The opening excuse-making salvo: why Biden shouldn’t debate Trump

By Dave Andrusko

It’s probably been written about before and I just missed it. But either way it’s not official pro-abortion media/Democrat Party dogma until Thomas L. Friedman of the New York Times writes a column endorsing the idea.

Enter “Biden Should Not Debate Trump Unless …

No one over the age of six can miss that pro-abortion former Vice President Joe Biden is in no shape to debate pro-life President Donald Trump. Partisanship aside, it is truly frightening that Democrats are about to nominate a man who so clearly is no longer up to the challenge.

Like all elephants in the room, this cannot formally be acknowledged. The obsession with defeating Trump is all-consuming, and the Friedmans and the Democrat apparatchiks must come up with a quasi/semi/marginally coherent reason why Biden can—indeed must—not engage in any one-on-one debates with President Trump.

Friedman offers two “conditions.”

“First, Biden should declare that he will take part in a debate only if Trump releases his tax returns for 2016 through 2018.” And

“And second, Biden should insist that a real-time fact-checking team approved by both candidates be hired by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates — and that 10 minutes before the scheduled conclusion of the debate this team report on any misleading statements, phony numbers or outright lies either candidate had uttered.”

Why? “That way no one in that massive television audience can go away easily misled,” the ever-condescending Friedman announces. Some might consider that both a violation of free speech once removed and a not-so-veiled threat that bad thoughts will not be allowed. It is remindful of what Matthew Feeney wrote about the authoritarian government of George Orwell’s Oceania. It “doesn’t merely punish dissent severely—it seeks to make even thinking about dissent impossible.”

The first—Trump’s tax returns– is a hobbyhorse of Trump’s opponents long before he was even elected. The Supreme Court will be addressing efforts to gain access to the president’s financial records in tomorrow’s final round of decisions.

But the second “condition”—besides being frivolous and demeaning and snarky—is part of a larger narrative which is unbelievably frightening.

The Institutional Media Elite have it in their collective heads that they and they alone will determine what the American public hears. They want Facebook and Twitter (and others) to flatly refuse to allow what they don’t want people to see or hear. It is censorship on steroids. And that, of course, is independent of the 24 hour a day, non-stop attacks on President Trump.

Which is why in case Biden feels compelled to honor his commitment to debate, Friedman is already preparing a soft landing spot for him. He wants the same kind of “Fact Checkers” that have already mucked up public discussion under the guise of finding “truth” which will tell us at the end not to believe anything President Trump has said.

Besides, understand that the Washington Post and their ilk will be ‘fact checking’ as the debate proceeds anyway. Does anyone believe they won’t eviscerate every Trump remark they disapprove of, and, when they have no basis for clobbering him, won’t put the worst possible spin on his remarks?

Biden will be the “gentleman” who is “fact-based” and who will “bring the country together.” Never mind that in searching for answers, he will offer the most bland, content-free generalizations that will be hailed as the triumph of commonsense decency. Etc., etc., etc.

This is just the opening offensive. The more Biden illustrates he is not to the task, the more the argument will be made he is obliged not to debate unless the format is thoroughly and utterly and completely slanted in his favor.