Site icon Common Sense and Ramblings In America

Should Biden Throw in the Towel?

I have written several articles on our Presidential candidate Biden and President Biden. A list of the links have been provided at the bottom of this article for your convenience. This article will, however address different aspects on Biden’s presidency.

Why Joe Biden Should Resign

Joe Biden met with CENTCOM chief Gen. David Petraeus this morning to talk about Afghanistan — an issue that has pushed the vice president into the spotlight, landing him on the cover of the latest Newsweek.

I have an idea for how he can capitalize on all the attention, and do what generations to come will always be grateful for: resign.

The centerpiece of Newsweek’s story is how Biden has become the chief White House skeptic on escalating the war in Afghanistan, specifically arguing against Gen. McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops to pursue a counterinsurgency strategy there.

The piece, by Holly Bailey and Evan Thomas, opens with details of a September 13th national security meeting at the White House. Biden speaks up:

“Can I just clarify a factual point? How much will we spend this year on Afghanistan?” Someone provided the figure: $65 billion. “And how much will we spend on Pakistan?” Another figure was supplied: $2.25 billion. “Well, by my calculations that’s a 30-to-1 ratio in favor of Afghanistan. So I have a question. Al Qaeda is almost all in Pakistan, and Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And yet for every dollar we’re spending in Pakistan, we’re spending $30 in Afghanistan. Does that make strategic sense?” The White House Situation Room fell silent.

Being Greek, I’m partial to Biden’s classic use of the Socratic method — skillfully eliciting facts in a way that lets people connect the dots that show how misguided our involvement in Afghanistan has become.

It’s been known for a while that Biden has been on the other side of McChrystal’s desire for a big escalation of our forces there — the New York Times reported last month that he has “deep reservations” about it. So if the president does decide to escalate, Biden, for the good of the country, should escalate his willingness to act on those reservations.

What he must not do is follow the same weak and worn-out pattern of “opposition” we’ve become all-too-accustomed to, first with Vietnam and then with Iraq. You know the drill: after the dust settles, and the country begins to look back and not-so-charitably wonder, “what were they thinking?” the mea-culpa-laden books start to come out. On page after regret-filled page, we suddenly hear how forceful this or that official was behind closed doors, arguing against the war, taking a principled stand, expressing “strong concern” and, yes, “deep reservations” to the president, and then going home each night distraught at the unnecessary loss of life.

Well, how about making the mea culpa unnecessary? Instead of saving it for the book, how about future author Biden unfetter his conscience in real time — when it can actually do some good? If Biden truly believes that what we’re doing in Afghanistan is not in the best interests of our national security — and what issue is more important than that? — it’s simply not enough to claim retroactive righteousness in his memoirs.

Though it would be a crowning moment in a distinguished career, such an act of courage would likely be only the beginning. Biden would then become the natural leader of the movement to wind down this disastrous war and focus on the real dangers in Pakistan.

The number of those on both sides of the political spectrum who share Biden’s skepticism is growing. In August, George Will called for the U.S. to pull out of Afghanistan and “do only what can be done from offshore, using intelligence, drones, cruise missiles, airstrikes and small, potent Special Forces units.”

Former Bush State Department official and current head of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard Haas argued in the New York Times that Afghanistan is not, as Obama insists, a war of necessity. “If Afghanistan were a war of necessity, it would justify any level of effort,” writes Haas. “It is not and does not. It is not certain that doing more will achieve more. And no one should forget that doing more in Afghanistan lessens our ability to act elsewhere.”

In Rethink Afghanistan, Robert Greenwald’s powerful look at the war (and a film Joe Biden should see right away), Robert Baer, a former CIA field operative says, “The notion that we’re in Afghanistan to make our country safer is just complete bullshit… what it’s doing is causing us greater danger, no question about it. Because the more we fight in Afghanistan, the more the conflict is pushed across the border into Pakistan, the more we destabilize Pakistan, the more likely it is that a fundamentalist government will take over the army — and we’ll have Al-Qaeda like groups with nuclear weapons.”

And Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam vet and Biden confidant, told Newsweek that, while “there are a lot of differences” between Vietnam and Afghanistan, “one of the similarities is how easily and quickly a nation can get bogged down in a very dangerous part of the world. It’s easy to get into but not easy to get out. The more troops you throw in places, the more difficult it is to work it out because you have an investment to protect.”

And doing so, as we’ve seen, usually means losing more and more of that “investment”: each of the last six years of the Afghanistan war has been more deadly than the one before.

Both sides of the Afghanistan debate were represented on this Sunday’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Sen. Diane Feinstein offered up a few rationales for why Obama should rubber stamp Gen. McChrystal’s wishes. First, she said, “there has to be a process of finding out, which of these people can we work with and which can we not.” Really? Seven years in and we still haven’t checked that one off our to-do list?

Feinstein then broke out the latest trendy, new-for-fall reason why we need to up the ante in Afghanistan — it’s all about the women. ” I particularly worry about women in Afghanistan,” Feinstein said, “acid in the face of children, girl children who go to school, women who can’t work when they’re widowed, huddled on the streets, begging, women beaten and shot in stadiums, you know, Sharia law with all of its violence.”

This is indeed very tragic, and I share her concern. But missing from the discussion was the fact that “Sharia law with all of its violence” has just been made the law of the land by President Karzai — you know, our man in Kabul. The Sharia Personal Status Law, signed by Karzai, became operational in July. Among its provisions: custody rights are granted to fathers and grandfathers, women can work only with the permission of their husbands, and husbands can withhold food from wives who don’t want to have sex with them. On the plus side, if a man rapes a mentally ill woman or child, he must pay a fine.

Of course, even with America standing guard, only 4 percent of girls in Afghanistan make it to the 10th grade, and up to 80 percent of Afghani women are subjected to domestic violence. As one of the Afghan women interviewed in Rethink Afghanistan sums up the current situation: “The cases of violence against women are more now than in the Taliban time.”

So can we please put to rest the nonsensical rationalization that we’re there for women’s rights? And don’t be surprised if that reason is soon replaced by another — those pushing for escalation in Afghanistan seem to have learned the Bush administration’s old tactic of constantly moving the goal posts. Don’t like this reason? Fine, here’s another one.

Countering Feinstein on Stephanopoulos was Massachusetts Rep. Jim McGovern, who has taken the lead on this issue in Congress, introducing a bill calling for an exit strategy in Afghanistan.

“I think adding more American forces to Afghanistan would be a mistake,” he said. “I think it would be counterproductive. And I think there’s a strong case to be made that the larger our military footprint, the more difficult it is to achieve reconciliation.”

McGovern then amplified Biden’s concern that the real threat is elsewhere:

When I voted to use force to go to war after 9/11, I think I and everyone else in Congress voted to go after Al Qaida. That was our enemy. And Al Qaida has now moved to a different neighborhood, in Pakistan, where, quite frankly, they’re more protected. And we’re told by Gen. Jones that there are less than 100, if that, members of Al Qaida left in Afghanistan… So we’re now saying we should have 100,000 American forces to go after less than 100 members of Al Qaida in Afghanistan? I think we need to re-evaluate our policy.

Or, as Biden put it, “does that make strategic sense?”

In June, Gen. Jones, the president’s National Security Advisor, was at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan, meeting with U.S. commanders there. This was shortly after the arrival of the 21,000 additional troops President Obama had sent over. Jones raised the question of what the president’s reaction would be if he were asked for even more troops. Well, Jones said, answering his own question, if that happened, the president would probably have a “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment.” In other words, wtf?

Well, Obama has gotten that request, but it wasn’t a “Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment” for him after all. Sadly, Newsweek reports that Obama is typically “looking for a middle way.” But this isn’t a negotiation for a used car, where you split the difference. It’s either in our national security interest to be there or it isn’t. It’s either a necessary war or it isn’t.

Newsweek’s profile makes much of Joe Biden’s loyalty. He’s a “team player,” one close friend says. And after he dissented on Afghanistan this spring he “quickly got on board.”

I have no doubt that Joe Biden is a loyal guy — the question is who deserves his loyalty most? His “team” isn’t the White House, but the whole country. And if it becomes clear in the coming days that his loyalty to these two teams is in conflict, he should do the right thing. And quit.

Obama may be no drama, but Biden loves drama. And what could more dramatic than resigning the vice presidency on principle? And what principle could be more honorable than refusing to go along with a policy of unnecessarily risking American blood and treasure — and America’s national security? Now that would be a Whisky Tango Foxtrot moment for the McChrystal crowd — one that would be a lot more significant than some lame, after-the-fact apology delivered in a too-late-to-matter book.

Rick Scott has no regrets about calling for Biden to resign as both sides go bare knuckles

President’s pivot to MAGA attacks add up politically

A key Republican senator called on President Joe Biden to resign, something that once was done scarcely. But Sen. Rick Scott has no regrets.

The gloves are already off with six months to go before the midterm elections.

There was a time when a member of Senate leadership saying a sitting commander in chief is unfit for office would have been a big deal. Such calls were saved for times of war or impeachment or scandal. No more.

In a telling sign about the country’s deeply divided politics, the Florida Republican’s remark was mostly an afterthought in the age of Twitter and prime-time cable programming. Both are avenues for all sorts of bombastic statements. Both have made us collectively numb.

“In the private sector, when you have a CEO that doesn’t have the ability to deal with something, they resign. They go and do something else. Joe Biden ought to do the exact same thing,” Scott told reporters Tuesday.

For those who might have forgotten, Scott has some experience here, resigning in 1997 as CEO of Columbia/HCA hospital group. After his departure, as PolitFact puts it, “the hospital company was fined $1.7 billion for Medicare fraud.”

With the Senate moving toward a Wednesday procedural vote on a Democratic-crafted measure that would have codified abortion rights and the landmark decision Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned in a few weeks, the former governor’s remark was just another paragraph in most news articles.

But in another period, it would have landed with more of a thud. Consider that Scott is no average freshman senator. He is a successful former governor of a state with one of the country’s most robust economies. He is a member of the Senate GOP leadership team. And he is the National Republican Senatorial Committee chair.

Scott is also not the sort to harbor many regrets.

“No,” Scott said Thursday when asked by CQ Roll Call if he called for Biden to step down lightly, before ticking off his gripes with the 46th president’s performance on matters like record inflation and high gas prices.

“He’s failed. You saw the press conference [Tuesday], he doesn’t even know what state I’m from. He’s confused. He lies about things and blames everyone else,” Scott said. “The guy can’t do the job. It’s real simple.”

Never mind that the president was citing specific Supreme Court decisions with no notes during a Democratic fundraiser this week in Chicago.

Vice President Kamala Harris is hugely unpopular among Republican voters, with YouGov putting her disapproval rating with that group at 88.3 percent. Still, Scott delivered what amounted to a backhanded endorsement when asked if he think she would be a better president than her boss: “I don’t know how you can be worse than Biden’s done.”

For his part, Biden has eagerly elevated the NRSC chairman and what the president has dubbed his “ultra-MAGA agenda” economic plan, hoping to lump both in with Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement as a midterm election-trail counter to Republican efforts to make November’s races a referendum on Democrats.

“I think the man has a problem,” Biden said this week when asked about Scott’s assessment of him.

Biden ran as the lone 2020 presidential candidate who might have a shot at fostering some unity in a bitterly divided country. He has rarely played that role since entering office, however, something Republicans point out daily.

But both parties possess some ownership of America’s tribal politics.

Asked if he believes his tit-for-tat with Biden, complete with both diagnosing each other’s mental health from afar, is constructive political discourse, Scott replied tersely: “I’m here to get something done.”

Messaging pivot

Scott clearly has no regrets, but such bold rhetoric and a war of words with a Democratic president could bring big rewards. After all, someone will assume the mantle of top Republican when Trump finally exits the political stage.

Biden, interestingly, chose Scott. In politics, it is said a president should never “punch down.” But the White House sees an opportunity in Scott’s plan, with the president himself now almost daily calling it a tax-hiking wolf disguised as a MAGA sheep.

Biden’s attacks on Scott and the MAGA movement he says is the “most extreme” political movement in American history included what White House aides previewed as a major policy address by Biden about countering inflation on Tuesday.

But what he delivered was a political speech meant to cast doubt in swing voters’ minds about the economy with Republicans in charge. The president made clear that the midterm elections were very much on his mind at the top of his remarks, saying: “Today, I’d like to talk about two potential paths forward to address the No. 1 challenge facing families today — inflation.”

He focused mostly on the GOP’s proposed path, jabbing repeatedly at the former Florida governor.

“What’s the congressional Republican plan? They don’t want to solve inflation by lowering your costs. They want to solve it by raising your taxes and lowering your income,” Biden said. “I happen to think it’s a good thing when American families have a little more money in their pockets at the end of the month, but the Republicans in Congress don’t seem to think so. Their plan … is going to make working families poorer. You don’t have to take my word for it. It’s in writing. They’ve made their intentions perfectly clear.”

“It’s the ‘ultimate MAGA agenda.’ Their plan is to raise taxes on 75 million American families, over 95 percent of who make less than $100,000 a year total income,” the president added, using estimates Republicans dismiss.

Biden also made a point to stress that the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s war in Ukraine are, in his view, the main drivers of increased prices. Republican lawmakers say Democrats’ penchant for big government spending and Biden’s bungling of things like the ongoing gas price hike are to blame.

In the speech, Biden repeatedly reiterated his previous policies, such as pressing large corporations to “not engage in price gouging, and to pay their fair share in taxes.” He spoke of previous proposals to hand out tax credits so Americans can make their homes more energy efficient and tax credits to businesses who produce renewable energy products, among other things.

“My plan is already in motion,” Biden declared. But major parts of it are not. Those might be permanently stalled in the evenly divided Senate as part of his derailed “Build Back Better” plan.

Some Democratic caucus members want the president to do more.

“I think there has got to be an awareness that a lot of inflation — not all of it, but a lot — is driven by corporate greed,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., “and that prices are rising outrageously from companies that are making huge profits. We have got to be mindful of that.”

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., said he is aware that White House officials are “busy working on a number of things” to pare prices — but he did not name any in a brief interview. And Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., shrugged off the back-and-forth: “I don’t regard it as a big deal.”

“We really should focus on the common challenges, as President Biden has done, regarding inflation, COVID-19,” Blumenthal said. “I’m hoping Sen. Scott’s remarks will be no impediment to our moving forward on Ukraine assistance and a COVID supplemental, and other measures that we need to do.”

The bottom line: Biden and Democrats are struggling with their counter-inflation messaging.

“This is not the last you’ve heard from us on ultra-MAGA,” outgoing White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters of the Scott-crafted plan.

Biden’s pivot to attacking Scott and the MAGA movement has been welcomed by many Democrats.

“The fact Fox responded to Biden calling out Rick Scott’s plan to increase taxes means it worked. They got defensive. This is what it’s like to finally go on offense and hit. Do this nonstop,” tweeted Wajahat Ali, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Western States Center, which pushes progressive policies.

The messaging pivot adds up politically — but only if there is more substance coming from the administration, rather than merely ticking off a list of policies that polls show voters don’t think are working.

Biden fires back at Rick Scott after saying he should resign

Scott called Biden ‘incoherent, incapacitated and confused’

President Biden on Tuesday fired back at Rick Scott after the Republican senator called on him to resign, saying “the man has a problem,” while slamming his “ultra-MAGA” tax proposal. 

The president, during remarks on inflation Tuesday, pointed to a tax plan rolled out by Scott, R-Fla., titled the “11 Point Plan to Rescue America,” which proposed raising income taxes on Americans.

“All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount,” Scott wrote in the plan. “Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax.”

The president slammed the proposal, calling it an “ultra-MAGA” plan that would “raise taxes on 75 million Americans,” while sunsetting programs like Social Security and Medicare.”

Scott, R-Fla., on Tuesday, responding to Biden, told Fox News that the president is “confused,” and has made inflation worse, not better. 

Scott repeated that the easiest thing Biden could do is resign, and said “that’s what he ought to do because he’s making it worse every month.” “It’s always somebody else’s problem. Biden has the job of president. It’s your job to fix this. Biden has no ideas, no plans… we ought to get somebody in there that can do the job.”

When asked about Scott’s comments Tuesday, Biden replied: “I think the man has a problem.” 

White House Rapid Response Director Mike Gwin also told Fox News Tuesday that “Scott doesn’t have a leg to stand on to talk about prices when he continues to lead Congressional Republicans in pushing a MAGA agenda that would raise taxes on half of Americans and jeopardize retirement benefits like Social Security and Medicare.” 

“Putting billionaires ahead of the middle class may make sense when Scott’s at Mar-a-Lago, but it’s bad news for working families,” Gwin said, adding Scott’s agenda “sounds too extreme to believe.”

The president, for weeks, has been taking aim at Republicans — specifically his predecessor, former President Donald Trump, and the “MAGA” movement that he says has taken over the GOP.

Last week, Biden, reacting to the leaked draft majority opinion signaling the Supreme Court’s intent to overturn Roe v. Wade, said: “This MAGA crowd is really the most extreme political organization that’s existed in American history — in recent American history.”

Biden’s comments about “MAGA” come after he declared last month that the GOP “ain’t your father’s Republican Party,” saying it has shifted to a “MAGA party,” warning that right-leaning politicians “who know better” are “afraid to act correctly” out of fear of losing a primary election.

The White House, last week, also said the president has been “struck” by the “hold” former President Trump has on the Republican Party.

Biden Could Save The Midterms By Echoing LBJ’s Promise Not To Run

The president most often compared to Joe Biden in our press and punditry is Jimmy Carter. High inflation, foreign policy disasters, and a general sense of hopelessness all fit the bill. But a decade before Carter there was a president who also resembled Joe Biden in many respects, including polling, and whose choice not to run for reelection in 1968 could be an example to Biden on how to save the Democrats in the midterms, and to save his legacy. That president was of course Lyndon Baines Johnson.

Biden and Johnson were both vice presidents for young and historic  presidents, the latter for the first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, and the former for the first black president, Barack Obama. Both Johnson and Biden were viewed as old guys out of touch with the zeitgeist of the Democrat Party by the time they took over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and both presided over a period of cultural struggle, if not all out cultural war.

Then there are the polls. Leaving out the final year of JFK’s term which LBJ served, if we begin in 1965 after he had been elected in his own name, he started with very high numbers, even for the time. But by the fall of 1967 his approval percentage had dropped from the high 60s down to 38 percent. It was a steady decline that Biden’s fall mirrors, sinking from the high 50s to the low 30s from 2021 through 2022.

Things got so bad that by March of 1968 Johnson announced he would not seek re-election. Less than a month after that Johnson was back at 50 percent from a low of 36 percent. There would be fits and starts in the numbers but he would never hit his nadir again and left office at 49 percent. A line from LBJ’s speech that winter’s night half a century ago helps explain the bounce, “I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office—the residency of your country.”

Johnson’s announcement did two things. It allowed him to appear selfless in the face of crises all around him like Vietnam, crime, and violent protests, and it also removed him from the political fray. These are both things that would do Biden and the Democrats a world of good as we rush headlong to the November midterms. Biden could even credibly claim that his decision not to run is one that will unify the country, recalling his campaign promise. And though Republican Richard Nixon won the presidential race in 1968, there were no strong coattails and there was no red wave. The net change in the House of Representatives was a mere 5 seats.

Over the past few weeks it appears that Biden’s prospects for running in 2024 are growing dimmer quite quickly. Last week several Democrats in Congress were openly criticizing him, former Obama Senior Adviser David Axelrod said, “there is a sense that things are out of control,” Governor Gavin Newsom (D-CA) has all but declared he’s running, and polling shows that 64 percent of Democrats want another candidate. It really does look as though the writing is on the wall.

The conventional wisdom is that Biden could announce he isn’t running after what most expect to be a red wave election this fall. But if the decision is already made, then it would be an incredible waste of political capital to hold off. There is absolutely no question that the vast majority of the news media would portray a choice not to run as Biden taking the high ground, putting the country above his own personal ambitions.

Meanwhile it would free Democrat candidates from having to constantly defend what might be one of the least popular administrations in history. The president could be off the campaign trail and avoid awkward “scheduling conflicts” with candidates like Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Tim Ryan in Ohio, who don’t want to be in the same zip code as Biden.

Then there is Biden’s own legacy. How differently would we feel today about LBJ had he gone down in an inglorious defeat to Richard Nixon? Even if a solemn announcement that he will not seek a second term doesn’t save the Democrats in Congress from a GOP tsunami, it could help Biden be remembered for something other than his current approval ratings, and Democrats could buy time to decide who will go into the next presidential election.

Saving Congress for the Democrats and saving Biden’s legacy by ripping this page from Johnson’s playbook is no doubt a long shot, but frankly, at this point the second Catholic president may need a Hail Mary pass. It would be a bit shocking if having Biden forgo 2024 before the midterm is not being discussed in Democrat circles. The Democrats have an incredibly weak hand going into November, this may be the best and only card they have left to play.

We need a reset with the midterms — and then Biden’s impeachment

The upcoming midterm elections could represent the most complex political calculus in history. The question is whether a potential Republican majority in the House and Senate, combined with a bloc of pragmatic Democratic senators, might decide to impeach President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. Doing so could be the one key to reducing the polarization of American politics and salvaging American civil society.

Joe Biden has set the stage for his demise. The American economy is in a death spiral. Inflation is skyrocketing, and most of the voting public understands that the disaster is because of Biden’s policies. His lame attempts to blame everyone but himself (“conspiracies” among energy companies, auto companies, food companies, irrational consumers, etc.) are falling on deaf ears. The polls are clear: the majority of voters feel Biden is mishandling the economy. His tone-deaf message that more government spending will heal the problem is not resonating with voters. 

Pension plans — yes, those plans that provide pensions for teachers, firefighters, police, other public employees, union members and all other private sector workers — are in serious jeopardy. IRA and 401(k) savings are collapsing. Inflation is eating up the incomes and wage gains of all middle-class and low-income workers. The Fed’s rising interest rates will crush the market and further raise the net cost of financing business, houses, cars, etc.

Biden’s energy policies have been a disaster. Every American, every day, sees the results of his policies when they fill up their cars with gas or pay their utility bills. Prices have skyrocketed under Biden and some Americans may be forced to travel less, live more in the dark, have colder homes in the winter and hotter homes in the summer, and suffer more regular blackouts. Biden’s progressive utopia: The New and Primitive Dark Ages.

Additionally, Biden’s Transportation and Treasury leadership have been abject failures at stemming supply chain problems, trade issues, and economic collapse.

Many Black and Hispanic American citizens reportedly are leaving the Democratic Party as they realize that Biden’s illegal and criminal open-border policies have led to millions of illegal immigrants flooding the country, taking away lower-wage jobs and diluting the voting power of minorities. American citizens also realize that these policies are bringing in criminals with illegal drugs, spiking urban crime and drug-related deaths.

The Biden administration’s COVID policies and lockdowns were abject failures and led to accelerated deathsmental illness, and economic contraction.  

Biden’s notion that teachers “own” America’s children, and have as much or more rights than parents in teaching children values and beliefs, is straight from the communist playbook. The Justice Department’s reported branding of upset American parents as “domestic terrorists,” if true, is beyond appalling.

And Biden’s fully incompetent, politically motivated defense and foreign policies and leadership have invited aggression and adventurism by our enemies — which will only get worse.

Most importantly, Biden’s politics and rhetoric, and his weaponization of the Justice Department against ordinary Americans, has been unprecedented in its divisiveness, corrosive to American civil society. His overt support for progressive street riots, burning cities, and physical intimidation of his opponents represents a new low in American democracy.

Biden and Harris need to go now, and the 2022 elections provide a unique opportunity for a desperately needed reset.

Without such a reset, the future is clear. Donald Trump almost assuredly will return as president. Americans will choose the devil they know, rather than the devil they no longer can stand. It is time for aggressive, “radical moderation,” and the first step is for the next House and Senate to impeach, convict and remove Biden and Harris.

How would that work?

If Republicans take control of the House, they can move quickly on Articles of Impeachment. The Biden administration has been breaking the law to a level that dramatically exceeds the threshold of “high crimes.” The immigration policies alone qualify for summary judgment. The weaponization of the Justice Department follows close behind. Various Republican groups are assembling a list of investigations into rampant law-breaking by the Biden administration. 

Harris, with her portfolio covering illegal immigration and her overt support for urban violence, is an equally guilty target.

Of course, the indication on Hunter Biden’s laptop that Joe Biden likely was involved in potential criminal activity involving payoffs from foreign enemies could become additional evidence of high crimes.

The Senate should convict and remove Biden and Harris before the end of January 2023. The House Speaker would then succeed Biden — most Americans would agree that anyone would be a vast improvement — and, in the spirit of national reconciliation, a hard-as-nails moderate Democrat should be chosen as vice president. Two obvious candidates would be Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) or Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), with Manchin getting the nod because he’d be one-term.

Moderate Democratic senators should leap at this opportunity. If they don’t, they almost certainly will get Trump in 2024, along with another red wave in the House and Senate.

Such a reset would pay huge dividends for America and both political parties. It would reverse Biden’s destructive economic and energy policies and stop his and Harris’s divisive rhetoric. It would lead to open, competitive presidential primaries for both parties, and provide some hope for stopping the next Trump train wreck. It would moderate and, perhaps, return some civility to American politics. It would save America.

Resources, “Biden Could Save The Midterms By Echoing LBJ’s Promise Not To Run.” By David Marcus;, “Why Joe Biden Should Resign.” By Arianna Huffington;, “Rick Scott has no regrets about calling for Biden to resign as both sides go bare knuckles: President’s pivot to MAGA attacks add up politically.” John T. Bennett;, “Biden fires back at Rick Scott after saying he should resign: Scott called Biden ‘incoherent, incapacitated and confused’.” By Brooke Singman;, “We need a reset with the midterms — and then Biden’s impeachment.” By Grady Means;

Biden Postings

Exit mobile version