President Joe Biden's post-debate remarks about "put[ting] Trump in a bullseye" aren't aging well.
Five days before former President Donald Trump narrowly survived an apparent assassination attempt at a Pennsylvania campaign rally, Biden reportedly told Democrats: "It's time to put Trump in a bullseye."
“It’s time to put Trump in the bullseye.”
— Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) July 13, 2024
—Joe Biden pic.twitter.com/MlSXXybN1U
A defiant Biden delivered the message Monday in a private phone call with his National Finance Committee as well as hundreds of top Democratic donors, Biden backers, and bundlers, according to Politico and CNN, who had obtained a recording of the donors-only conversation but were not authorized to release it.
"I have one job, and that's to beat Donald Trump. I'm absolutely certain I'm the best person to be able to do that. So, we're done talking about the debate; it's time to put Trump in a bullseye," Biden said. He added, "We can't go another day, another day, without explaining what he's doing, and we have to go after him."
President Biden, July 8, 2024: "We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."
— Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) July 13, 2024
Defend that. Go ahead.
Try to defend that rhetoric after what we all just witnessed with Trump coming with a centimeter of being assassinated.
Instructing the Democratic Party to ignore intraparty distractions regarding his fitness for office and direct its attention back to Trump, Biden pleaded: "We need to move forward. Look, we have roughly 40 days 'til the convention, 120 days 'til the election. We can't waste any more time being distracted."
When asked what his plans are ahead of the next debate against Trump, Biden said that his strategy was to "attack, attack, attack," according to those listening in to the 40-minute Zoom videoconference.
Shrugging off concerns pertaining to his presidential campaign, Biden argued that the Democratic Party should instead be directing its ire at Trump, who he said has "gotten away with doing nothing for the last 10 days except driving around in his golf cart, bragging about scores he doesn't score."
Biden, who's earned himself the nickname "Pinnochio-in-chief," repeatedly portrayed Trump as a liar who has "no sense of anything, except himself."
"We're just going to keep using his language — what he said and how he said it and what he's going to do — and let him deny it. And then maybe he'll lose his own base," Biden suggested.
The president's poor performance at the June 27 debate has left Biden's base in a state of disarray over his mental acuity and old age. Biden has since vehemently positioned himself as the party's best bet in November despite widespread reports of his daily naps, early bedtime, and resting in Rehoboth Beach.
Now, in the wake of Trump being shot on the campaign trail, we wonder whether Biden will be accused of advocating for violence against his political opponent. The New York Sun columnist Dean Karayanis, who previously worked for Rush Limbaugh, brought up how Sarah Palin was condemned for "inspiring an attempt on a congresswoman's life." As Karayanis sees it:
This incident invites comparison to Ms. Palin — known to readers of the Sun as the Alert Alaskan — the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2008. In 2010, a graphic designer for her PAC used what the New York Times deemed “stylized crosshairs” to mark congressional districts the PAC was contesting.
One of Ms. Palin’s aides said the illustrations were “surveyors symbols,” and the creative flourish was politically inert until the following January. An Arizona Democrat representing one of the enumerated districts, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was targeted by an assassin.
Jared Loughner wounded 12 and killed six, leaving Ms. Giffords with brain injuries that forced her retirement. Loughner had a murky political ethos, although he listed “The Communist Manifesto” among his favorite books. The opportunity to blame his act on Ms. Palin and others on the right — including my late boss, Rush Limbaugh — proved irresistible to their opponents.
In 2017, the Times resurrected the map myth after a left-wing gunman, James Hodgkinson, targeted congressional Republicans at baseball practice. He shot six and almost killed the House Majority Whip, Congressman Steve Scalise.
Unlike Loughner, Hodgkinson had a political motive. He railed against Republicans and worked for the campaign of the presidential Democratic-Socialist, Senator Sanders. “Conservatives and right-wing media were quick,” the Times wrote, “to demand forceful condemnation of hate speech and crimes by anti-Trump liberals.”
The Times agreed that the left “should of course be held to the same standard of decency that they ask of the right.” It then cited Ms. Palin’s map as a moral equivalence, writing that “the link to political incitement was clear” between it and Loughner. After an outcry, they added a correction that “no connection … was ever established.”
The Washington Post wrote that the editorial “showed how pervasive this debunked talking point still is on the political left.” Ms. Palin sued the Times for libel. The case was dismissed in 2022, but her appeal is pending before the Second Circuit.
As the Times did with Ms. Palin’s map, Mr. Biden has made hay of divining evil motives to Trump’s rhetoric. In March, Mr. Biden stripped a speech his opponent gave to Ohio automobile employees of all context to pluck out a single word.
The autoworkers, Trump said, are “not going to be able to sell” cars if he loses. “It’s going to be a bloodbath.” One definition of the word in Merriam-Webster’s is “a major economic disaster.” Mr. Biden chose the more violent definition and cast it as threatening murder in the streets.
Unlike bloodbath, “bullseye,” has no banal application. Mr. Biden can say he was using hyperbole and colorful language; he’s welcome to do so. If he’s going to infer the most extreme intent from Trump’s words as the Times did with Ms. Palin’s map, though, then turnabout is fair play.
There’s little doubt that if Mr. Biden’s “forceful message,” as Politico described it, had come out of Trump’s mouth, the left would be outraged and the incumbent would be exploiting it to the hilt.
As tiresome as this “What if…?” game is in politics, Mr. Biden’s “bullseye” crack cries out for application of that even-handed “standard of decency” the Times mentioned in its correction, yet nobody has printed a word of objection.
After the FBI was given an authorization to use lethal force in its raid on Mar-a-Lago, Trump accused Mr. Biden of trying to “assassinate” him.
If he repeats the allegation in light of the “bullseye” remark, expect to find that those who imagine links between the right’s rhetoric and violence to shrug until the next time seizing on someone’s words aligns with their political bent.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member