Atlantic editor doesn't 'understand' the narrative that media covered for Biden's health
The editor-in-chief of The Atlantic says he doesn't "understand" the "narrative" that the media covered for former President Joe Biden's health.
"I don't understand how this narrative is developed that the media was covering for Biden," The Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg said Friday in an interview he did with CNN's Jake Tapper and Axios' Alex Thompson's book following the release of their book, "Original Sin." The book looks into the efforts made by top Biden aides and allies to hide the truth about Biden's mental and physical health, providing a depiction of a president who was routinely confused and disorientated during his term.
"I think what might be going on here is the lack of understanding about how reporting works," Goldberg said. "In order to prove that he's diminished, you have to have people, sources inside telling you this."
Biden Insider Was Reportedly 'Amazed' At The Media Coverage They Were Able To Spin
In response, Tapper pointed to the sources he and Thompson spoke to.
"What Alex and I have been able to do, which is after the election, all those Democrats, we talked to more than 200 sources for this book, almost all of them Democrats, almost all of them after the election, who were telling us what was really going on behind the scenes," Tapper said. "And the anecdotes and the concerns that we bring forward in this book is investigative journalism, and that is different from observational punditry."
Read On The Fox News App
Thompson also mentioned the bombshell report from the Wall Street Journal about how some lawmakers began questioning Biden's health, which was met with fierce criticism by Democrats and some in the media.
"I mean, look at the reaction to The Wall Street Journal story in June of 2024, just weeks before the debate," Thompson said. "There are a lot of reporters that sort of threw shade at that story. There was not as much solidarity."
Thompson, as well as Goldberg, pointed to The Atlantic's June 2022 story titled, "Why Biden Shouldn't Run in 2024," which said, "Biden is by no means the more eloquent character he was in his younger days. It can be painful to watch him give prepared speeches. His tone can be tentative, and certain sentences can become hopscotching journeys. His aides in the room look visibly nervous at times."
Goldberg said he is not trying to make "excuses" for the media, however said journalists can only do so much after they write a story.
Dan Gainor: Journalism's Original Spin. 7 Ways The Tapper/thompson Biden Book Attempts To Absolve Media
"Well, you can lead people to stories that you write, but you can't make them read them," Goldberg said. "And I think that's part of the issue. I'm not trying to make excuses. You've been very forthright about your critique of softness on the part of the media on the question."
He also asked Tapper about the sentiment from Biden's staff that he would be physically able to take on emergency situations at 3:00 A.M.
"We have cabinet secretaries in the book, as you know, who are telling us that by 2024, they do not have faith that Joe Biden could be relied upon for that 3:00 A.M. phone call, and that's chilling, chilling," Tapper said.
Tapper also said President Donald Trump is not being transparent about his health records.
"I don't think that the press should cover any president going forward, A, without demanding full and complete transparency about health records, which we're not getting from Trump," Tapper said. "We still don't know why he went to Walter Reed in 2019. And I think that we need to be skeptical of everything that we are told by people in power."Original article source: Atlantic editor doesn't 'understand' the narrative that media covered for Biden's health
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A New Working-Class GOP? If 'Working-Class' Means $4.3 Million a Year!
So much for a new, 'populist' Republican Party. So much for the GOP as a brave band of fiscally prudent, anti-deficit hawks. The 'Big, Beautiful Bill' is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy, policy incoherence, and political vacuousness. That's its formal name, by the way, and you've already admitted a problem when you have to sell something that hard. It's no wonder that the only way the BBB passed the House was for one opponent to vote 'present' and for two others to miss the vote. One of the absent members fell asleep and missed the vote, an entirely appropriate response to an exercise in philosophical exhaustion. Defending the bill requires twisting facts into the 'alternative' variety and turning the plain meaning of words upside down. For example: The right wingers who demanded more cuts in programs for low-income people are regularly described as 'deficit hawks.' But even if they had gotten all the changes they sought, the bill would have massively increased the deficit. And most of them voted for a final product that will add close to $4 trillion to the nation's indebtedness. If these guys are hawks, I don't know what a dove looks like. Trump and his backers continue to insist that they are building a new working-class Republican coalition. But the astonishing thing about this bill is not only that it lavishes tax cuts on the very well-off; it also takes money away from Americans earning less than $51,000 a year once its cuts in Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, SNAP, and student loans are counted for. Republicans who rail against 'income redistribution' are doing an awful lot of redistribution themselves—to those who already have lots of money. The Penn Wharton budget model of the near-final version of the bill found that Americans earning less than $17,000 would lose $1,035 under its terms. Those earning between $17,000 and $50,999 would lose $705. But the small number of our fellow citizens who earn more than $4.3 million a year have a lot to cheer about: They pick up $389,280 annually. Please explain to me again why this is a 'populist' Republican Party. It's imperative not to miss what's obvious about this bill—that it ravages lower-income people to benefit the very privileged—and for progressives and Democrats to act on this. But it's also essential to notice what doesn't get enough attention: that so much of the commentary about how Trump has reinvented the GOP with a fresh set of ideas and commitments is poppycock. Trumpism is certainly dangerous and authoritarian in new ways. It is, well, innovative when it comes to a vast and unconstitutional expansion of presidential power. But it's also an ideological mess riddled with contradictions. When you look below the hood, it's primarily about the interests of people who can buy their way into Trump's golf clubs and private pay-for-play dinners—and, especially, about the enrichment of Trump and his family. On the phony populism side, Democrats in the House did a generally good job of highlighting the costs of provisions in the bill that hurt so many of Trump's voters, particularly the cuts in Medicaid and nutrition assistance, or SNAP. Senate Democrats have already ramped up similar efforts as that body's Republican leaders prepare to grapple with the steaming pile of incongruities the House has sent their way. You can tell that Republicans know how unpopular the Medicaid cuts in the bill are because they delayed their effectiveness date to minimize their electoral effect, repeatedly denied they are cutting Medicaid—and don't want to talk at all about how slashing subsidies within the Affordable Care Act would take health coverage away from millions more Americans. They are hiding the Medicaid cuts behind 'work requirements' that are really bureaucratic paperwork requirements that would make it much harder for people with every right to coverage to access it. They would make it more difficult for others to maintain continuous coverage. And if these rules were not about 'cutting' Medicaid, the GOP couldn't claim to be 'cutting' roughly $700 billion in Medicaid spending. But the GOP thinks it has a winner in its work argument. It's a tired but tested replay of a very old (and, yes, offensive) trope about alleged grifters among supposedly 'lazy' poor people. House Speaker Mike Johnson offered a remarkable version of this defense of the 'work' provisions: He said they were aimed at 'the young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' If ever there was a quote that should go viral, this is it. Young men, after all, shifted toward the Republicans in 2024. They should know what the party many of them voted for thinks of them. More important, progressives need to take the work argument on directly, not only by showing that the work provisions aren't really about work but also by offering amendments replacing the Medicaid cuts with provisions that actually would expand the availability of well-paying opportunities for greater self-sufficiency. Restoring the clean energy tax credits are important not only to battling climate change; they're also about preserving and creating well-paying jobs. A package of proposals on affordable housing, job training, and access to community colleges, particularly in economically depressed areas, would make a nice contrast to those who deny that government has the capacity to improve lives. What the Financial Times' economics columnist Martin Wolf nicely termed 'pluto-populism' when the GOP passed the 2017 tax cuts that this bill extends is alive and well. That populist rhetoric is being married to plutocratic policies is still not recognized widely enough. This is certainly a commentary on the rightward tilt of the media system the editor of this magazine has called out. But it also reflects a failure of Democrats to take the argument to the heart of Trump's base. It's political common sense that parties focus most of their energy on swing states and swing districts. Yet there will be no breaking the 50-50 deadlock in our politics without a concerted effort to change the minds of voters who have drifted to Trump out of frustration with their own economic circumstances and the condition of their regions. The fight over Medicaid and SNAP cuts directly implicates these voters and these places. And these voters pay more attention to these issues than either the Republicans who take them for granted or Democrats who have given up on them believe. When Andy Beshear won his first race for governor of Kentucky in 2019, he not only mobilized Democrats in urban areas; he also flipped many rural counties and cut the Republicans' margins in others. Typical was Carter County in eastern Kentucky. The county went for Beshear even though it had backed his GOP opponent and then-incumbent Republican Governor Matt Bevin four years earlier and gave Trump 73.8 percent of its ballots in 2016. Breathitt County in Appalachia also flipped, having gone for Bevin and voted 69.6 percent for Trump. Fred Cowan, a former Kentucky attorney general and a shrewd student of his state's politics, told me then that these voters understood where their interests lay. 'In a lot of these counties, the school systems or the hospitals—or both—are the biggest employers,' he said 'The Medicaid expansion helped a lot of people over there.' Sure, it's easier for Democrats like Beshear with strong local profiles to make their case. But the national party needs to learn from these politicians that giving up on whole swaths of voters is both an electoral and moral mistake. The emptiness of Republican populism speaks to the larger problem of mistaking Trump's ability to create a somewhat new electoral coalition with intellectual and policy innovation. Some conservative commentators are honest enough to admit how the BBB demonstrates that the 'old Republican Party is still powerful, the old ideas are still dominant,' as Ross Douthat observed in The New York Times. But even Douthat wants to cast the bill as an exception to a bolder transformation the president has engineered, particularly around immigration and a 'Trumpian culture war.' The problem here is that none of this is new, either. The GOP was moving right on immigration well before Trump—when, for example, it killed George W. Bush's immigration bill in 2007 as right-wing media cheered it on. The culture war and the battle against universities are old hat too. The real innovator here was the late Irving Kristol, whose columns in the 1970s introduced Wall Street Journal readers to the dangers posed to business interests by 'the new class' of Hollywood, media, and university types, along with activist lawyers. True, Trump is taking this fight to extreme places Kristol would never have gone. But, again, there's no new thinking here. And the attack on trans rights is just the latest front in the LGBTQ+ debates, now that the right has had to abandon its opposition to same-sex marriage because Americans have come to support it overwhelmingly. Even the contradictions aren't new. Since the Reagan years, Republicans have always talked about the dangers of deficits when Democrats were in power but cast those worries aside when they had the power to cut taxes. 'Reagan proved deficits don't matter' is the canonical Dick Cheney quote from 2002 when he was pushing for more tax cuts in W.'s administration. The exception proves the rule: George H.W. Bush made a deal with Democrats in 1991 that included tax increases because he really did care about deficits—and conservatives never forgave him for it. In an odd way, you have to admire Cheney's candor: At least he admitted what he was doing. The Freedom Caucus members have the gall to yell at the top of their lungs about how they care so very much about the debt—and then vote in overwhelming numbers to pile on billions more. As the debate over the BBB moves to the Senate, the immediate imperative is to expose the damage the bill does to millions of Trump's voters to benefit his Mar-a-Lago and crypto-wealthy friends. But it's also an occasion to shatter the illusion that Trump is some sort of brilliant policy innovator. Extremism and authoritarianism are not new ideas, and his legislative program would be familiar to Calvin Coolidge.
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bipartisan event highlights Michigan's legislative divides, instead
MACKINAC ISLAND — In a new era of divided government, state lawmakers face a binary choice between bipartisan cooperation and gridlock. When they convened for the Detroit Regional Chamber's annual policy conference in the Straits of Mackinac, where two Great Lakes meet, they remained at loggerheads. Unlike past conferences in which legislative leaders have sometimes joined the governor for a big bipartisan policy announcement, that didn't happen this year. House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, D-Canton Township, described the current legislative session as uniquely unproductive. "I'm disappointed with the lack of progress," he said. Republicans control the Michigan House and Democrats hold a majority in the Michigan Senate. "You think that would be an ideal situation to find common ground," said Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids. Legislative leaders pointed fingers at each other for inaction. Puri blasted Richland Township Republican House Speaker Matt Hall's leadership style. "It's an unserious approach that's going to lead to dangerous consequences," Puri said. Hall said Michigan voters can blame Democrats for a Mackinac Policy Conference that didn't feature a bipartisan bill signing ceremony on the island. The Democratic-led legislative session that came to an end last year has continued to hover over the current one, fueling tensions between the top Republican and Democratic leaders in Lansing. Bills that passed both chambers last session never made their way to Whitmer's desk, prompting the Michigan Senate to sue Hall for refusing to transmit the legislation. Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, called it an unfortunate start to the year. Brinks said she and Hall have had informal and infrequent conversations, adding that her continued invitations to sit down have gone unanswered. "It shouldn't be that way," she said. "It's absolutely a problem." Hall has defended his leadership approach during news conferences, touting policies in which House lawmakers from both parties have come together to support in one breath and singling out some Democratic lawmakers for criticism in another. During a Mackinac Policy Conference panel featuring all four legislative leaders May 29, Hall didn't take Brinks or Puri up on their personal pleas to meet. At one point, Puri held up his phone in front of the audience, saying he had his calendar pulled up to put a date to meet on the calendar. Hall told Puri he didn't need to, saying he's worked effectively with other Democratic lawmakers. Hall also said he has set an example for bipartisanship with Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, citing their Oval Office visit with President Donald Trump that preceded the announcement of a new fighter jet mission for Selfridge Air National Guard Base. Whitmer declined a request for an interview with the Detroit Free Press during the conference. But in her speeches, she emphasized her commitment to cooperating across the aisle. "This isn't a platitude. This is a philosophy," she said. Whitmer has long preached bipartisanship, but she faces a new dynamic in Lansing. For the first time during her tenure as governor, one political party controls one chamber of the Michigan Legislature and the opposite party controls the other. So far, lawmakers have sent four bills since this session began January to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer's desk for her signature: Changes to Michigan's minimum wage and paid sick leave laws and a pair of bills that adjusts the deadline for politicians and candidates to file their personal financial disclosures following hiccups with the online reporting system. Whitmer's governing approach isn't the only thing on the line, so is her marquee campaign promise to "fix the damn roads" if lawmakers reach a stalemate on road funding. But she suggested lawmakers may be close to an agreement. "We're inching closer to a deal," she said. Mackinac Policy Conference: Mike Duggan, Dan Gilbert chat about downtown Detroit and what Bill Clinton saw in 1991 The Michigan House passed a road funding plan in March that would depend on steep cuts, which Puri characterized as an austerity plan packaged as a road funding solution. Brinks has previously described it as a nonstarter. Hall has blasted Senate Democrats for not putting forward a road funding plan of their own. Brinks says Hall won't come to the table to negotiate. While lawmakers may leave potholes unfilled, they face another high-stakes test for bipartisanship during budget negotiations. The Michigan House hasn't passed a budget proposal yet, and Hall hasn't committed to passing one out of the chamber by July 1, the deadline lawmakers — including Hall —imposed on themselves to help schools plan for the next year before students return to class. Contact Clara Hendrickson at chendrickson@ or 313-296-5743. This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michigan Democrats say they want House Speaker to negotiate
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How low will Democrats sink before the DNC acts?
Midway through this month, Democratic Representative Hakeem Jeffries sent out a fundraising text saying that he 'recently announced a 10-point plan to take on Trump and the Republicans.' But the plan was no more recent than early February, just two weeks after President Trump's inauguration. It's hardly reassuring that the House minority leader cited a 100-day-old memo as his strategy for countering the administration's countless moves since then to dismantle entire government agencies, destroy life-saving programs and assault a wide range of civil liberties. Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is so unpopular with the Democratic base that a speaking tour for his new book — abruptly 'postponed' just before it was set to begin more than two months ago — still hasn't been rescheduled. The eruption of anger at his support for Trump's spending bill in mid-March made Schumer realize that being confronted by irate Democrats in deep-blue states wouldn't make for good photo ops. Last month, a Gallup poll measured public confidence in the Democratic congressional leadership at just 25 percent, a steep drop of nine points since 2023 and now at an all-time low. Much of the disaffection comes from habitual Democratic voters who see the party's leaders as slow-moving and timid while the Trump administration continues with its rampage against democratic structures. Away from the Capitol, the party's governing body — the Democratic National Committee — is far from dynamic or nimble. Maintaining its twice-a-year timetable, the 448-member DNC isn't scheduled to meet until late August. In the meantime, the DNC's executive committee is set to gather in Little Rock, Arkansas, on Friday for its first meeting since December. That meeting is scheduled to last three hours. The DNC's bylaws say that the executive committee 'shall be responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the Democratic Party in the interim between the meetings of the full (Democratic National) Committee.' But the pace of being 'responsible' is unhurried to the point of political malpractice. The extraordinary national crisis is made even more severe to the extent to top Democrats do not acknowledge its magnitude. Four months into his job as the DNC's chair, Ken Martin has yet to show that the DNC is truly operating in real time while the country faces an unprecedented threat to what's left of democracy. His power to call an emergency meeting of the full DNC remains unused. This week, Martin received a petition co-sponsored by Progressive Democrats of America and RootsAction, urging the DNC to 'convene an emergency meeting of all its members – fully open to the public – as soon as possible.' The petition adds that 'the predatory, extreme and dictatorial actions of the Trump administration call for an all-out commensurate response, which so far has been terribly lacking from the Democratic Party.' Among the 7,000 signers were more than 1,500 people who wrote individual comments (often angrily) imploring the DNC to finally swing into suitable action. As several dozen top DNC officials fly into Little Rock's Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport, they will bring with them the power to begin shifting the direction of the Democratic Party, but the chances of a positive course correction look meager. The DNC's current executive committee is a bastion of the party establishment, unlikely to signal to grassroots Democrats and the general public that the party is no longer locked into automatic pilot. The pattern is a sort of repetition compulsion, afflicting Democratic movers and shakers along with the party as an institution. While many journalists focus on the ages of congressional leaders, the lopsided power held by Democrats in their 70s and 80s is merely a marker for a deeper problem. Their approaches are rooted in the past and are now withering on the political vine. Even with the rare meeting of the DNC's executive committee just a couple of days away, the official Democratic Party website was still offering no information about it. The apparent preference is to keep us in the dark. But anyone can sign up to watch livestream coverage from Progressive Hub, during a four-hour feed that will begin at 12:30 pm Eastern time on Friday. Along with excerpts from the executive committee meeting as it happens, the coverage will include analysis from my RootsAction colleagues Sam Rosenthal, who'll be inside the meeting room in Little Rock, and former Democratic nominee for Buffalo mayor India Walton. The livestream will also feature an interview with Congressman Ro Khanna, who has endorsed the call for an emergency meeting of the full DNC. Right now, the Democratic Party appears to be stuck between Little Rock and a hard place. The only real possibilities for major improvement will come from progressives who make demands and organize to back them up with grassroots power.
