I didn’t watch the presser – just didn’t feel up to watching the senile creep. But I guess he managed to say “Vice President Trump” while implying he thought Harris unfit to serve. And something about reuniting Japan and Korea. Something which will comes as a bit of a surprise in both countries.
Right into it the Democrat comments were all along the lines of “this is going well because Biden has such great experience in foreign policy”…which is news to me, you and everyone on Earth. Biden has never been good on foreign policy. He’s grotesquely ignorant of it, in fact. But that a large number of Democrat comments were along these lines shows it was a talking point passed out before the presser. And, of course, he had a list of reporters to call on – which means it wasn’t a press conference but a campaign event.
At the end of the day, Biden has to show the people that he is in great health and mentally sharp. That he didn’t have a debate-style meltdown isn’t going to do the trick. He had to be like the Biden of the 2008 Vice Presidential debate where he was able to smoothly lie his way through the whole thing without a hiccup. He is mentally and physically incapable of that and every time they put him out there looking like a worn out geezer the more frozen the public mind will be on “unfit.”
I still doubt they’ll force him out – there is a growing desire on the part of some Democrats to get him out but the delegates are mostly Biden loyalists. Unless he voluntarily goes, there’s not much the Democrats can do about it – and his pride along with Jill and Hunter will keep him in it. He does not want to be remembered as the man who quit…especially in the face of Donald Trump, whom he hates with a passion. But at this point I’m not sure the Democrats can get to the monotonous unity they normally present for the general election. You know it: where day by day regardless of what is actually happening they all stay on message. We might have leaks and back biting among the Democrats all the way until November.
This is why the GOP wants Biden to stay in.
And how is it going?
Well, the Biden people put out a memo which says, essentially, they’re counting on holding WI/MI/PA…which means here in July their plan is to thread the needle to exactly 270. The campaign trying to do that is the campaign that is losing. Badly. Side note: the MI Senate race has been moved from “Leans Dem” to “Tossup”. Why? Because Biden is proving such a downward drag on Democrat enthusiasm that nobody is sure if enough Democrats will show in November.
Trump VP speculation is rife – I honestly have no idea. I think his team is stirring the pot on this deliberately so that his pick will come as a complete surprise…and, who knows?, maybe it’ll be someone nobody expects? One thing everyone is agreeing on: this 2024 Trump campaign is vastly more disciplined than either 2016 or 2020. No leaks. Message discipline. Prepping for turnout and fraud prevention. Mapping out strategy to hold or take States and, perhaps, move into one or two traditionally Blue States if that seems warranted.
Democrats are trying to turn Project 2025 into something to harm Trump. I think it only works on the most committed Democrats. And that could mean, actually, that Team Pudding Brain hasn’t even locked down traditional Democrat constituencies. We’ll see!
SIDE NOTE: You know how fans love their teams? Well, I found out something – when you abandon your team after more than half a century of sticking with them, the other fans get really mad about that. I became a Padres fan in 1972 when at the age of 7 my Dad brought me to my first game. The Padres beat the Cubs that day. I was hooked. And like a good, little fan I stuck with them all these years. But when the Padres got swept by the Mariners after a two game totally inept and lazy performance, something inside me broke…I just couldn’t be a fan any longer. Honestly, I think it’s that I became a Golden Knights fan that ultimately ruined it for me. Being a Padres/Chargers fan I had long been accustomed to “next year”. Knights got a Cup in six years. I now expect that if I’m going to invest time and emotion in team that they at least try hard. Anyways, when I posted my anti-Padres rant on X, did I get scorched! So, if you do decide to bail out on a team which perennially sucks, don’t post it!
Blogs For Victory 
Become a San Francisco 49er Fan Mark, great franchise, and they are always in the mix. I’ve been a Faithful 49er since the 1970’s myself …
Joe, Jill, and Hunter Biden are currently holding the Democrat Party hostage and are waiting for their ransom. They are grifters, and it will cost Democrat donors millions of dollars and promises never to prosecute to get the Biden’s out. Joe Biden does not want to leave the White House though, as he and Jill have wanted this position for 50 years and they will not relinquish it without a pay off.
Trump is running an excellent campaign and should easily defeat any Democrats thrown at him. One thing Trump should be mentioning is that it won’t matter which Democrat they prop up, the communist policies are the same. Re: the VP pick, I’m with you Mark in that I don’t think it will be any of those folks on the “short list”. Trump is a showman and he likes surprises … so here are my guesses: Ron DeSantis, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Youngkin
… so here are my guesses: Ron DeSantis, Tulsi Gabbard, Glenn Youngkin
I’d be pleased with any of those three. There’ something about Tulsi that I really like that I just can’t put my finger on, and no, I don’t think it’s that she’s attractive. She may very well be the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing, but I don’t get that impression listening to her, and I’ve seen her interviewed a couple of dozen times. Just like I don’t think Trump is the same person he was 20 years ago, I don’t think Tulsi is the same person she was when she was a Bernie supporter. One thing, I think, is indisputable: she loves this country. I’d love to see a debate between her and Kamala. I’d PAY to see a debate between her and Kamala.
I was out to dinner with a widower friend, and the presser was on the radio when I got in the car, and when I got home I turned on the radio in my den, so I got to hear the last 45 minutes or so. Joe was clearly better than he was in the debate, but he used “anyway” a dozen or more times in the time I was listening, which is his coping mechanism when he loses his train of thought. All in all, I’m pleased to have him as the Democrat nominee, heh.
I could be more impressed with Tulsi if someone would pin her down not on the label she has chosen for her political identity but on the core belief system she has regarding the best blueprint for governing the nation. She’s come out on the conservative side on some ISSUES>/i> but I don’t care about issues, I care about governmental structure.
Does she think the country is best governed though consolidation of powers in the hands of few who then govern “as surrogate decision-makers for the rest of society” or, to simplify the question, does she think we have to be governed according to the 10th Amendment? If she’s not “the same person she was when she was a Bernie supporter” then what has changed, and how and why? Because I think she loved this country then, too—she just didn’t think it had to be governed according to its Constitution. If she did, she could not have supported Bernie. It is impossible to support Bernie and his socialist agenda and at the same time believe we have to be governed according to our Constitution. The two political philosophies are antithetical to each other. So why did she support Bernie, and what changed, and how, and why, and why should we have more faith in the new Tulsi than in the old Tulsi?
BTW, I like her, too, and would like to take advantage of her obvious talent, just not in a position that involves decision-making dependent on belief in and commitment to the 10th Amendment.
I’d need to see her pinned down on specific questions like this before even considering her as a possible contender for the presidency, which is, after all, what the criterion for vice president really has to be.
If she’s not “the same person she was when she was a Bernie supporter” then what has changed, and how and why?
I saw her pressed on that very point in an interview a while back. She said, rightly or wrongly, that at the time her choice as a Democrat was Hillary or Bernie, and that Bernie was the lesser of two evils. I agree, though, I’d like to see her answer your question. I’m guessing 20 years ago Trump would probably have been a Bernie supporter – well, OK , maybe not.
Has anyone ever asked her “Why are you a Democrat?” It makes sense, if you are a Dem, to then feel your choice is among Democrats. But my question is WHY are you a Democrat? What is it about the Democrat philosophy of governance that you think is better for the country than that of the Republicans?
As for the possibility that Trump might have at one time been a Bernie supporter, I think that might have been possible, because we as a nation gradually got used to (1) picking a party, seldom just for its ideology but usually more because our families always belonged to it, or because its leader is more charismatic, or because we are attracted to one or more of its stated policies or promises, etc. and then (2) to automatically, by default, then vote for whoever represents that party. Even those who step away from a party and call themselves “Independent” seldom articulate a specific formula for governance.
I think that laziness regarding political affiliation has led to the deterioration of our government and our nation, and we need to get away from it. So I am unswayed by the impression Tulsi gives of loving this country, and the projection that this means dedication to not just the basic principles of our Constitution but its actual wording, because unless and until she is specific about it I can’t put faith in it just because she is charismatic and I want to believe we share the same ideology.
I’d love to have her as a declared convert to the Right. She is bright and appealing and very very smart, and has the ability to influence people (as we see here) but the same thing can be said about people with dramatically different beliefs of how best to govern the nation, so for me she has to stop counting on her personality and how she comes across in interviews and take a firm official stand for Constitutional governance and rejection of Leftist political dogma.
I believe Tulsi is the real deal, and I think she would answer your questions satisfactorily. She is very smart and I believe she truly loves this country and our Constitutional Republic and would preserve it. I also think that 4 years learning from Trump will make her even more of a force.
That’s a lovely hope and I share it but not enough to vote based on it. She is certainly articulate enough to state and explain a political philosophy that complies with conservative ideals of actual government and not just a few ISSUES and this is what I would need to consider her for a high ranking office in a Republican administration.
My younger brother is all-in on Gabbard. I’m not sold; but he’s convinced just that – she’s for real and everyone should set aside the past and jump into this with her. I guess we might find out!
Identity Politics writ large and illustrated by nice and sincere gullibles like your brother—like her, but wait for something more compelling than her personality to sign on to the Gabbard Express.
I think his bias is so fixed on anti-Establishment that it predisposes him towards Gabbard who has been rejected by the Dem Establishment.
OTOH that points out another weakness for her as a VP pick: Trump is the anti-Establishment…he doesn’t need help shoring up his Outsider street cred.
I was thinking today about how Ron DeSantis has basically disappeared. It’s not that he is shy, it’s not that he is hiding out because he didn’t win—I wonder if he is just biding his time till the convention to be brought out as the big surprise. I sure hope so. I keep hearing buzz about this person or that person for VP, but none of it ever seems to be focused on this person’s qualification to be president..
I also think that 4 years learning from Trump will make her even more of a force.
My impression is that she’s much more of a pragmatist than she is an idealogue, that is, she recognizes and would support policies that work even if they conflict with her own core ideology – much like Trump. Let’s face it, ideologically Trump is not, at heart, a Conservative, but he has a great sense of what works and what doesn’t. The fact that what works tends to be conservative in nature, I think, is largely irrelevant to him. Same goes for the Constitution: what doesn’t work tends to be unconstitutional, so Trump followed the Constitution. I kind of view Tulsi the same way, although, unlike with Trump, I don’t have the receipts to back that up. We’ll know in a few days, and if Trump doesn’t pick her it’s all irrelevant.
The problem with the pragmatism you describe is that it is variable, and if someone is, for example, next in line for the presidency based on a current pragmatic analysis that the 10th Amendment has to be the litmus test for governance and then the situation changes, this analysis is likely to change, too. That’s the problem with just basing decisions on pragmatism, because the perception of what “works best” is so fluid.
“What works best” seemed to be the guiding principle of the Covid lockdowns, so the basic Constitutional requirement of legislation fell by the wayside in favor of the “pragmatic” decision about what was “best”. (This is setting aside skepticism about the true motivation of the Left and just accepting the rationale it gave.)
Sorry, but I put little or no faith in someone motivated by “what works best” after seeing this philosophy put in play by the Left and then failing miserably, creating more problems than it was hoped it would solve. One glaring example: The New Deal. Unmoored from Constitutional restraints, well-meaning and sincere people decided to enact what they thought would “work best” and the nation was plunged into a crushing Depression for more than a decade. When decisions are based on what appears, at the time, to be “what’s best” and then there is a conflict, or failure, it’s the core ideology that will surface and take over, so it’s the core ideology that matters.
I think if someone had pressed Trump, back when he publicly identified as a Democrat, on how he felt about consolidation of political power in the hands of a few elites and removing it from the states or the people, he probably would have said “that’s a dumb idea”—in spite of the fact that this was (and is) a core tenet of the Democrat Party. This is why I keep harping on the need to get away from Identity Politics and getting down to the basics of the structures of each political model.
so for me she has to stop counting on her personality and how she comes across in interviews and take a firm official stand for Constitutional governance and rejection of Leftist political dogma.
Reagan did that, but can you ever remember Trump actually doing that? I can’t, but maybe I just missed it.
No, you’re right—I don’t think Trump has taken an official ideological stand, like Reagan did. But then Reagan thought in political terms, and Trump does not. I think that, politically, we have to infer his political ideology based on his actual actions when functioning in a political environment.
There are a couple of significant differences between him and Tulsi. One is that he has never taken an official, wholly political, stance in favor of Leftist governance so he doesn’t have a stated ideology to overcome and other is a track record (short, but impressive) of actual political actions and decisions that support an assumption of dedication to Constitutional governance.
Sorry, but I put little or no faith in someone motivated by “what works best” after seeing this philosophy put in play by the Left and then failing miserably, creating more problems than it was hoped it would solve
The difference, as a good friend and former “unexamined Liberal explained to me (to the point where I finally had to read the book) is the constrained vision vs. the un-constrained vision. Conservatives generally look at “what works” through a completely different lens than Liberals do.
I kind of look at Tulsi as someone who may have been an unexamined Liberal, who has evolved pretty dramatically in the last 3 or 4 years. Like I said, I could be way off base. As you know, I stopped watching the news after my wife died, so I probably haven’t seen or heard Tulsi speak in over a year.
I think, or at least hope, that true conservatives start with “what works” and then compare it to the Constitution to see if it CAN work within those guard rails, the big and most important question being “WHERE does it work?” Dems want it to work at the federal level, and seem to have a knee-jerk rejection of the idea that different states can have different opinions and laws, and this is the most fundamental difference between the two competing political models and one where the answer is crucial. (And if there is any question about the Left’s strident belief in federal control over everything, just look at the meltdowns over abortion being a state issue, not a federal one.)
I think the point at which the two political systems started to become so polarized is when the Left succeeded in shifting the discourse from disagreeing on whether an issue should be solved at the federal or state level to the much more dramatic and visceral question of whether it was a valid or important issue at all, conveying the message that a disagreement on the proper venue for solving a problem was really denying the importance or validity of the problem. The Right got sucked into this fake conflict, too, and started arguing the Left’s premise instead of saying “No, we agree that this is a problem, we just think that according to the Constitution it’s a problem that has to be decided at the state or local level”. So this particular philosophy of where and how problems can be solved, much more than if they are important enough to be solved at all, has to be discussed and an understanding has to be reached about how someone like Tulsi sees the answer.
As I have only pointed out about a gazillion times, it seems that Democrats seldom if ever sit down and ponder the reasons they are Democrats and compare their deep seated beliefs with those of Dem dogma. I have no problem thinking that perhaps this is true of Tulsi, though given her obvious intellect that’s kind of hard to believe or explain. But let’s say that she has been, to use my terminology, “unexamined”. It could be as simple as “My dad is a Democrat, my mom is a Democrat, my family has always been Democrats, everyone I know and like is a Democrat—of course I’m a Democrat”. It could be one or two levels deeper than that, adding to that a couple of ISSUES supported or promoted by Democrats, so it just seems like a natural continuum. Then there’s the promise of a shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground–Democrats are for feeding hungry children and so am I” that is always accompanied by the assumption that if the Other Side is the opposition then of course that means they are against feeding hungry children, the bastids. And pretty soon that Democrat bubble has reinforced walls.
The only thing that penetrates those walls is doubt, is questioning the premises that keep the bubble inflated and shore up those defenses. The fearful, like casper, intuitively understand this and fear having their foundations rattled so they have perimeter defenses that make sure no challenge that might create doubt or questions can ever penetrate deep enough to have an impact. And that’s OK for the cannon fodder, the mindless sheeple fed crap and harvested for their votes.
But for someone who is already questioning some of the ISSUES that form the identity of the Leftist movement and who might want to move beyond it and even to the Other Side, that bubble has to be penetrated and those questions have to be asked and those foundational precepts have to be challenged and the resulting answers have to be specific and unambiguous.
At this point, from my admittedly limited perspective, Tulsi has flirted a little with possibly breaking out of the bubble, has emerged through a couple of layers of that wall surrounding it, but hasn’t broken out enough to qualify as being free of it. Maybe she has, and she hasn’t talked about it. Maybe she’s at the point where I once found myself, where I had walked away from the Democrat Party but when it came to voting for a REPUBLICAN I had a very hard time getting over that emotional speed bump, getting past the abstract to the real. Don’t underestimate the power of making that step, even for people not deeply committed to politics.
That’s why I want to see a live interview where the moderator asks those hard, specific questions: Why are you a Democrat? Do you believe that the best blueprint for governing the nation is one of consolidation of power in the hands of a few, who then govern from the top down? Do you think this model of governance is better than keeping most authority at the state or local levels? Why or why not? Do you accept and agree with the 10th Amendment? Why or why not? What do you see as the proper role of the federal government—to merely provide a national identity and an umbrella of protections under which citizens can be pursue their own lives, or to take care of citizens and solve their problems? Sometimes breaking the ideological disparities down into bite-size bits instead of looking at the entire dogma at once makes it easier to understand.
These are questions that I answered for myself over a period of transition, but then I was not in the public eye and considering a political career that might involve a conversion to a different political identity. For someone like Tulsi I think they are essential, and at least for me I need the right answers to accept her as a legitimate representative of the GOP–which a vice president would be.
I always remember the Outback Steakhouse commercial with Jermaine from the Conchords, explaining that he is a vegetarian. “Well, I do eat fish. And chicken. And some meat. I guess you’d say I’m semi-veg.” Semi-veg in political terms is just not good enough for me.
I kind of look at Tulsi as someone who may have been an unexamined Liberal, who has evolved pretty dramatically in the last 3 or 4 years.
And I agree. I just want her to unambiguously confirm that she has evolved on ideology and not just on some issues.
My impression is that she’s much more of a pragmatist than she is an idealogue, that is, she recognizes and would support policies that work even if they conflict with her own core ideology – much like Trump.
I got to thinking about this, and ideally an intellectually honest pragmatist will re-examine their core beliefs if they are involved in the implementation of policies that conflict with those beliefs and the policies are successful. To some extent I think that’s what happened with Trump.
I think I understand what you are saying, but I want the sequence reversed. I want the core ideology to change, so then the policies start off being in line with it, not engaging in policies that are not compliant with core beliefs ( which implies a certain reluctance and lack of commitment to the policies) and only then when they are successful thinking “Well, I’ll be dipped! That works after all!” and then going through a change in the belief system.
I never got the impression that Trump entered the White House with a core Leftist ideology and then came to a gradual realization that the Constitutional model was better. He started off with a commitment to legal advice on the Constitutionality of his executive actions.
I think what we’re all saying here, in various ways, is that if Tulsi Gabbard had the same ideological/political epiphany as Amazona did back in her previous life, we’d all like her a lot. Well, Casper probably wouldn’t. In fact the one undeniable fact about Tulsi that separates her from just about every other prominent Democrat that I can think of is that she’s likable,
I agree. She is eminently likable, which to my mind makes her either a potential asset or a threat, depending on her eventual landing spot as a convert to conservatism or a mere distraction for people more convinced by her persona than by her true true political belief system.
I don’t think Biden needs to worry about retribution from Trump. He needs to worry about retribution from his own party
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/07/chris-matthews-says-there-is-going-be-payback/
Has anyone found a link to the transcript of yesterday’s press conference? The reason I ask is that the guy who does the afternoon drive-time radio show on WOWO in Fort Wayne just mentioned that Biden said the reason he did poorly in the debate was that he had travelled through 12 time zones the week before (he spent the week before at Camp David practicing).
If you find it, please link it here. I would like to read it.
I think after the fallout from the debate transcript which CNN apparently published unedited, they probably learned their lesson.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GSPz_gtakAA6NY0?format=jpg&name=small
LOL! The two people subbing for Bongino today were talking about someone producing Biden/Trump bumper stickers.
I didn’t watch the presser – just didn’t feel up to watching the senile creep.
“Creep” doesn’t begin to do him justice, and senility is the least of Joe Biden’s problems. Here’s a guy who’s plagiarized his way through life, lied repeatedly about who he is and what he’s done, and is one of, if not THE MOST corrupt Presidents in the history of the country. Add a good measure of incompetence and just all-around dishonesty to that mix, and you’ve got a once-in-history awful, disgusting person occupying the highest office in the country. The real Joe Biden is the guy who did “inappropriate things” in the shower with his daughter (by her own admission), who is on video feeling up young girls during public ceremonies, who sniffs and gropes women. The real Joe Biden is the guy who former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said “has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades”. The real Joe Biden is the guy who arrogantly sat in front of a group at the Council on Foreign Relations (and is on video doing so) and bragged about using a billion dollar loan guarantee to extort the government of Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was investigating Barisma Holdings, the energy company whose board of directors included Biden’s crack-head son, Hunter. Trump looks like a choir boy by comparison.
I wasn’t going to watch the debate because I find Biden so utterly revolting but the Mrs insisted that we watch – happy wife, happy life!
But he is just the distilled essence of our corrupt and incompetent Ruling Class, isn’t he? Obama was the suave face of garbage…Joe is the garbage.
Joe is the garbage.
He really is. I understand people not liking Trump. Heck, I’m not exactly a fan of Trump the person. But, for the life of me, I can’t imagine anyone with an ounce of intellectual integrity saying they “like” Joe Biden. In the above rant, I didn’t even touch on the credible allegations of rape by Biden, (much more credible than the one against Trump) or his virulent racism, from paling around with prominent segregationists, to giving the eulogy for KKK Exalted Cyclops Robert Byrd, to the countless racists utterances, like, “if you don’t know whether you’re going to vote for me or Trump, you ain’t black.”
I did watch the debate, mostly to see how Trump would handle it. Like you, I’ve never liked Trump The Man but that night I could see why a lot of people do like him. I thought he was funny and rather charming, and if he had toned down his tendency to exaggerate (giving the Left ammunition to howl HE LIED!!) it would have been a solid ten for him.
The thing is, even when I didn’t like Trump I could see why some people do. I have never been able to understand how or why anyone would like Joe Biden.
Gun shots at a Trump rally. Anyone surprised?
I’m listening on the radio, because I don’t have live TV anymore. A friend texted me a live shot showing Trump bleeding from his right ear. News on the radio is saying it looks like he’s OK. It just got real folks. Bad time to be a Democrat.
Thanks to God Trump looks to be ok. I imagine this will change his security protection going forward. When shot, blood was coming from the tip of his right ear as he was facing to his right, which would suggest the shooter was behind his podium.
There was video of him speaking and then pausing to kind of slap at his ear, and then within seconds he was down behind the podium and the people around him were diving for cover. The original reporting was what you might expect—all the news organizations said he had been shot except CNN, which said he had been “injured” after ‘some loud bangs were heard”. There was some video of officers hauling a body out through the crowd, in a kind of blanket or hammock type of covering, with one officer holding the person’s arm up in the air as they tried to get their burden through the crowd.
Trump’s reaction? He was PISSED! I don’t think I have ever seen such raw fury on a man’s face.
We’ve speculated here about how for the opposition would go to stop Trump. I guess now we know.
While new information is slow coming out, apparently there were several shots, maybe 7-8. That the shooter only hit Trump’s ear is a miracle. It seems there could easily be others who are wounded but no news on that. Supposedly the shooter, an attendee at the rally, is dead. This incident will change the dynamics of many things going forward. One of my first thoughts is, how much effort will go into determining and bringing to light the details – and- if there will be so much cover-up that the details will be more obscure than the RFK shooting.
Prayers to anyone killed or wounded, and their families. Other thoughts.