Biden Agrees To Debate Trump… A Kind Of Candidate Faceoff Never Before Seen For Prez

By DEXTER DUGGAN

Announcing that he would “debate” Donald Trump twice for this year’s presidential race, arrogant Joe Biden in a video, pathetically trying to appear to be a tough guy, blustered, “Well, make my day, pal.”

But impaired Democrat Biden wasn’t tough at all in the May 15 video. He wouldn’t agree to appear before a live debate audience but only in a closed studio, and he insisted that the microphone of the debater who wasn’t speaking at the moment be cut off lest delicate Biden be interrupted.

Biden’s a real slugger as long as he has concrete in his boxing gloves — and assistants to help him hold up his trembling hands — while his opponent is nailed against the wall, with his hands tied tight against his sides.

That’s the way Biden “governs.”

Considering that bad Catholic Biden needs to wear special shoes just so he has less chance of falling over on his face during the day, how does he plan to whale away at the pinioned Trump in the debate ring? Maybe Biden can have a steel rod run up his backside to help him balance?

In an editorial posted May 15, The Wall Street Journal — no friend of Trump at all — cautioned: “The two men agreed to a debate on June 27, hosted by CNN, and another on September 10 hosted by ABC. Let’s hope the moderators are fair-minded, but don’t underestimate how hard that will be given the heavily anti-Trump culture of both media organizations.”

This editorial’s subheadline was, “The two will debate after all, though Trump may regret the moderators.”

Of course, Biden correctly expects that dominant media will go out of their way to smooth the way for him and assault Trump.

In a recent interview with Erin Burnett of pro-Biden CNN, Biden went so far as to claim that when he took office, inflation was roaring away at 9 percent. In fact, it was only 1.4 percent. But Burnett didn’t express doubt about his lies — which the anti-Biden New York Post later calculated to be nearly one a minute, 15 lies in 17 minutes.

If Burnett didn’t know the exact figure, she at least could have said something like, “Just a minute, Mr. President. That doesn’t sound right. Could someone in the booth please give us the actual number?”

Trump avoided debating opponents in the Republican presidential primaries for this November’s election, apparently not wanting to give them added visibility, but he was eager to take on Biden.

Calling Biden “Crooked” as if that were his name, Trump said in part at his Truth Social site the afternoon of May 15 (including Trump’s capitalizations):

“Crooked is also the WORST President in the history of the United States, by far. It’s time for a debate so that he can explain to the American People his highly destructive Open Border Policy, new and ridiculous EV Mandates, the allowance of Crushing Inflation, High Taxes, and his really WEAK Foreign Policy, which is allowing the World to ‘Catch on Fire.’

“… I would strongly recommend more than two debates and, for excitement purposes, a very large venue, although Biden is supposedly afraid of crowds. — That’s only because he doesn’t get them. Just tell me when, I’ll be there,” Trump added.

The June debate is unique because it would occur before either of these candidates is the formal nominee of his party. In addition, this debate arrangement goes its own way by dispensing with governance by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Also, Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is excluded from participation — a restriction that the debate commission might not have allowed.

The Wanderer asked two sources for their reaction to the debate announcement.

National conservative commentator Quin Hillyer said on May 15: “The idea of two deteriorating, ethically challenged has-beens sharing a debate stage should excite nobody. The best result would be that both participants are so bad that their respective parties find some way to replace them with better candidates who also are better men.”

Conservative Republican political consultant Constantin Querard said on May 16: “My sense is that Biden ditched the formal debates because under the commission rules he likely would have had to share the stage with Trump AND Kennedy. By proposing his own head-to-head debates, he can duck Kennedy and keep it all about Trump.

“I also think it’s a great test run for Democrats,” Querard said, “because if Biden face-plants, they have plenty of time to swap him out at the convention, and if he holds his own, then there is only one debate left in the whole race. So, they can roll the dice while they still have a way out. What is less clear is why Trump is agreeing to these things, plus more left-wing moderators.”

National radio talk host Sean Hannity, recalling on May 15 that the Democratic Party had been pleased with Biden’s State of the Union speech earlier this year, wondered how much caffeine or Red Bull energy drink Biden can hold.

The Democratic Party is absolutely desperate to win the presidential election this November. But not so desperate so far that it has told its dead-weight incumbent president who insists on running again that he won’t be allowed to.

As for Joe Biden’s monstrous agenda of depravity and degeneracy, why that’s the very core of the Democratic platform and the reason its leaders think he must win to keep ramming this down Americans’ throats.

Which shows how little good sense is behind Democratic leaders’ thinking. But after all, if they could be gleeful with San Francisco bad Catholic and elderly pro-abortion fanatic Nancy Pelosi for years as U.S. House speaker, why not Delaware’s elderly and bumbling Biden?

Considering Democrats’ accomplishments as an electoral cheating machine, a Biden victory this November isn’t out of the question. But his HONEST victory would be all but impossible.

Boston Globe conservative columnist Jeff Jacoby called attention to a remarkable editorial posted on May 8 by the left-wing Washington Post. It wondered what are the proper lengths for a campaign to go while pandering for votes when the campaign’s victory is deemed to be absolutely essential — in this case, defeating Donald Trump.

In this case, black lives should NOT matter so much, the Trump-hating Post pondered.

“In recent months, the Biden administration has unveiled new positions and policies that clearly pander to core constituencies in the run-up to a November election in which the stakes, for both President Biden and the country as a whole, are as high as they have ever been,” the Post editorial said. “The problem is that some of these policies are quite bad — even dangerous.

“The implicit rationale is that the ends — denying former president Donald Trump another four years in office — justify the means,” the editorial said, citing as one such case black men’s preference to smoke menthol cigarettes.

The Post noted that Biden had delayed, for a second time, a ban on these cigarettes, a ban that long had been considered by the Food and Drug Administration.

“The FDA estimates that a ban on menthols could prevent about 255,000 premature deaths over the next 40 years,” the Post said, calling such a potential result “huge progress,” considering that menthol smokers are disproportionately black.

However, said the Post, thoughtfully rubbing its chin, “In political terms, however, a ban might anger the 25 percent of usually Democratic Black voters who oppose the ban and whom Mr. Biden can ill afford to alienate in this close election.” And “Democrats are scrapping for every vote.”

Saving hundreds of thousands of black lives? Or letting Trump win? Well, harumph, harumph, the Post concluded: “So trim your principles, Democrats, and pander away. Just remember: The only thing worse than playing Machiavelli for a good cause is playing Machiavelli for a good cause and losing.”

Please imagine if the Post were to discover that Trump had a secret plan to kill hundreds of thousands of black men so he’d be re-elected president. The Post’s reaction — and that of all of its left-wing dominant-media allies — would be as fierce and fiery as if a million atomic bombs exploded.

But when the widely influential Post ruminates over this very idea publicly in the print of its editorial pages in order to help Biden, well, that’s the way leftists have to play to win.

It’s that kind of election this year.