The following letters were submitted to syracuse.com | The Post-Standard about the June 27 debate between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump that aired on CNN.
To the editor:
The Democratic Party needs a presidential candidate who can rid us of the hateful rhetoric and threat presented by the Republican leadership of Donald Trump. Rather than an inexorable decline into autocracy, we need world level democratic leadership. The person most able to provide that leadership and rid us of MAGA is Michelle Obama.
In my opinion, she must put aside her personal wishes for privacy and take her innate abilities and vast experience and become a noteworthy leader of the free world. President Biden needs to step aside and present America with a “can’t miss” candidate to win the November election.
Tom Ryan
Manlius, NY
To the editor:
Any politician or journalist that was surprised by Joe Biden’s debate performance is either stupid or lying. Nothing has been more obvious than Biden’s decline. To feign shock only exposes reasons you should be fired or voted out of office. To be that inept or deceitful is beyond belief.
I’ve often written letters to this paper saying that democracy isn’t in danger but after witnessing the recent behavior of the mainstream media and democrat politicians I now have doubts. That half the people in government and most of the media can ignore the obvious decline of our president is frightening. Their actions are driven by a thirst for power that’s fueled with their hatred of Trump. The destruction caused by this behavior can only be ignored by those who put personal power above country. That type of person isn’t qualified to be a politician or a journalist. The politician should put the people first. The journalist should make sure the politician does just that. Both have failed miserably.
Alan Pack
Manlius NY
To the Editor:
As a strong supporter of President Biden, I, like everyone else, was disappointed by his performance last Thursday.
But my far greater concern is what has happened in the aftermath. I am greatly concerned by all the focus of the mainstream media and some in public office on whether or not Biden is still fit for the office of president rather than on the horrors of what a Trump presidency would bring.
My great fear is that what they are doing increases the possibility that that could happen.
This morning, I watched a video of a very good conversation between esteemed historian, educator, and author Heather Cox Richardson and CNN’s Christiane Amanpour. She talks about the horrifying Supreme Court decision last week granting presidential immunity from criminal conduct while the person is “conducting official duties.”
Richardson does mention the debate and agrees that Biden’s performance was disappointing. But she expresses her grave concern over what much of the mainstream media as well as some leaders in the Democratic party are emphasizing, despite the huge stakes in this election and stresses that we absolutely must elect Biden. (She points out that, historically, when another candidate is put in at this point, the Democratic candidate loses, e.g. Hubert Humphrey’s loss after he replaced the resigning Lyndon Johnson).
She mentions her own positive interactions with Biden, what a very good president he has been, etc. But what she emphasizes most and what I want to emphasize is that this is not the time to focus on possible failings in the Democratic alternative to Trump. His election would be horrifying and he almost certainly would refuse to leave office after four years.
Shelley Conture
Syracuse, NY
To the editor:
I write to raise some questions.
1. I’ve had my fill of what we’ve come to call “political debates.” Maybe I’m old-school, but the going model for these events would never meet the definitions of a “debate.” Not just what happened on June 27, 2024, between Joseph Biden and Donald Trump but all those previous presidential debates of the 20th and 21st centuries. Check a dictionary. You will find such words as individuals and/or teams arguing one side or another on an agreed upon question or issue; they should be prepared, considered, deliberative in engaging the topic. Have you seen anything like that anytime recently? Are selected moderators effective in supporting this kind of discussion?
2. Why has this present model evolved to become the template of presidential debates? I think the present model makes good theater and raises audience numbers. It doesn’t require serious preparation for the participants.
As I prepared to watch on June 27, I realized I didn’t have to get up to speed on any issue, just tune in and see what they will be saying. I ended up being greatly stressed early in the experience and decided to just tune in (four times) and see how things were going. Badly. On both debaters’ parts.
3. Now, it’s over and the pundits are making hay of it. Why has virtually ALL the post-debate discussion centered on President Biden’s performance? Why has there been no discussion of Mr. Trump’s ranting, braggadocio, disregard for facts, enormous self-promotion, disrespect for people struggling to make a life (e.g. immigrants and refugees like those in our own life histories), and, yes, BULLYING. Was it a performance demonstrating worthiness and readiness to hold the office of President? It was a performance fit for any person contemplating bullying behaviors themselves. Like we are dealing with every day - in our schools, parks, traffic, homes, and yes, in the halls of government.
Mary L. Gardner
Skaneateles, NY