The NYT is Destroying Joe Biden

By Don Varyu

February 16, 2-24

Psst…want to know a secret? It’s about that Biden guy—you know, the President. Well…it turns out…he’s REALLY  OLD! As Biden himself would say, I mean it!
Wait…what? You already heard that?
Well, of course you did. Over and over and over again.
___
But in the opinion of the New York Times, you haven’t heard about it nearly enough. It has been the staple of their Biden coverage for many months; there is no sign of this stopping. And their obsession becomes a plague, because the paper is the de facto managing editor of all American journalism. No self-respecting national outlet puts together its rundown of articles or broadcasts without reviewing what the Times is doing. The Times' biases command not just attention, but allegiance. Their rundown is the nation’s rundown.  

This is both disgusting and extremely dangerous. Let me explain.
___

Let’s begin with reality. Joe Biden is unquestionably 80 years old. He frequently uses a wrong word and swallows others; but this has been the case since he was a kid, suffering from a speech disorder. Second, he shuffles along from the White House to his helicopter, or up steps and across the stage to a podium. The medical fact is that he suffers from arthritis in his back. If you share this condition, you understand it has exactly zero impact on your mental faculties.
And if you think all this collectively diablos Biden in terms of fulfilling his duties…you disagree with all people who have directly dealt with him, even in the last year—including Republicans—who swear he is just as sharp as he’s ever been. Beyond that, I assert that his record--his actions and stances, even if you disagree with them--have been clear and decisive throughout.

But this, for whatever reason, has not stopped the NYT from obsessing. over his mental capabilities. They simply cannot say it enough. Its own database, searched for articles on “Biden/age”, lists more than 2,000 entries.
___

After spending most of 2023 clutching its pearls over Biden’s age…and speculating repeatedly on who in the party might replace him…things at the Times calmed down a little over the holidays. But then, a Republican special prosecutor concluded that while Biden did nothing illegal in retaining governmental documents in his home. However, he based this decision in part because Biden was “a well-meaning, elderly man with memory problems.” Among his proofs was the fact that Biden could not remember the exact year when his son died. What the prosecutor did not mention was that his interview with Biden began the day after the deadly Hamas massacre of Israelis…when Biden (or any President) may have been preoccupied with other matters.
This special prosecutor, Robert Hur, took it upon himself to repeatedly comment in his report on what he thought of the President’s memory and mental acuity. Hur majored in English literature as an undergraduate, and philosophy as a graduate student. Somehow, that led him to law school. How anything in this prosecutor's background qualifies him to make psychological or medical conclusions about anyone ‘s health is entirely unclear. Maybe he just thought doing so would help you know who.

Regardless, the Times was quick to react. It immediately went back to publishing stories on whether it was too late to replace Biden. (Even though realisticaly they know it is.) The paper’s popular Daily podcast scrambled the jets, interviewing the paper’s lead White House correspondent, Peter Baker, on the reignited crisis. They dutifully replayed sound clips demonstrating Biden’s verbal and memory lapses. But they were quick to gloss over Baker’s own reporting citing multiple interviews with dozens of Biden aides, members of Congress, foreign diplomats and heads of state. Baker concluded, “nobody has said to me they don’t think he can do the job,” and those sources declared nothing “…has affected his capacity to make the decisions you would want a President to make.” In fact, Biden’s record in the face of such delusional Congressional opposition is unrivaled in modern U.S. politics. But that hardly registered. The podcast host was quick to repeat how “damaging” and “embarrassing” this situation is. After all, he implied, the polls prove it.
This, my friends, is the very definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
___

The endless conjecture has persuaded so-called liberal commentors like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart to gleefully join the chorus of “both sides-ism.” People like them just want to safely protect their credentials inside the oh-so-sophisticated thought bubbles in Manhattan and Malibu. These guys continually whine, “can’t we do better than these two old guys?” As if the two old guys were the same thing. They don’t even see the damage they’re doing. By implying or outright stating that Biden and Trump represent the same danger, they are undeniably helping Trump. Their assessments, to people who don’t pay much attention to politics and elections (i.e. the majority), thus give permission to these folks not to even bother casting a ballot. After all, since both candidates are equally inept, why take the time? And while the MAGAs will vote in force, the vaguely disinterested non-voters can award Trump the election by doing nothing.
___
Which is beyond ironic. Because right wing shills are the ones who began this whole “Biden age” meme in the first place. That exploded shortly after they suffered stinging losses in the 2022 midterm elections. Clearly, what they had communicated to voters on issues in that campaign (particularly abortion) was downright repellent. Being devoid of any fresh policy proposals, they needed something new. Aha! “Hey, you know what? Biden is old!”  

Not surprisingly, it resonated with GOP voters immediately. But comments from the likes of the Times, Maher and Stewart made sure the left wing would similarly start sounding the alarm. If it’s true that politics makes for strange bedfellows, surely this is over the top. The far right and the clueless left are now aligned, intentionally or not, to put you know who back in the Oval Office.
___

The sin for the country is that there are at least a dozen issues far more important than Joe Biden’s memory or ability to run a 100 meter dash. Don’t believe me? OK, here goes: the Ukraine war, the Gaza war, crank Republicans kidnapping Congress, the Catholic-controlled Supreme Court, inflation, the potential demise of NATO, the fentanyl crisis, housing, homelessness, mass shootings/gun control, the border crisis, Trump’s promised “one day dictatorship”, social media damage, and the rise of artificial intelligence.

And that doesn’t even begin to consider the Kardashians.
___

­­­Still, I know that people will watch Biden and say, “come on—look at the guy! He can’t do this for four more years.” 
As I’ve written previously, groundbreaking medical research has established a new reality on aging. Individual organs of the body can and typically do age at different, unrelated paces. For example, kidney disease can kill someone with a perfectly healthy heart. Lung cancer can kill someone whose brain is “young” for its age. Even without considering death, the organs just don’t age on a common timeline.
In modern times, the activity and influence of people in their 80’s, or even 90’s, is indisputable (whether you love them or hate them): Nancy Pelosi, Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, Chuck Grasley, Harry Belafonte, Clint Eastwood, Willie Nelson, Jane Fonda, Bob Dylan, Bernie Sanders, Paul Simon and Mick Jagger. Somehow, they kept on keeping on.

So, when someone is inclined to say (about Biden or anyone else), “he’s just too old to handle the job anymore”, perhaps it would be more helpful for those folks to look in the mirror and consider the possible ignorance gazing back at them.
___

One final picky annoyance on this topic. Much of the corrosive conjecture from the Times spews from its editorial pages. So far as I know, there is no one in their regular stable who has any expertise in identifying or analyzing the effects of aging.
No matter. Recently, columnists Bret Stephens and Gail Collins jointly published a pseudo-real time conversation with each other. It was unmitigated groupthink and drivel. And spoiler alert: the topic was Biden’s age. Who could have seen that coming?
Stephens is a longtime Republican firebrand; strongly pro-Iraq War invasion, climate denier, reflexive apologist for Israel. His credentials include a stint heading up the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the intellectual sewage dump which serves as the equivalent of Fox News for people with too much money. So, his intentions in damning Biden are, to put it mildly, transparent.
But Collins, the arch liberal, takes the cake. In their piece, she laments, “I must admit I’m worried about (Biden) stretching things into his mid-80s.”
Which is delicious. Because when Biden is (hopefully) inaugurated in March of 2025, Gail Collins herself will be 79.
Apparently, the New York Times deathly fear of aging does not apply to its own.
# # #