Nicely anticipating what he would be up against—perhaps because it’s so obvious from the recent Presidential election cycles—Robert Kennedy, Jr talked about totalitarianism in a recent interview. “It’s been the dream ambition of every totalitarian regime in the history of mankind to exert total control over every aspect of human behavior,” he said, noting that technology makes this ambition easier than ever to achieve. Junior RFK is the most interesting and potentially the most disruptive of the Democrats planning to challenge Joe Biden for the 2024 Presidential election, but at the time he may not have anticipated his party’s plan to eliminate him and anyone else as serious competition. The Washington Post reported last week that “the national Democratic Party has said it will support Biden’s reelection, and it has no plans to sponsor primary debates.”
That’s the party’s prerogative, but it’s also a tell. Biden is polling badly, and a majority of Democrats would rather have someone younger and with all brain cells firing as their party’s standard-bearer in 2024. A party genuinely committed to democracy and the will of the people would give challengers like Kennedy (OK, and gooey Marianne Williamson, who has as much business running for the White House as my dog Spuds) a fair opportunity to make their cases to voters. The Democratic Party is only committed to power, however (and “total control”); that’s why it rigged the 2016 primary debates to help ensure that Hillary would be duly coronated. Clinton, however, could be counted on to at least show herself as mentally competent in a verbal showdown. Joe Biden cannot, thus his refusal to submit to a full-fledged press conference. If Biden is renominated, I would not be surprised to see him decline to debate the Republican challenger, especially since the GOP has finally decided to object to the way recent debates have been managed, giving clearly biased journalists the power to slant the results.
Bobby Kennedy’s oldest son is hardly a desirable replacement for Biden; his family is a long-standing ethics corrupter; his father was a con-artist extraordinaire; he’s an anti-vaxxer and an extreme Leftist. Williamson is merely ridiculous. The ethics issue, however, is their party’s increasingly open contempt for genuine dialogue, dissent, and the power of the people—you know, that democracy thingy. Right now, Democrats are happy with an aging, decrepit, easily manipulated figurehead who is apparently controlled by committee. How Politburo of them! The disturbing part is that their registered voters don’t seem to mind, even as their own party threatens their individual liberties and rights.
The absence of debates isn’t the scary part. The fact that Democrats are willing to let their party behave like this is.
38 thoughts on “No Primary Debates? The Democratic Party Looks More Soviet By The Hour…[Corrected]”
Jack, Be nice to Spuds. He didn’t deserve the comparison.
Wait. Is Spuds at least 35 in dog years? If so, I’d vote for him. Remy can be his running mate, both figuratively and literally.
I’M WITH SPUDS!
To be fair, most of their voters have, for the last 20 years at least, been educated and indoctrinated that this is perfectly acceptable.
It will be interesting to see whether the fact that the quotation you cite is in paragraph 14 of the article is because it’s tangential to the main point; not much of a story, at least yet (“no plans” is different from “will not”); or all part of the plan to eliminate competition, as we’ve seen from the DNC in the last two presidential elections.
I saw a recent poll that barely over a third of registered Democrats want Biden to run again, but the power structure seems all in, and it’s virtually certain we’ll get a showdown in the national election between two candidates I’d never think of voting for unless they were running against the other guy.
I don’t see how the DNC doesn’t nominate Biden as the incumbent, absent some monumental health issue where Biden simply can’t run. I don’t think there is a recent incumbent candidate who did not get the nomination in over 100 years, LBJ notwithstanding.
PS: I apologize for the clumsy phrasing.
But LBJ opted out. Different from the party forcing him to walk the plank. “I will not seek, nor will I accept my party’s…..” as I recall.
The creaky oldsters that are the face of the Democratic party really do look like Brezhnev and Yeltsin and all the old hold-overs from the Stalin era. I wonder if there’s a Putin out there who’s ruthless and smart enough to grab the levers of control. I wouldn’t put it past John Brennan. Leon Panetta’s not likely either. Maybe Rahm Emmanuel?
Just to clarify, though, Biden still needs to win the nomination, right?
If he is not campaigning, and Kennedy does, he could lose various primaries.
What happens then? The Super-Delegates come in and install him as the candidate?
Jut, Jut, Jut. The voting will be done with mail in ballots harvested by all the public employee unions. Relax. Joe will win.
Jut– I think Bernie Sanders won some primaries and headed to the convention with delegates won… And the Dems assured everyone that he “wouldn’t win”, (paraphrasing DWS). Embrace the power of the “super delegates”.
And while we’re on the topic of Soviets, Robert (“Third’) Reich has been shown the man: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/24/trump-treason-constitution-election-republicans-robert-reich
Honestly, I see his name and I stop reading, since I learned long ago that he isn’t going to have anything valuable to say.
Of course. He’s an absolute Bolshevik. But he states exactly what most everyone on the other side of the Hudson and the East River from you are thinking, Steve.
Jack wrote, “Bobby Kennedy’s oldest son is hardly a desirable replacement for Biden; his family is a long-standing ethics corrupter; his father was a con-artist extraordinaire; he’s an anti-vaxxer and an extreme Leftist. Williamson is merely ridiculous.”
But seriously; their really are worst things. (#22. The Comparative Virtue Excuse: “There are worse things.”)
Hey since we all know that being a partisan hack is of the highest priority for Democratic Party political candidates these days; maybe if Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez jumped into the Presidential race, they’d change their mind about having some debates. AOC’s clearly a partisan hack and since her birthday is October 13, 1989 (age 33 years right now) she will meet the 35 minimum age requirement of being President of the United States before the election in 2024. I’m sure she could find a “suitable” hackified Vice-Presidential running mate, maybe Ibram X. Kendi or Nikole Hannah-Jones would be available; they could call them the Democratic Party’s “Political Hack Pack” or “2024 Hack Pack”.
What could go wrong?
I know, I just made some of you do this…
I have it on good authority that AOC identifies as a 38 year old, so . . . . .
Arrgh, terrible grammar Steve!!!
“But seriously; their really are worst things.”
“But seriously; there really are worse things.”
Typo! Into the hoosegow with you!
Maybe the hoosegow inside the gulag in northern Siberia.
In other words, I’m clearly up shit creek without a paddle and heading for a waterfall. 😉
Are we even allowed to use “hoosejow” anymore? In Spanish, “juzgado” means “judged” or a “panel of judges, courtroom.” The word is based on the Spanish past participle of “juzgar”, meaning “to judge,” which itself was influenced by Latin “judicare”—a combination of jus, “right, law,” and dicere,”to decide, say.” When English speakers of the American West borrowed “juzgado”, they recorded it the way they heard it: “hoosegow”. Isn’t that Western European hegemony against Latin America?
Then of course, there’s Steven Wright: “La Quinta” is Spanish for “Behind Denny’s.”
My favorite of all time is “vamoose.”
Did not know about “hoosegow.” Should have known.
I’m putting $20 down today that if Biden is the nominee there won’t be general debates either.
I think its a good bet. And if I were the DNC head, that’s what I’d fight for.
I just can’t imagine the DNC would hand the Republicans a stick like that to beat them with.
Maybe they are so confident that they will get the votes that they don’t even have to try to campaign.
Will the people just overlook that?
Biden barely campaigned in 2020, he has difficulty with the English language not to mention reason and has difficulty walking up steps. What is the upside for him to debate? Why risk it? Twice now, the DNC has sabotaged Benie Sanders in the primaries and have a working, successful model to re-enact. RFK Jr may have vocal issues but he’s no idiot and only extreme to the far-left, child mutilating bastion of the Democrat party. Anti-vax yes, but also anti-woke and anti-tyranny. Besides, his anti-vax position is primarily anti-mandate which the Democrat party used to champion. What’s the saying… “this ain’t your fathers Democrat party”.
The dems cooked up the Russian Collusion hoax, conspired with social media giants (Twitter, in particular) to hamstring opposition, and as is now evident, triggered the “51 Intelligence Experts” letter. All of their skullduggery was aided by their compliant media operatives who suppressed unfavored information and repeatedly served up disproven lies about the dems’ opponents (“very fine people”, indeed!). They oppose ensuring that only citizens vote in our elections.
SloJo recently took a family vacation on a luxury jet to Ireland, spouted nonsense there. Got back and went on vacation to his beach house. Came back to DC and handlers put a “lid” on his day at 9:00 am. He’s falling apart.
No primary debates.
Tell us again how Those on the right are a “threat to democracy”.
Sorry, did I miss the GOP primary in 2020?
It is not typical for parties to hold primaries when the incumbent from their party is running. You know this. Why are you inventing a new standard here?
“It is not typical for parties to hold primaries when the incumbent from their party is running. You know this.”
I know its not true. There were GOP primaries in 2020. Next time you imply that I am deliberately misstating facts will be the last time. Capiche?
Trump had no serious announced challengers in 2020, and Obama had no announced challengers in 2012, but both parties held primaries.
You’re changing the subject anyway; the issue is debates when there are primaries, and there are primaries when a sitting President is challenged. Debates in general are relatively recent phenomena in Presidential politics: Carter-Ford in ’76 was the first since 1960 before the general election. Primary debates have become critical in the nominee selection process only since 2008. The last sitting President who faced a real challenger was in 1980, when Ted Kennedy challenged Carter, and debates, as I said, had been MIA for two decades.
Your article is about debates though.
Parties don’t host debates when their incumbent is in the WH.
There has never been a legitimate and serious challenger to a sitting President during the period in which Presidential debates were part of the regular campaign process. I wrote, “A party genuinely committed to democracy and the will of the people would give challengers like Kennedy (OK, and gooey Marianne Williamson, who has as much business running for the White House as my dog Spuds) a fair opportunity to make their cases to voters.” I’ll stick to that, but if you want to argue that neither Williamson nor Kennedy qualify as “legitimate and serious challengers,” I wouldn’t argue with you.
Amy Lewis wrote, “Your article is about debates though. Parties don’t host debates when their incumbent is in the WH.”
Context matters Amy.
Did you miss that this sub thread started by Devon was about primaries, not primary debates.
Pay better attention to the conversation.
Do parties that have an incumbent in the WH normally host debates?
No, they do not. Jack is pushing an argument that Marjorie Taylor Greene made yesterday and was roundly mocked for.