New York Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote a scathing op-ed piece on Tuesday, titled “Biden Should Not Run Again, and He Should Say He Won’t.”
In the article, Stephens implores the 79 year old, Botox-enhanced Chief Executive not to seek reelection in 2024. Also mentioned in the book, Biden should announce that he will not run as soon as possible so that potential Democratic contenders can begin making preparations early.
Stephens, a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and self described anti-Trump conservative, argues within the piece that Biden’s age and declining cognitive state needs to be immediately addressed.
The New York City native suggests that it would be “liberating” for Biden’s presidency if he decided not to seek reelection, and that it would energize a currently “listless” Democratic Party.
“Is it a good idea for Joe Biden to run for reelection in 2024? And, if he runs again and wins, would it be good for the United States to have a president who is 86, the age Biden would be at the end of a second term?” he wrote. “I put these questions bluntly because they need to be discussed candidly, not just whispered constantly.”
Throwing #DementiaJoe under the bus? NYT columnist Bret Stephens implores Pres Biden not seek reelection & announce his intentions to be a lame duck as soon as possible so Democrats can start making preparations to replace him. https://t.co/N37TPY0dPS— Michael (@NewsTalkPD) December 15, 2021
Stephens draws a parallel between the press who thought it was “fair game” to question President Ronald Reagan when he became president at age 69 in the 1980s, to current press that now consider raising similar concerns toward Biden as “horrible manners”.
“It won’t do. From some of his public appearances, Biden seems … uneven. Often cogent, but sometimes alarmingly incoherent,” Stephens writes.
Bret adds, “What’s the reason? I have no idea. Do his appearances (including the good ones) inspire strong confidence that the president can go the distance in his current term, to say nothing of the next? No.”
The columnist notes within his op-ed a story recently published by The Times about a week ago. It acknowledged there was “no shortage of chatter” about potential replacements for Biden within Democratic circles.
“This is not healthy. Not for the president himself, not for the office he holds, not for the Democratic Party, not for the country,” Stephens laments. “The man who once gave his party hope now weighs on his party’s fortunes like a pair of cement shoes.”
“So what’s the president to do? He should announce, much sooner than later, that he will not run for a second term,” Stephens writes, arguing that Biden would instantly become a lame-duck president. With his poll numbers sinking almost daily, Biden faces a potential historic and humiliating loss in 2024 if he does go on to run.
“Right now he’s worse than a lame duck, because potential Democratic successors are prevented from making calls, finding their lanes and appealing for attention,” Stephens concludes.
Meanwhile over at CNN, Chris Cillizza also speculated Monday on Bidens future and who might replace him in 2024.
“Combine President Joe Biden’s age (he’ll be 82 shortly after the 2024 election) and his ongoing political struggles (he’s mired in the low 40s in job approval) and you get this: a series of stories examining whether Biden runs again and, if not, who might take his place,” Cillizza wrote.
Cillizza’s list of potential Democratic candidates includes; Vice President Kamala Harris, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, MA Senator Elizabeth Warren, IL Governor J.B. Pritzker, MN Senator Amy Klobuchar, NC Governor Roy Cooper, former New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, MI Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and NJ Governor Phil Murphy, along with failed gubernatorial candidate Stacy Abrams, who also announced she’s running again for Georgia Governor in 2022.
Both Stephens and Cillizza forget that Biden still has another 3 years in office, and quite candidly the odds of him completing his first term in office seem rather doubtful.