Tough talk? Hard to get it from today's media which regularly bungles the story or outright distorts it. It's how you end up with a claim that an actress beat out other actresses for a plum role, how you get a so-so person enshrined as a brave ally for the LGBTQ+ community and how you get a man in cognitive decline convinced he can fool the American people about his abilities.
Let's start with the last one.
Before the November general election takes place, Joe Biden will be 82 years old. Grasp that. Now grasp that comedy legend Carol Burnett teamed with Amy Poehler for a sitcom, HOUSEHOLD NAME, back at the start of 2017 and ABC ordered a pilot but then decided that, at 84, Carol was 'too old' to build a show on due to financial risks. Grasp that. At 84, the network decided she was too old to risk the money on.
She was two years older than Joe will be this year. And she wasn't trying to be president.
Now, do us a favor, and pretend you're responsible for hiring. You work for Diamond Offshore Drilling and 82 year old Joe walks in. Wants to work on one of your company's offshore rigs. If you hire him, you're pretty sure he can make it to the oil rig, you're just not sure he can make it through the six months.
And that's where the country is with Joe Biden now.
Maybe he can make it to January in office. Maybe. But can he handle presidential duties and running for office at the same time at his age?
June 29th, Alex Thompson (AXIOS) reports:
Between the lines: Biden's miscues and limitations are more familiar inside the White House.
- The time of day is important as to which of the two Bidens will appear.
- From 10am to 4pm, Biden is dependably engaged — and many of his public events in front of cameras are held within those hours.
- Outside of that time range or while traveling abroad, Biden is more likely to have verbal miscues and become fatigued, aides told Axios.
So, first off, he's really not up to the job of serving as president right now. Let's be honest about that. And he's not up to campaigning and being president.
And grasp, that he's put in four years working less than all but two other presidents since 1933. Alex Angle (ROLL CALL) reports, "As measured from the start of his presidency to June 30, President Joe Biden’s presidential office hours are the third-shortest since 1933, averaging six hours and 48 minutes. Harry S. Truman had the second-shortest average at six hours and 43 minutes. The averages come from a Roll Call Factba.se analysis of presidential schedules from FDR to Biden."
Serious conversations need to be had and we're not getting them. August 19th, the DNC convention starts in Chicago and the Democratic Party's presidential nominee will be named. There is no time for the party or its members to play. Polling is showing that Joe at the top of the ticket is dragging down the election chances for Congressional Democrats.
MAGA is out for blood. They're enthused, they're ready to turn out. Four years later, Joe is not just cognitively challenged, he also thinks he can yet again run on I'm-not-Donald-Trump and that this alone will be enough to win votes. Could people prefer Joe to Donald?
We do.
But we're also aware that if every Democrat voted, Republicans wouldn't usually be voted into any office. For various reasons -- including income and personal resources and neighborhoods they live in -- it's much easier for Republicans to make it to the polls. We need momentum, we need excitement on our end to turn out the votes and Joe can't do that.
Project 2025? We've covered it here since 2023. In fact, all group sites participated in a roundtable on it: "Roundtable: Project 2025, hate merchants," "Roundtable -- LGBTQ+, Project 2025," "THIS JUST IN! ROUNDTABLE!," "LGBTQ ROUNDTABLE," "LGBTQ roundtable," "The LGBTQ+ Roundtable," "Roundtable: Attacks on LGBTQ+, Project 2025," "Talking hate merchants and more roundtable" and "Roundtable."
So the goal is to stick with Joe and try to scare people into voting? Those who can't inspire serve up fear mongering.
Here's the thing about that? Project 2025 has been out too long to be effective as a mass scare. Even if you drop back to the last two weeks as the start date for mass awareness of Project 2025, it peaked too soon to be an effective tool in November.
Gore Vidal often spoke of the democracy experiment in the United States and often noted the boiling frog issue. We're going to shorthand but please read his writings on the topic. If you put a frog into boiling water, the frog will try to jump out. If you put a frog in water on the stove and slowly heat the water, the frog will boil alive unaware of what's happening.
People can adjust to a lot. We have to. It's been that way throughout history. And it's a coping mechanism. We'd otherwise live stressed on full alert at all times -- having episodes similar to Post Traumatic Stress.
Things were bad for Joe Biden before Saturday. On Saturday, Donald Trump was shot at. It is a great campaign moment for him. His ignoring the Secret Service and waiting to make a comment and the optics? All of it screams: Leadership!
We'd argue poor and inept leadership. And we'd point out that by not following Secret Service requests to immediately depart, he also put the crowd, himself and the Secret Service at risk.
But this will be shaped into a narrative in the media that helps Donald.
Joe is stuck with his own narrative. He babbles, he loses his thought, he makes people wonder if he's up to the job. Last Thursday was supposed to reassure voters. It was instead the day that we all got reminded that he can't even get the basics right. At 5:40 pm EST, his task was simple. Make a few comments as he introduced Volodymyr Zelenskyy -- since 2019, the president of Ukraine and someone Joe Biden has worked closely with since his first days as president. And what happened? From the official transcript put out by the White House:
Ladies and gentlemen, President Putin — (applause) — President Putin — he’s going to beat President Putin — President Zelenskyy.
Most people -- including us -- noted he called Zelenskyy "Putin" -- Vladamir Putin, Zelenskyy's sworn enemy (and vice versa). That was awful. The whole purpose of the photo op was for Joe to introduce Zelenskyy but he's so far gone, so on the edge of senility, that he can't even get that right.
However, there's another troubling thing.
If you introduce someone to someone else, you don't generally say, "Here's Walker." Because, unless you're Cher, most of us don't have just one name.
Our point?
Watch the video, read over a transcript. And then grasp that the prepared remarks did not include Zelenskyy's first name. That's how much the mind has gone for Joe. The White House prepared remarks for Joe to stand in front of the press and introduce Volodymyr Zelenskyy but they grasped that using the man's first name was too much for Joe and his declining memory so they never bothered to put it in the speech.
Not only is Zelenskyy (and we're using the White House spelling, FYI, US media generally goes with "Zelensky") in the news constantly, not only has Joe forked over $175,000,000,000 US tax dollars to Ukraine per the Council on Foreign Relations, but Joe has now met with Zelenskyy five times in the Oval Office. And he can't be trusted by his own staff to get the man's first name right?
Not only is that sad, sad it also the press conference on Thursday. Joe couldn't deliver it in prime time, grasp that.
Grasp that when the President of the United States does his first press conference of the year -- yes, his first press conference of the year was after the half-way mark because the White House can't trust the senile old man to be in front of the camera -- he can't even pull that off. From the official White House transcript:
My foreign polic- — ma- — many foreign policy experts thought, as Putin
amassed Russian forces just 100 miles north of Kyiv, the capital of
Ukraine — but he thought — he, Putin, thought it was the mother home of
Russia — the capital would fall in less than a week.
Is the blood flowing to the brain?
Who knows. He then called on pre-selected journalists ("With that, I’ll take your questions. I’ve been given a list of people to call on here."). And the mistakes just piled up. Such as this exchange between Joe and REUTERS' reporter Jeff Mason:
Q Mr. President, your political future has hung over the NATO Summit a little bit this week. Speaker Pelosi made a point of suggesting that your decision on whether to stay in the race was still open. George Clooney and a handful- — a handful of lawmakers have called on you to step aside. Reuters is reporting tonight that UAW leadership is concerned about your ability to win.
THE PRESIDENT: UAW en- — just endorsed me. But go ahead.
No, you go ahead, Joe, and tell the country what month you think it is because the United Auto Worker did not "just endorse" you. That endorsement came in January -- many, many months ago. Go to the UAW website and you'll find the press release which opens:
On Wednesday, January 24th, with hundreds of UAW members, leaders, and activists gathered at the union’s national Community Action Program (CAP) conference, the UAW announced its endorsement of Joe Biden for President of the United States.
Addressing the assembled members, UAW President Shawn Fain spoke to the issues facing the working class, and the strategic choice ahead in the 2024 presidential election.
July 11th, he thinks he was "just endorsed" by the UAW when the endorsement came on January 24th? At what point do we stop pretending that Great Grandpa Joe still knows what's going on around him?
Again, what month does he think it is? And, if we asked him who was president of the United States, would he be able to answer that question either?
Asked about Vice President Kamala Harris, these words came out of his mouth:
THE PRESIDENT: Look, I wouldn’t have picked Vice President Trump [Harris] to be vice president did I think she was not qualified to be president. So, let’s start there. Number one.
That's the official White House transcript. What happened? That's the official White House transcript and they're trying to fix Joe's comment which was, "Look, I wouldn't have picked Vice President Trump to be vice president did I think she was not qualified to be president." Maybe he meant to say, "Look, I wouldn't have picked Vice President Trump to be vice president. Did I think she was not qualified to be president?" At any rate, the vice president is not Donald Trump, it is Kamala Harris. She's been at Joe's side since the 2020 campaign. You'd think that would be an easy one for him to remember.
That White House tried to correct the mistake because, grasp this, Joe didn't correct it himself. When he got Zelenskyy's name wrong, Joe at least caught his mistake a few second later. With regards to confusing Kamala with Donald? He never even grasped that he'd done it.
Fact checking the briefing for THE NEW YORK TIMES, Linda Qiu (via THE SEATTLE TIMES notes:
WHAT WAS SAID
“There are at least five presidents running or incumbent presidents who had lower numbers than I have now.”
This needs context. Several presidents have had lower approval numbers near this point in a reelection race, but none of them won office again.
According to Gallup’s approval poll, which goes back to President Harry S. Truman, 38% of adults approve of Biden’s job performance on Day 1,250 of his presidency. That was lower than all past presidents but Presidents George H.W. Bush (37%) and Jimmy Carter (32%) at similar points in their terms, and similar to Trump (39%).
Linda's fact check also needs context or at least underscoring. The three she notes who were at similar points to Joe? Poppy Bush, Carter and Trump all lost.
Is it the senility or is Joe just lying?
We thought Annette Insdorf was lying -- in the new HBO documentary FAYE. We see Faye Dunaway talking to the camera about how she flew out to Los Angeles to meet with Arthur Penn and Warren Beatty about the role of Bonnie Parker in the film BONNIE AND CLYDE. Penn liked what he saw and he was the director. Warren needed convincing and Warren was the star and the producer who had nursed the project along. After Faye explains that the director fought for her to have the role, Annette pops up saying, "It was Penn who insisted upon Faye Dunaway although the other actresses being considred included Jane Fonda, Tuesday Weld, Natalie Wood and Leslie Caron and, my, my the film would've been different with any of the other actresses."
Is that accurate? No, it's not. Faye did not beat out Jane, Tuesday or Natalie. She may have beat out Leslie depending upon how you want to view it. Leslie wanted the role but Warren (her lover when he started developing the film) didn't want her in it. She writes about this in her autobiography (and gets that part accurate -- she's a liar we don't care for).
But the other three women? Faye didn't beat them for the part. They turned the role down. Natalie always stated publicly that she turned it down -- after repeated calls from Warren -- because she didn't want to be on location and away from her therapist. However, she also turned it down because of the messy break up she and Warren had -- he left her at a table and exited the restaurant with a waitress. If Natalie had wanted the role, it would have been her role. WARNER BROS was the studio behind the film and Natalie was their biggest female star of the sixties. 1966, when the film began shooting, Natalie was evaluating her relationship with WARNERS and would end up buying out her contract to be free of the studio -- that was her decision. WARNERS wanted to keep her and would have gladly gone along with her in the film.
Tuesday Weld?
Her quote's right at the top of this page and has been since 2008. It had been Cher's "If you can dig it then I'm happy if you can't then I'm sorry." But in the summer of 2008, the quote at the top of the page was changed to Tuesday -- a famous quote from her -- stating, "I do not ever want to be a huge star. Do you think I want a success? I refused BONNIE AND CLYDE because I was nursing at the time but also because deep down I knew that it was going to be a huge success. The same was true of BOB AND CAROL AND FRED AND SUE or whatever it was called. It reeked of success."
Jane Fonda, like Tuesday and Natalie, turned the role down. She and then-husband Roger Vadim were going to Rome to make BARBARELLA. By the way, Jim heard an early discussion of this piece and stated, "She made the wrong decision." No, she didn't. Bonnie is a splash of color, she's not the lead and, if you're going by financials, BARBARELLA -- with nudity -- made more around the world at the box office than BONNIE & CLYDE. Jim stated that CRAPAPEDIA says BONNIE & CLYDE made $70 million domestically. That's a lie. Believe us on this, Warren had profit participation and he wishes it made $70 million. Oh, some newspaper in 2008 said the 1967 film made that amount? It didn't. It would have been film rentals, first off, that's how it was measured then -- not in ticket sales. Stop using CRAPAPEDIA as a trusted source on box office. You can look at KRAMER VS KRAMER's for financials, for example, and you'll find that their sources linked to are people who don't know s**t and never did but their really big mistake is on their page "1979 in film" where you can find this:
| Rank | Title | Distributor | Box-office gross |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Kramer vs. Kramer | Columbia | $106,260,000[1] |
| 2 | The Amityville Horror | American International | $86,432,520[2] |
No, the number one grossing film of 1979 was not, was never, KRAMER VS. KRAMER. They lie. Stick with us and we'll convince you on it. When was KRAMER VS. KRAMER released?
1979, yes. But when in 1979? December 19, 1979. The film did not make enough in 1979 to be the number one film for the year -- it didn't even make enough in 1979 to be in the top ten for the year.
Stop using and trusting sources for pre-1980 box office if it gives you something other film rentals. There is no data beyond that -- unless we're looking at studio accounting ledgers. So stop believing crap you read on CRAPAPEDIA.
Annette may have been poorly edited. She might have made those comments in a different context. By her comment showing up after Faye tells the camera about winning the role, Annette's comments come off as lying.
Imagine that, the media lying.
Like they did all day Saturday as they repeatedly presented "Dr Ruth" as the biggest ally that the LGBTQIA+ community ever had.
Lie.
First off, her radio show? She didn't highlight gay men at the beginning of the AIDS crisis. She only began to do so after pressure was brought to bear on her. And even then, she was more comfortable talking about children getting AIDS or straight people getting AIDS -- heck, she'd have preferred discussing feline AIDS.
We're pressed for time because we've just learned, Joe's about to address the nation about the attempt on Donald's life. So we need to hurry because we don't want to be stuck covering that as well.
So join us as we highlight some of 'ally' Dr Ruth's actions over the years.
Bisexuals? "Dr" Ruth denied their existence: "There is just not that much hard evidence that such a state really exists." And it was not a one time, off hand remark. She even wrote about the topic that she -- the sexpert -- didn't know a damn thing about. From inki's LIVE JOURNAL in 2005:
Recently, Dr. Ruth penned a column where she advised a bi-curious man that there is in fact no such thing as bisexuality. It's not online, but I have included it below, along with my own overly snarky response. Unfortunately, she is just the latest advice columnist to do this. Dan Savage (link) and Dr. Stephen Goldstone (link) have also taken this stance in columns during the last year. All three columnists are reacting to a piece of bogus science put out by neo-eugenicist researcher Michael Bailey (link), which claims to have discovered that there are no bisexual men. You can see how I might be upset about this.
If you want to write a nasty letter, you can do it at the paper's editorial page (link) or on Dr. Ruth's online forum (link). Or preferably, both.
Here is the column segment:
Dear Dr. Ruth: I’ve been with my girlfriend for more than two years, and I have no intention of ever leaving her, but lately I have become more attracted to men. I am very bi-curious, and I know some men I can have first-time experiences with, but I don’t want to commit to the full gay lifestyle. Does it even make a difference if I get together with a man? Basically, I am going to stay with my girlfriend anyway, but I feel I need to get this out of my system.
Dear Reader: Everyone is either straight or gay. Some people go through an in-between stage where they are perhaps not sure, but eventually they fall into one category or the other, so that there really is no such thing as being bisexual — though some people lead a bisexual lifestyle for a certain time in their lives. Now, if it turns out that you are gay, you are not going to stay with your girlfriend for the rest of your life. So while I know it is hard to give her up, that’s what you should do.
You have to decide whether you are straight or gay, and it wouldn’t be fair for you to cheat behind her back with a man, any more than it would to cheat with a woman. But since you are not sure right now of your sexual identity, you may want to do some exploring to find out. You should tell your girlfriend that you need a break from the relationship. Perhaps you’ll decide that you are heterosexual, but by that point she might have moved on to someone else.
You have to decide? Dr Ruth is stating that being gay is a choice -- grasp that. That's not an ally. That's someone advocating for 'conversion' therapy.
And she didn't just write about it once, here she is denying bisexuality again.
LGBTQ+ is also LGBTQIA+ and the "A" is for asexual. Rachel Kramer Bussel (SALON, 2015):
According to Dr. Ruth Westheimer, asexuals are doing it wrong—or rather, not doing it wrong. Last week, the 87-year-old sex therapist Tweeted, “Studies say 1% of pop. is asexual. To me that's 1% too much but sexuality is a spectrum so good that it's so low and not 10%.”
The critical response was immediate:
For those not familiar with the term, an asexual is, according to The Asexual Visibility & Education Network (AVEN), “someone who does not experience sexual attraction.” Sounds simple, right? Not so fast. Even as asexuals are increasingly coming out and expanding the definition of the term, too often, in mainstream culture, asexuality is dismissed or problematized, or treated simply as less worthy than being sexual, as Westheimer did.
The thinking behind Westheimer’s post—that asexuality is a problem to be solved, even while she mentioned but glossed over the idea of sexuality existing on a spectrum—is disturbing. If sexual freedom—meaning the rights of adults to make their own autonomous decisions about how to conduct their sex lives—is a goal, then asexuality has to be part of that vision. As Feministe guest blogger Ze wrote in 2012, “many asexual people often describe the sex-positive movement as unsafe for them…when discussions of asexuality occur in public places, concern trolling about the health of asexual people often abounds — up to and including outright denial of asexuality — as does demonization of asexual people in romantic relationships.” Dr. Ruth’s assertion in no way helps either asexuals—or anyone else.
Tom Schrantz, 35, creator of AsexualityArchive.com, told Salon that “what hurt most” about Dr. Ruth’s comment was that it “went beyond simple ignorance of asexuality, and said that we shouldn’t exist. Someone in her position should be celebrating the diversity of sexual expression, not attacking it, even when that expression is ‘no thank you.’” Schrantz also responded directly to Westheimer on Twitter, noting, “Asexuality is an orientation like any other. There's nothing wrong with us.”
Schrantz knows firsthand how harmful ignorance about asexuality can be—and the direct damage it can cause. “Before I knew what asexuality was, I rarely talked to anyone about how I felt,” he said. “When the conversation turned to sex, I mostly kept my head down and tried to stay out of it, out of fear of being asked uncomfortable questions or being made the center of the conversation. I had a girlfriend once and sex (and my lack of enthusiasm for it) was a frequent subject of awkward and painful conversations.”
The lack of visibility of asexuals can be haunting, especially in a culture where sex is considered a mark of maturity. Schrantz said the ubiquity of sex helped further his own sense of alienation, before he heard the word on a TV show four and a half years ago and “knew it fit me immediately.” However, it took him a long time to realize there was nothing wrong with him because he lacked sexual desire.
As he explained, “For years, I’d see my friends talk about good-looking women, I’d see TV talk about how I couldn’t be a real man if I weren’t sex crazed, I’d see almost every movie rewarded the hero with sex for saving the day, and all of that started to get to me. Pretty much everyone talks about sex as being this amazing, world changing thing, but when I had sex, I remember getting bored and wondering if I could stop without offending my girlfriend. I wondered what was wrong with me. Why wasn’t I interested? How could I make myself interested? What would it take to fix me and let me be ‘normal?’ That’s why I got into asexuality activism: I don’t want anyone else to go through what I did.”
According to journalist Rachel Hills, author of "The Sex Myth: The Gap Between Our Fantasies and Reality," Westheimer’s statement was “out of touch and alienating,” but it wasn’t, however, a shock. “Dr. Ruth grew up in an era where celebrating sex was a radical act,” Hills said. “It’s not surprising to me that her vision of sexual freedom might be one that focuses more on validating the joys of sex to the exclusion of validating the right not to have it.” Because the term asexuality has only been used for about the last 15 years, increasing in prominence, especially online, more recently, according to Hills, “It’s going to be a lot easier for a 22-year-old on Tumblr to accept asexuality than 87-year-old Dr. Ruth. But sex is so central to how we structure our society, relationships, and cultural narratives that it’s difficult even for a lot of people much younger than Dr. Ruth to get their heads around the idea that some people just aren’t interested in sex.”
Rock Hudson became the face of AIDS in 1985, the year it was learned he had AIDS and the year he died from it. And what was Ruth's position? She declared, "I feel sad for all the thousands of women who fantasized about being in [Rock Hudson's] arms, who now have to realize that he never really cared for them."
Jason Collins comes out in 2013 -- this isn't ancient history -- and the little troll weighs in. Danny Shea (HUFFINGTON POST):
Renowned psychosexual therapist Dr. Ruth Westheimer joined HuffPost Live Monday to explain her "mixed feelings" about NBA player Jason Collins coming out as the first openly gay male professional athlete in a major sport.
"I find it very sad," Dr. Ruth told HuffPost Live host Ahmed Shihab-Eldin. "That's why I said that I have mixed feelings, that we even have to talk about it. In my opinion, this is a private matter and everybody has to be respected for who they are."
A private matter? Read her comments, she's saying stay in the closet. Now that's reprehensible coming from anyone but from someone presenting themselves as a doctor?
The Trevor Project noted at the start of this year:
- Suicide is the second leading cause of death among young people aged 10 to 14, and the third leading cause of death among 15-24 year olds (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) young people are at significantly increased risk.
- LGBTQ+ young people are more than four times as likely to attempt suicide than their peers (Johns et al., 2019; Johns et al., 2020).
- The Trevor Project estimates that more than 1.8 million LGBTQ+ young people (ages 13-24) seriously consider suicide each year in the U.S. — and at least one attempts suicide every 45 seconds.
- The Trevor Project’s 2023 U.S. National Survey on the Mental Health of LGBTQ Young People found that 41% of LGBTQ+ young people seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, including roughly half of transgender and nonbinary youth.
One of the motivating factors for so many to come out of the closet has been the reality that LGBTQ+ children can be othered and made to feel they are a mistake or a problem or an error. That is what has led so many to come out.
In 2013, this was known. The suicide rate had been studied for years -- decades even. And she wants to slam a man for coming out because his sexuality should be a "personal matter."
Grasp that. Personal matter? She was a sex therapist. All she did was talk about sex. Thinking she looked cute -- she looked like a tree stump -- talking about erections and vaginas but a gay person coming out she objects to.
Or look at her March 30, 1988 column, where she was telling people that they would get AIDS if they had sex with someone who had AIDS. This was over a year after C Everrett Koop had talked about condom usage to prevent the transfer of AIDS.
Reality also comes to bear on Joe.
The narrative is in place, the media has imposed it. Joe has spent weeks attempting to change it; however, it remains: Senile Joe. That's what the media tunes in for and what's they're going to continue to watch for and to promote. Once they imposed the liar narrative on Al Gore, it didn't matter what he said or did, that was the lens through which they viewed every statement he made afterwards.
Senile is the narrative for Joe. It's too late to change it. He's struggling in the polls, there is no real enthusiasm for him and he keeps making glaring mistakes in public. It's time for him to step aside. The only thing that's going to change the narrative for the Democratic Party's presidential nominee away from "how senile is he?" will be changing the nominee itself. For the good of the country, he has to step aside.
