Failing in his efforts to bribe or dope people into voting for him, and falling even further behind in the battleground states, a desperate Joe Biden has agreed to a high-risk gambit that must give his handlers nightmares.
He has agreed to debate Donald Trump.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Biden actually will. His word is worth nothing, as people around the country and the world will tell you – most recently the Israelis. It’s quite possible that he’ll find an excuse to back out, and it’s possible that he already has the excuse pre-planned. But the dates for the debates have been set, and the first is only six weeks away.
Biden will be energized for the debates, just as he was for his State of the Union address a few months ago. And I do mean “just as.”
The SOTU address showed semi-somnolent Joe shouting at the teleprompter like an old man shouting at a cloud. He veered off-script once and had to backtrack for days within his own party.
That was when he accidentally called illegal aliens “illegals.” There were two things bad about that. The first is that “illegals” is a term that his party has deemed offensive (even though “illegal alien” is used in many federal laws and regulations) because it accurately describes the immigration status of the person referenced.
The second thing bad about Biden’s reference is that he used “illegals” in making the point that the murder of a young woman by an illegal wasn’t such a big deal because, after all, people get murdered all the time by legal citizens too.
I’m sure that made the woman’s parents feel better.
The shouting, the gaffe and the sick trivialization of a young woman’s murder suggested to me that Biden had been drugged up. That wasn’t Joe Biden, it was Amphetamine Joe. It was Speedy Joe. It was Juiced Up Joe.
Donald Trump should condition his participation in the debates on the following.
At the conclusion of the debate, the candidates remain on stage while a simple blood draw is taken from each. The blood draw then is treated as evidence. A chain of custody is established and each candidate can have an aide accompany local law enforcement to deliver the blood draws to a local testing company. There, they can be tested for the presence of mood-altering drugs.
The people have a right to know whether the president needs drug stimulants to perform the duties of the presidency.
I expect Biden’s team to decline this condition, undoubtedly with an indignant huff. (I can imagine Biden’s press secretary with her patented “How dare you!” that she must practice in front of a mirror for those frequent occasions when a reporter dares to ask a question she doesn’t like.)
But apart from that press secretary, most Americans will see this as a reasonable condition. Biden does, indeed, behave like a man in need of drug stimulants, and at the SOTU he looked like that need had been fulfilled.
If Biden refuses the condition, as I expect he will, the people can rightly draw what the lawyers call “an adverse inference” from that refusal. A fair inference will be that he needs drug stimulants to function, and he doesn’t want us to know it.
This piece was suggested to me by an alert reader. I’ve also noticed that Jesse Watters made a passing reference to drug testing Joe Biden as part of the debates.
the Aspen beat 
Glenn, in addition to a post debate drug test I believe that Joe, and to make it fair Donald, should be checked for communication devices. I still swear that in that first debate in 2020 Old Joe had something in his right ear. And what made me even more suspicious was the amount of time he seemed to take to answer certain questions.
The test should include modafinil.
Pre-debate too.
Dr. Beaton, another great post, but there are some issues. Jack could be in charge of the evidence and “find out” DJT was a direct descendent of Adolf. Or Fannie could turn it over to a paramour so she could pay him to link DJT to the Mafia. Or Alvin could use it to link DJT’s traffic tickets to Oswald, Siriano, and Ray. … regards, Doug
*Sirhan*
I’ve long thought that it would be great if all politicians running for political office, especially at the federal level, undergo a similar background and vetting process that law enforcement officers undergo before getting hired and going to the academy. This would include:
Background investigation, including criminal check and credit history
Drug urinalysis test
Medical exam
MMPI psychological test with psychologist interview
Polygraph testing
BTW … did you know that elected members of Congress get the same kind of pro-rated federal retirement as do federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers? Because of the dangerous and/or extremely stressful nature of these federal civilian jobs, these workers get an accelerated and pro-rated retirement calculation.
Congresscritters decided to afford themselves the same retirement perks of federal public safety employees while doing none of the sacrificing that is involved with the work of say, a Border Patrol agent, federal prison officer, Forest Service firefighter, DEA agent, or an air traffic controller. Yet, these Congresscritters also are exempt from the background checks, drug urinalysis tests, psych evals, and lie detector tests. Pretty neat … for them, huh?
One last note … elected federal office holders also go through no background checks to get their national security clearances either. So while many elected politicians (past or present) like Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Maxine Waters, Eric Swalwell, or Ilhan Omar could never pass a FBI background check for civil employment, they are all granted security clearances once they are elected and sworn in. The voters who elected these politicians are deemed to be the “background investigators” so to speak … for such elected politicians.
Fear the low information voters out there … g’day and Godspeed.
We have seen that the parties will not “vet” their candidates, so I’m thinking that one solution to that problem would be to elect the members of the Electoral College at midterms. That way they would be in place before the candidates even announce. Then, the electors should interview each candidate. The interviews should take place without aides, lawyers, the press, teleprompters or notes.
Each elector may ask as many questions as desired and continue asking until their questions are answered. The EC should have subpoena powers to demand ANY document desired. Even documents, decrees, etc. previously closed by a court.
The vetting process should be open and broadcast on air, on the net, streamed, etc. etc. etc.