Do you remember The Exorcist, where the possessed character Regan spun her head back and forth and twisted it around and around, saying one thing in one moment and then saying the opposite the next?
That's what it felt like reading this peripatetic piece by the New York Times Editorial Board in the aftermath of the stunning claims made in the Hur classified documents report. Special Counsel Robert Hur found plenty of evidence of foul play by Joe Biden but declined to prosecute the president because he would come across to a jury as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.”
In other words, a person who maybe some wouldn’t want to put behind bars – but hardly a guy you want running your country either.
This almost feels like a joke:
In @nytopinion
— The New York Times (@nytimes) February 10, 2024
President Biden "has been a wise and steady presence," the editorial board writes. "He needs to do more to show the public that he is fully capable of holding office until age 86.” https://t.co/ZobBwREOUY
For a brief moment, the once-respected Grey Lady chose to tell the truth—that Biden is no longer fit to be commander-in-chief:
...the release of the special counsel Robert K. Hur’s report on Thursday — and Mr. Hur’s assessment that the president presents himself as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” — will invariably test the trust that the American people have in their president.
Mr. Biden’s performance at his news conference on Thursday night was intended to assure the public that his memory is fine and argue that Mr. Hur was out of line; instead, the president raised more questions about his cognitive sharpness and temperament, as he delivered emotional and snappish retorts in a moment when people were looking for steady, even and capable responses to fair questions about his fitness.
His assurances, in other words, didn’t work. [Bolding mine.]
Wait... did they just say his assurances... didn't work?!
But this is the New York Times, and you can trust them, but only if you're trusting them to bring you biased Democrat propaganda instead of the news. They immediately contradict themselves, demanding the president do more even though they've just admitted he cannot:
He must do better — the stakes in this presidential election are too high for Mr. Biden to hope that he can skate through a campaign with the help of teleprompters and aides and somehow defeat as manifestly unfit an opponent as Donald Trump, who has a very real chance of retaking the White House.
What, are you suggesting his handlers take away his teleprompter and his aides? He would be like a fish flopping in the desert. But here's where they truly lose the plot: they ask the president to do more interviews and personal appearances when they know he faceplants every time he tries.
The president has to reassure and build confidence with the public by doing things that he has so far been unwilling to do convincingly. He needs to be out campaigning with voters far more in unrehearsed interactions. He could undertake more town hall meetings in communities and on national television. He should hold regular news conferences to demonstrate his command of and direction for leading the country.
This is truly the loony leading the loony here. Biden can barely make it through a sentence without zoning out, how would he possibly do more interviews and "unrehearsed interactions?" And when they write, "He should hold regular news conferences to demonstrate his command of and direction for leading the country," they really beclown themselves. Biden just attempted that Thursday night, and it went about as well as the Titanic's maiden voyage.
See:
But even the ghost of a great newspaper sometimes has to deal with reality. Despite spending their usual verbiage thrashing Trump and saying that regardless of Biden's obvious deficiencies, he's still the preferred candidate, they grudgingly admit what's obvious to everyone (with the exception of some of their readers):
This is a dark moment for Mr. Biden’s presidency, when many voters are relying on him to provide the country with a compelling alternative to the unique danger of Mr. Trump... [Bolding mine.]
He needs to do more to show the public that he is fully capable of holding office until age 86.
The problem with their argument, as they seemingly point out themselves over and over in the piece, is that Biden clearly lacks the ability to show "the public that he is fully capable of holding office until age 86."
He is but a shell of his former self, and the Hur Report proves it. He puts our country in danger with his ineptitude.
For the NY Times to still shill for him is a disgrace.
Dem Insiders Have Delusional Answer to Biden's Mental Woes: More Makeup and Better Lighting
NY Times: Don’t Worry About the $112.1B in Shoplifting, It’s a Right-Wing Narrative
