present – the congregation must do so itself.

Here’s a more detailed story, including a description of the inaction of the police.

NOTE: Several sites covering the event have pointed out that the mob in LA that attacked the synagogue had many “regulars” who had earlier participated in anti-Semitic riots at UCLA, and that there’s a lot of overlap with Antifa. “Antifa” is one of those extremely ironic Orwellian names: anti-fascist, my foot.

SCOTUS is ok with government censorship via social media

The New Neo Posted on by

On yesterday’s SCOTUS decision in Murthy v. Minnesota:

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 6-3 to vacate a historic preliminary injunction granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of Murthy v. Missouri, finding that the Respondents protected by the injunction lacked standing to support injunctive (that is, future) relief. The injunction had barred officials from the White House, CDC, FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and the Surgeon General’s office from encouraging social media platforms to censor constitutionally protected speech.

… The Court today protected the government’s ability to censor truthful speech that opposed the government’s false and manipulative narratives on multiple aspects of the Covid-19 pandemic, including our clients’ true statements challenging government falsehoods about natural immunity, vaccine efficacy, masking, the origins of the Wuhan virus, and many other topics.

I think it’s not that hard to figure out what happened. I noticed long ago that Chief Justice Roberts’ general judicial philosophy can be summed up as “find some reason to not rock the boat” – if the boat is the way the government is operating. Kavanaugh and Barrett sometimes follow suit, as they did here. I believe it was a cowardly decision to avoid an outright fight with the Biden administration. Here was the reasoning in the opinion:

“To establish standing, the plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial risk that, in the near future, they will suffer an injury that is traceable to a government defendant and redressable by the injunction they seek,” Barrett wrote. “Because no plaintiff has carried that burden, none has standing to seek a preliminary injunction.”

This tendency towards non-interference with the status quo is why I was surprised that the Court overruled Roe.

Judge Merchan loosens Trump’s gag but doesn’t remove it

The New Neo Posted on by

I guess he did it just in time for the debate on Thursday:

Merchan on Tuesday partially lifted the gag order because the trial has concluded.

Trump is now able to speak about protected witnesses and jurors.

Steven Cheung, Trump campaign spokesperson, said in a statement Tuesday, “Today’s order by Acting Justice Merchan leaves in place portions of the unconstitutional Gag Order, preventing President Trump from speaking freely about Judge Merchan’s disqualifying conflicts and the overwhelming evidence exposing this whole Crooked Joe Biden – directed Witch Hunt.”

Of course. Mustn’t cast aspersions on the integrity of the court, or of Biden.

I was curious to see how often only the defendant in a trial is bound by a gag order. So far I haven’t found the answer, but I did find this:

… [T]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit invalidated a broad gag order issued by a federal district court in the criminal trial of sitting Rep. Harold Ford from Memphis, Tennessee, back in 1987. Ford faced mail and bank fraud charges, and the judge issued a broad gag order prohibiting Ford from discussing the merits of the case. The order even prohibited him from making any statements about the trial, including an “opinion of or discussion of the evidence and facts in the investigation or case.”

The Sixth Circuit wrote in United States v. Ford (1987) that “such broadly based restrictions on speech in connection with litigation are seldom, if ever, justified.” It also explained that it is “true that permitting an indicted defendant like Ford to defend himself publicly may result in overall publicity that is somewhat more favorable to the defendant than would occur when all participants are silenced. This does not result in an ‘unfair’ trial for the government, however.”

Ultimately, the Sixth Circuit held such gag orders are justifiable only if the government can show public comments about the trial pose a clear and present danger to the fair administration of justice.

Obviously, there’s no comparable case involving a gag order on a front-runner in a presidential race who’s been prosecuted by people from the opposing party on a charge that uses a novel and preposterous legal theory.

Latimer beats Bowman in NY Democratic primary

The New Neo Posted on by

Jamaal Bowman – you remember him, the puller of the fire alarm in a House office a while back – lost his primary yesterday to George Latimer. It was quite a contest, and the defeat was well-deserved.

The district is “diverse,” combining part of the Bronx (heavily black and Hispanic, I believe) and Westchester (more whites and Jews). Israel was a big big subject of the campaign rhetoric. Here’s the charming Bowman (who used to be a middle school principal in the Bronx):

Speaking before Sanders and after Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over the weekend, Bowman opened with a salty stemwinder aimed at AIPAC.

“We are going to show f**king AIPAC the power of the motherf**king South Bronx,” Bowman said. “People ask me why I got a foul mouth,” he added, accusing his opponents of attacking his family. “What am I supposed to do?”

AIPAC stands for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and is a pro-Israel lobbying group. I guess Bowman’s remarks didn’t serve to ingratiate him with the Jews of Westchester.

This primary was billed as the most expensive ever.

Latimer gave a post-primary speech about inclusion, and Bowman continued his AIPAC-bashing (and didn’t concede the election):

…[I]n a clear pivot to a general election race that he is expected to win, Latimer struck a bipartisan tone. …

Speaking at his own party in Yonkers, Bowman blasted AIPAC and its affiliates, which he said helped “brainwash” voters.

“Unfortunately some so-called Democrats are aligning themselves with radical, racist Republicans,” Bowman said.

As opposed to radical, racist Israel- and Jew-haters like Bowman. Such a gracious guy.

The margin of defeat was 17 points. Here’s a description of how the different parts of the district voted:

[Bowman] would maintain an overwhelming advantage in the Bronx throughout the night, but Latimer quickly took the lead when Westchester County began reporting early voting results. At the time AP called the race, Latimer held a 26-point lead in Westchester with almost half of the county’s estimated vote tabulated. Westchester accounts for about 90% of the district’s population. Latimer was also ahead in the district’s moderately Democratic areas, which make up most of the district, while Bowman was far ahead in the district’s most heavily Democratic areas.

NOTE: And Lauren Boebert won in her primary. Just as Latimer is in a heavily Democratic district and expected to win in the general, Boebert is in a heavily Republican district and is expected to win in the general.

Julian Assange plea deal

The New Neo Posted on by

It appears that Julian Assange will be returning to Australia, his original home:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is due to plead guilty on Wednesday to violating U.S. espionage law, in a deal that will end his imprisonment in Britain and allow him to return home to Australia, ending a 14-year legal odyssey.

Assange, 52, has agreed to plead guilty to a single criminal count of conspiring to obtain and disclose classified U.S. national defense documents, according to filings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands.

He is due to be sentenced to 62 months of time already served at a hearing in Saipan at 9 a.m. local time on Wednesday (2300 GMT Tuesday). The island in the Pacific was chosen due to Assange’s opposition to travelling to the mainland U.S. and for its proximity to Australia, prosecutors said.

At this point, it does seem rather like ancient history, doesn’t it? Fourteen years ago for Assange’s leaks.

I have very mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I think that journalists should not get a pass on leaking classified documents especially concerning ongoing military operations, which was the case at the time of the Assange-assisted leaks. I don’t trust journalists’ judgments on this, to say the least, although it’s not as though I trust the government either. On the other hand, I’m not sure what the proper punishment would be for Assange; perhaps it is enough already in Assange’s case. On still another hand – I’m up to three hands now – sometimes we do get important information this way, but I don’t think it’s good to adopt an “ends justify the means” excuse.