Me Too or no Me Too, it's time to replace the presumptive nominee, Creepy Joe

Me Too or no Me Too, it's time to replace the presumptive nominee, Creepy Joe

Oh, boy, has the Me Too movement ever bitten Biden's butt!

When we Americans embraced Me Too, we were expected to believe the story of every single woman who said she was harassed, assaulted or affronted in some way--no matter how lacking in detail--or credibility.  No matter how nuts she was, no matter if she had a reputation as a gold digger or a history of mental illness or a penchant for pathological silliness.  Her story was to be believed.  We had to believe them all.  Period.  To make up for the past.

Or else we were as bad as the abuser.

We weren't allowed to question anything.  Like some of the Cosby accusers who said he drugged them more than once, over time.  We weren't allowed to ask why the hell they'd go back for more. Only to complain about it when money became the issue.

Women fell in love, and when there was a breakup, there were often accusations of harassment.  And  because he was a little higher in the pecking order, a new kind of alimony was in order.  The cost/benefit of falling for someone.

But one question hasn't been settled by Me Too.  The one that Joe Biden's situation begs for an answer to.

Is the accused person supposed to believe the accuser?

I would say yes.  For consistency.

Maureen Dowd, in her latest column, has an excuse for this this dilemma:  "But as with any revolution, there was some overcorrection."

And so with Biden, correcting the overcorrection has started.

Beginning with glowing statements about him from big Me Too-ers like senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris and Speaker Nancy Pelosi--while his credibility and future were on the line because he didn't answer the accusations in the flesh for almost six weeks.  Nor was he asked about them in 19 interviews.

And his memory, already a huge issue as he shows more and more signs of senility as we speak, isn't being tamped down by saying so many times, "I don't remember" when he finally did turn on the camera in the basement for the Mika Brzezinski grilling.

He's got everything to lose, so is he supposed to believe former aide Tara Reade?  Say it's true, that he penetrated her private parts in a hallway without asking?  Or is he supposed to call her a liar?  Or should he just say, "It's not true."  Or "I don't remember if it happened."

He sort of mushed all that up and is doing everything at once.  But he's senile, so that's to be expected.

Both parties say they cannot provide proof that there is/is not a complaint that was made.  Reade says she doesn't have a copy of the 27-year-old document.  But MSNBC's Brzezinski told Joe he could clear up a lot if he would allow the University of Delaware to scour thousands and thousands of records from his senatorial career that they have in their possession.  But he can't, he admitted, who would do it?  And the papers don't include personnel documents, anyway, but they do contain other documents that can now be used against him in his quest to become prez, he said.

As for Reade, her friends and family and even her now dead mother--who called The Larry King show after the "digital" assault happened in 1993 to ask him for advice to help her daughter--all corroborate her story.

Still, big Me Too people shrieked that Joe (who's teetering on the edge of being "all there")  wouldn't do a thing like that!

Not to be included in the ironic chorus on this issue is Hillary; even though she believes Joe didn't do it.  But Hillary never believed any of the women who accused her husband of anything.  From taking advantage of them to raping and injuring them.  And word is, she wants (as so many others do) to be Joe's vice.

And all the dems, who started Me Too and who weaponized it like an AK-47 assault weapon against Brett Kavanaugh are facing the chickens coming home to roost.

Back then, even though there were a slew of FBI investigations that were carried out reviewing his fitness while vetting him for his previous jobs as White House Secretary and federal appeals court judge, his job as Supreme Court justice hung on whether or not he acted like an idiot in high school and college.  And the Me Too movement dug in.  Chomped down. Bit off.

I'm always a little suspicious of anyone in high school and college who doesn't act like a complete idiot at some point.  Because that's pretty much the time to get acting like an idiot out of your system, clean up any and all bad acts and impulses and go on to do the right thing for the rest of your life.  Horsing around among a bunch of drunken teens in high school isn't the same as a senator cornering a staff member in a hallway and doing what Biden is accused of doing:  lifting her skirt and digging his fingers into her privates.

Whether drunk or not in high school, if you've become a decent adult,  much admired by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, who think you're a mensch, and you've hired more female clerks in your career than anybody else ever has, you're good to go.

But that's just me talking.  He wasn't good to go, according to Me Too, which as we now see apply their principles to some of a particular political persuasion.  And not so to others.  (Unless you're Al Franken.)

If you're a progressive, note that the Me Toos haven't weighed in yet. Maybe because Bernie Sanders hasn't been accused yet.

A wild-eyed Gillibrand did push touchy-feeler and SNL comedian, and later senator Al Franken out of the senate--I think because she didn't want a more popular dem to compete with her for the presidential nomination.  Where she ended up running at about one percent--in spite of Franken's absence.

So, did Joe do it or didn't he? If he did, he was in the middle of his career as a senator, on his way to being president someday, and having done many questionable (some would say, even terrible) things as he traversed that path.

Like his abominable Anita Hill-related behavior.  He wouldn't let other women testify who would back up her story about Clarence Thomas.

And his great infusion of obscene corporatism that allowed  credit card companies, headquartered in his own corporate friendly state of Delaware to have at us like vultures.  Not to mention exacerbating all-encompassing unfair debt issues.

Then there's his devastatingly corrupt behavior in Ukraine and China that totally enriched his crackpot crack-addicted son.

Not to be outdone, there's his disgusting war mongering, and his being part of an administration that threw people out of their houses--while giving the dirty double crossing banks all their money back that cost these same families their homes, their savings and their lives.

Which begs this question: with senility and sexual assault accusations and a totally unprogressive, corporate enrichment agenda in his past, do the democrats really need to run him for president?  Is Jill Biden going to read a script for him every day for his whole campaign, let alone his whole term? With a school marm delivery that belongs in a kindergarten class?

And don't forget that Biden is a known plagiarist.  And he likes to challenge people on the campaign trail to battle "outside" with him if one happens to disagree with his opinions on the issues.  He's belligerent.

And he's a bold-faced liar.  Not to mention a grabber, kisser, nose rubber and sniffer.  And look what he did in 2018 against a Michigan democrat candidate for the House of Representatives, when the dems were dying to win the majority--he endorsed the Republican incumbent who authored a bill to kill the ACA!

It's not too late, dems, to choose another candidate.  Very tricky, yes.  But not impossible.  Joe Biden should have to earn our votes in November. And I don't see how he can.  "Anybody But Trump" is not a good strategy. Voters have to see you're for something, not simply against the other guy.

In spite of what you think the polls show, Biden offers nothing.  Except his name isn't Trump.

Maybe DNC head Tom Perez, who's been garrulously and obnoxiously pushing for the addle-brained Biden, has an agenda:  Biden the figurehead!?

He'll sign on to the corporate democrat agenda, no questions asked, dictated by Nancy P. and Chuckie S. and Perez himself.  Who will tell him what to do every step of the way for Big Pharma, the Health Insurance Industry, the Arms Manufacturers, Wall Street and Big Banks.  Whoo-eeeee!  Sounds great, huh?

Perez et al might be thinking something like this....  Look, the people chose an inarticulate, mentally ill, corporation enabling pussy grabber last time, right?  If that's what they want, we have one of our own to give them!

Yes, they're giving us the guy who failed miserably in his first three 2020 primaries but who somehow resurrected enough in the reddest of the red, never ever blue state of South Carolina, and who at this point is still several hundred delegates away from winning his primary, even though he has no opponent.

And that's creepy, Joe.

Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Leave a comment