Saul Loeb. Getty Images.

Dear Commons Community,

I watched President Joe Biden’s news conference last night. He was better in his presentation than during the debate, however, he probably did not win anybody over about his mental acuity. 

Here is a brief recap courtesy of The Associated Press.

The news conference was meant to reassure a disheartened group of Democratic lawmakers, allies and persuadable voters in this year’s election that Biden still has the strength and stamina to be president. Biden has tried to defend his feeble and tongue-tied performance in the June 27 debate against Republican Donald Trump as an outlier rather than evidence that at 81 he lacks the vigor and commanding presence that the public expects from the commander in chief.

He made at least two notable flubs, referring at an event beforehand to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy as “President Putin” and then calling Kamala Harris “Vice President Trump” when asked about her by a reporter. But he also gave detailed responses about his work to preserve NATO and his plans for a second term. And he insisted he’s not leaving the race even as a growing number of Democratic lawmakers ask him to step aside.

Perhaps Biden’s biggest slip-up in the press conference came early on when he referred to Vice President Kamala Harris as “Vice President Trump,” in saying he picked her because he believed she could beat Trump.

Even before the news conference, Biden had bungled an important name at the NATO summit and instantly lowered expectations for his performance.

“Ladies and gentlemen, President Putin,” Biden said as he was introducing Ukrainian President President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is most definitely not Russian President Vladimir Putin. The gaffe immediately prompted gasps, as Biden caught himself and said to Zelenskyy: “President Putin? You’re going to beat President Putin.”

But he was defiant when a reporter brought up his reference to “Vice President Trump” and noted the presumptive Republican nominee’s campaign was already promoting the slip-up.

Give it up, Joe!

Tony

Courtesy of MSNBC.

Dear Commons Community,

The editorial board of the New York Times declared yesterday that “Donald Trump is unfit to lead” in a piece  published just ahead of the Republican convention, where Trump will once again be formally named the party’s choice for president.

Noting that the former president and convicted felon has now become the Republican nominee three times in eight years, the board said: “A once great political party now serves the interests of one man, a man as demonstrably unsuited for the office of president as any to run in the long history of the republic, a man whose values, temperament, ideas and language are directly opposed to so much of what has made this country great.”

It called the selection of Trump “a chilling choice against this national moment”.

On Monday the paper’s editorial board also made Joe Biden the subject of an article, in which it insisted that “that the best hope for Democrats to retain the White House is for him to step aside”, given that the president “continued to appear as a man in decline” following Biden’s disastrous debate against Trump in Atlanta last month.

But the latest piece focuses squarely on the danger posed by Trump, 78, and questions his own cognitive fitness.

Many voters, the Times argued, were “frustrated, even despondent”. On Thursday, a new survey from the Washington Post, ABC News and Ipsos said 67% of US adults (and 58% of Democrats) wanted Biden to step aside, while 50% of US adults (but only 11% of Republicans) said the same about Trump.

Saluting Republicans that it said “pursued electoral power in service to solutions for such problems”, such as Ronald Reagan, George HW Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney, the Times board went on to say that “too many Republicans set aside their concerns about Mr Trump because of his positions on immigration, trade and taxes. But the stakes of this election … are more foundational: what qualities matter most in America’s president and commander-in-chief”.

Trump was convicted on 34 criminal charges concerning hush-money payments to a porn star that a jury agreed were designed to interfere with the 2016 election. He was originally slated to be sentenced today, with the possibility of jail time, but after the supreme court ruled that presidents have some immunity from prosecution the judge has delayed the sentencing until September to review the case.

Trump faces 54 other criminal charges, concerning election subversion and retention of classified documents, and in civil cases has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for business fraud and millions more in a defamation suit arising from a rape allegation a judge called “substantially true”.

His attempts to overturn the 2020 election culminated in the January 6 attack on the US Capitol. Nine deaths, about 1,300 arrests and hundreds of convictions are linked to the riot. Trump was impeached a second time for inciting an insurrection but Republican senators acquitted him, leaving him free to run for office. Trump has promised to pardon rioters.

The Times editorial board said these events and other indicators – which it categorised as moral fitness, principled leadership, character, a president’s words and the rule of law – indicated that Trump had “shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency.

“He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

“He is, quite simply, unfit to lead.”

It added that while Democrats “are rightly engaged in their own debate about whether President Biden is the right person to carry the party’s nomination into the election, given widespread concerns among voters about his age-related fitness”, the importance of that debate was down to “legitimate concerns that Mr Trump may present a danger to the country, its strength, security and national character – and that a compelling Democratic alternative is the only thing that would prevent his return to power.

It said it was a “national tragedy that the Republicans have failed to … [set] aside their longstanding values” and ignoring what former Trump officials “have described as his systematic dishonesty, corruption, cruelty and incompetence”, and urged American voters to “perform a simple act of civic duty in an election year: listen to what Mr Trump is saying, pay attention to what he did as president and allow yourself to truly inhabit what he has promised to do if returned to office”.

Amen!

Tony

Online Program Management (OPM) Companies.

Dear Commons Community,

For those institutions planning on contracting out for online program management (OPM) for hosting, online course/program development, or support services, a careful analysis should be undertaken.  Schools and colleges have been cautioned to be careful in developing a relationship with OPMs, some of which are less than scrupulous in their operations.

OPMs have also faced increasing scrutiny from the U.S. Congress and consumer advocates who have urged greater oversight from the U.S. Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect colleges and students from “predatory conduct by OPMs. Last week, Minnesota became the first state to pass legislation stipulating the use of OPMs in its thirty public colleges.  Among the stipulations are that OPM contracts can’t include or allow for tuition sharing and can’t grant an OPM ownership over faculty members’ intellectual property. A college working with an OPM will also have to submit an annual analysis of the partnership to specified committees in the state legislature.  Other states have tried to enact similar legislation but have been stymied for a number of reason.

An article in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education, is worth a read for any school contemplating entering into a contract with an OPM.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Last October, my wife, Elaine, and I visited Athens, Greece for ten days.  It was exhilarating visiting the various ancient sites and monuments. We stayed in Plaka, the old city of Athens, where we had a magnificent view of  the Parthenon and the Acropolis.  Since returning home, I have had on my must read list any book of the period during which the Parthenon was built.  Hence, Pericles and Aspasia:  A Story of Ancient Greece, by Yvonne Korshak

It did not disappoint.  Korshak did a fine job relating the story of Pericles and his life-long companion, Aspasia, with whom he had a son, “Little Pericles.”  The book makes clear that the two had a very close and loving relationship. But an important subplot in the story is the construction of the Parthenon. The financial negotiations with the Athenian Assembly tested Pericles patience and oratory skills. The detailed exchanges between him and Phidias, the chief sculptor of the statue of Athena and the friezes, are insightful.  Korvak also includes commentary on gender customs and the politics of democracies versus autocracies which are as important today as they were three thousand years ago.

In sum, this is an excellent novel based on true characters and events.  I highly recommend it if you have any interest in this period of ancient Greece.

Below is a brief review from Goodreads.

Tony

Goodreads

Pericles and Aspasia: A Story of Ancient Greece

Yvonne Korshak

PERICLES AND ASPASIA —THE LOVE STORY THAT SHAPED HISTORY

Two lovers crest the wave of the golden age of Pericles, statesman and general, and Aspasia, his courtesan, a philosopher’s daughter, and a brilliant woman in her own right. In a world of hierarchies, he is at the top when she arrives as little more than flotsam cast up on Athenian shores. Their love transcends social sanctions, enduring and deepening despite the grave threat it presents to Pericles’ reputation as a leader of the Athenian democracy.

The novel unfolds against the background of the arts and history of the Golden Age, seen through the eyes of two individuals who lent their particular brilliance to make it “golden”: Pericles, the great orator and visionary of democracy, and its most influential woman, Aspasia. Their story takes them from the Agora-Athens’ marketplace to the Acropolis, from the raunchy Athenian Port Piraeus mercantile across the Aegean Sea to East Greece. Pericles and Aspasia—together and apart—navigate treacherous paths from venal calculations to impassioned philosophical inquiry, from high-stakes sea battles to the passions of family life.

Pericles and Aspasia engages issues that are vital today—the paradoxes of democracy, the tensions of hierarchy, the ironies of gender, and others—but this novel is immersed in classical Athens: the city, its sunshine, its physical presence, its people, and their struggles and aspirations.

Dear Commons Community,

The Republican National Convention will be held next week in Milwaukee, Wisconsin but it appears that Nikki Haley will not be there. As reported by Politico and other media.

It looks like Donald Trump isn’t letting bygones be bygones with his former United Nations ambassador and onetime Republican presidential primary rival, Nikki Haley.  On Tuesday, Politico reported that the former governor of South Carolina will not be attending the upcoming Republican National Convention in Milwaukee.

Haley spokesperson Chaney Denton told Politico that the failed Republican presidential contender “was not invited, and she’s fine with that.”

“Trump deserves the convention he wants,” Denton added. “She’s made it clear she’s voting for him and wishes him the best.”

Despite the snub, Haley was still willing to hand over her 97 convention delegates over to Trump. In a statement to media outlets on yesterday, she called next week’s nominating convention “a time for Republican unity.”

“Joe Biden is not competent to serve a second term and Kamala Harris would be a disaster for America,” she added in her statement. “We need a president who will hold our enemies to account, secure our border, cut our debt, and get our economy back on track.”

Biden has strenuously rejected dropping out of the race, despite a disastrous performance against Trump in last month’s presidential debate.

During primary season, Haley tried to paint herself as the sensible alternative to the ever-divisive ex-president.

In a February interview on “Today,” she told NBC’s Craig Melvin that 2024′s version of Trump was “more unhinged than he ever was” during his term in office.

“We don’t want these two old men running,” she added of Trump and Biden. “We want someone who’s going to go and fight for us and work for us, with no drama, no vendettas.”

By March, Haley conceded that she had no viable path to the presidency. It took her until May to endorse her former boss, however.

Upon Haley’s endorsement, Trump seemed less hostile towards his former primary adversary.

“You know, we had a nasty campaign, it was pretty nasty,” he told News 12 New York in late May. “But she’s a very capable person, and I’m sure she’s going to be on our team in some form, absolutely.”

Tony

                                                                                                        Click on to enlarge.

Dear Commons Community,

On Sunday night, joy: French voters had, once again, kept the far right out of power. On Monday morning, uncertainty: A hung parliament, shaky alliances and the threat of turbulent years ahead. As reported by CNN.

President Emmanuel Macron called France’s snap parliamentary election to “clarify” the political situation. But after the shock second-round results, the waters are more muddied than they have been in decades.

While a surge in support for the left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) coalition foiled Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) party, French politics is now more disordered than it was before the vote.

So, what did we learn last night, who might be France’s next prime minister, and has Macron’s gamble “paid off?”

A shock victory, but not a decisive one

After leading the first round of voting last Sunday, the RN was closer to the gates of power than ever before, and was on the cusp of forming France’s first far-right government since the collaborationist Vichy regime of World War II.

But after a week of political bargaining, in which more than 200 left-wing and centrist candidates withdrew from the second round in a bid to avoid splitting the vote, the NFP – a cluster of several parties from the extreme left to the more moderate – emerged with the most seats in the decisive second round.

The NFP won 182 seats in the National Assembly, making it the largest group in the 577-seat parliament. Macron’s centrist Ensemble alliance, which trailed in a distant third in the first round, mounted a strong recovery to win 163 seats. And the RN and its allies, despite leading the first round, won 143 seats.

Does that mean the NFP “won” the election? Not quite. Although the coalition has the most seats, it fell well short of the 289 seats required for an absolute majority, meaning France now has a hung parliament. If this was a victory for anything, it was the “cordon sanitaire,” the principle that mainstream parties must unite to prevent the extreme right from taking office.

A political science lesson in multi-party governments.

Tony

Amy Coney Barrett.  Credit. Stefani Reynolds for The New York Times

Dear Commons Community,

Stephen Vladeck, the author of  The Shadow Docket: How the Supreme Court Uses Stealth Rulings to Amass Power and Undermine the Republic, has an interesting guest essay in The New York Times today.  It features his views on U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett. I don’t know that I agree with his analysis but it is an interesting take from someone who has studied the U.S. Supreme Court well.  Below is the entire essay.

Tony

The New York Times

The Most Interesting Justice on the Supreme Court Is Also the Loneliest

July 8, 2024

By Stephen I. Vladeck

When this Supreme Court term began last October, one of the more intriguing predictions from commentators was that Justice Amy Coney Barrett — entering her third full term on the court — would come out of her shell and emerge as the court’s new swing justice, casting the decisive vote in the most divisive cases.

The commentators got half of that right: There’s little doubt, in looking at the oral arguments the court has conducted and the decisions it has handed down over the past nine months, that Justice Barrett has found her voice — and has easily become the most interesting justice. Her questions at argument are penetrating; the analysis in her written opinions spares no one in its detail.

The second part of that prediction didn’t come true, though. Justice Barrett did side with some or all of the three Democratic appointees in several of the term’s most important cases — but her fellow conservatives seldom joined her. Indeed, while Justice Barrett was establishing her principled independence in the middle of the court, the other five Republican appointees moved only further to the right.

When the majority in the Colorado ballot disqualification case went further than necessary, and the Democratic appointees called them out for doing so, there was Justice Barrett — writing separately to chastise all of her colleagues for failing to send a unified message to the country. When Justice Clarence Thomas took too wooden an approach to assessing historical practice and tradition in a trademark case, there was Justice Barrett — pushing back in an important concurrence that was joined by Justice Elena Kagan and in part by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

When the Fifth Circuit allowed anti-vaccine activists and red states to bring an unprecedented lawsuit against the Biden administration built on the dubious claim that the government had coerced social-media networks into removing vaccine-related disinformation and misinformation, there was Justice Barrett — writing the majority opinion holding that the plaintiffs hadn’t come close to establishing that they had been harmed by the alleged government action and that the Fifth Circuit clearly erred in concluding to the contrary. And when the court sidestepped a highly charged dispute over emergency abortions in Idaho, it was Justice Barrett who wrote for the court’s “middle” in explaining why.

Even on Monday, when Justice Barrett otherwise joined the five other Republican appointees in holding that presidents enjoy at least some immunity from criminal prosecution, she went out of her way to push back against the majority’s most controversial holding — that protected conduct can’t even be used as evidence in criminal prosecutions against former chief executives.

Her partial concurrence offered a not-so-subtle road map to Judge Tanya Chutkan, presiding over the Jan. 6 prosecution, for how she might apply the majority’s new framework. Just as in her dissenting opinion in the Fischer v. United States case — in which the other Republican appointees, joined by Justice Jackson, voted to narrow a criminal obstruction statute used to prosecute Jan. 6 rioters — Justice Barrett was cleareyed about the threat to democracy Jan. 6 posed and the importance of holding to account those who were responsible for it.

This pattern has repeated in the more opaque context of emergency applications. In March, when the court briefly allowed Texas’ new state-level deportation regime to go into effect, it was a not-so-subtle nudge from Justice Barrett, in a concurring opinion, that prompted the Fifth Circuit to quickly put it back on hold (where it remains).

And in January, it was Justice Barrett who provided the fifth vote (joined by the three Democratic appointees and Chief Justice John Roberts) to allow the Biden administration to remove razor wire that Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas had placed along the U.S.-Mexico border — defusing what had been a brewing conflict between state and federal authorities in and around the town of Eagle Pass.

The justice reflected in all of these cases is someone who comes across in her writings as principled, nuanced and fair-minded — regardless of the bottom line that her votes end up supporting. Many of us may not agree with the principles reflected in her writings (like her majority opinion in a case holding that U.S. citizens don’t have a liberty interest in the immigration status of their noncitizen spouses). What cannot be doubted is that they are principles, and that, to an extent greater than many of her colleagues, Justice Barrett does her best to hew to them.

The problem that the court’s rulings at the end of the term drove home is that, as willing as Justice Barrett is to follow her principles even when they lead her away from Republican political preferences, the same can’t always be said of the other two justices in the court’s middle — Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The chief justice wrote the majority opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the court overruled its 40-year-old decision in Chevron — and the principle of deference to administrative agencies for which it stood. The chief justice wrote the majority opinion in Fischer, which narrowed the criminal obstruction statute so prevalent in Jan. 6 cases in blatant defiance of the principles of textualism to which the conservative justices are supposedly committed. And the chief justice wrote the court’s sweeping majority opinion in the Trump immunity case.

And it is the split between the five other Republican appointees and Justice Barrett in that last case that is most revealing. Whereas the majority mostly left application of its new and not exactly clear approach to presidential immunity to be hashed out by the lower courts, Justice Barrett “would have answered it now.” Whereas the majority went out of its way to punt on whether the charges against Mr. Trump can go forward, Justice Barrett was emphatic that, for at least some of the charges, she saw “no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.”

And whereas the majority went out of its way to hold that immunized presidential conduct couldn’t even be used as evidence to try charges for which even the majority agrees there is no immunity, Justice Barrett criticized the majority and endorsed Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, noting that “the Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which presidents can be held liable.”

As with her dissent in the Jan. 6 obstruction ruling, Justice Barrett seems willing to accept that the court lives in the real world — and that the rules it hands down should be designed to actually work on the ground and to persuade those reading them that the court understands the limits on its proper role in our constitutional system.

In the end, this contrast is perhaps one of the defining — and most chilling — takeaways from the Supreme Court’s term: Justice Barrett came out of her shell. And the other Republican appointees retreated into theirs.

Source:  Gallup.

Dear Commons Community,

Americans are increasingly skeptical about the value and cost of college, with most saying they feel the U.S. higher education system is headed in the “wrong direction,” according to a new poll.

Overall, only 36% of adults say they have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, according to the report released yesterday by Gallup and the Lumina Foundation. That confidence level has declined steadily from 57% in 2015.  As reported by The Associated Press.

Some of the same opinions have been reflected in declining enrollment as colleges contend with the effects of the student debt crisis, concerns about the high cost of tuition and political debates over how they teach about race and other topics.

The dimming view of whether college is worth the time and money cuts across all demographics — including gender, age, political affiliation. Among Republicans, the number of respondents with high confidence in higher education has dropped 36 percentage points over the last decade — far more than it dropped for Democrats or independents.

“It’s so expensive, and I don’t think colleges are teaching people what they need to get a job,” says Randy Hill, 59, a registered Republican in Connecticut and a driver for a car service. His nephew plans to do a welding apprenticeship after graduating high school. “You graduate out of college, you’re up to eyeballs in debt, you can’t get a job, then you can’t pay it off. What’s the point?”

The June 2024 survey’s overall finding — that 36% of adults feel strong confidence in higher education — is unchanged from the year before. But what concerns researchers is shifting opinion on the bottom end, with fewer Americans saying they have “some” confidence and more reporting “very little” and “none.” This year’s findings show almost as many people have little or no confidence, 32%, as those with high confidence.

Experts say that fewer college graduates could worsen labor shortages in fields from health care to information technology. For those who forgo college, it often means lower lifetime earnings — 75% less compared with those who get bachelor’s degrees, according to Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce. And during an economic downturn, those without degrees are more likely to lose jobs.

“It is sad to see that confidence hasn’t grown at all,” says Courtney Brown, vice president at Lumina, an education nonprofit focused on increasing the numbers of students who seek education beyond high school. “What’s shocking to me is that the people who have low or no confidence is actually increasing.”

This year’s survey added new, detailed questions in an effort to understand why confidence is shrinking.

Almost one-third of respondents say college is “too expensive,” while 24% feel students are not being properly educated or taught what they need to succeed.

The survey did not specifically touch on the protests this year against the war in Gaza that divided many college campuses, but political views weighed heavily on the findings. Respondents voiced concerns about indoctrination, political bias and that colleges today are too liberal. Among the respondents who lack confidence, 41% cite political agendas as a reason.

Among other findings:

More than two-thirds, or 67%, of respondents say college is headed in the “wrong direction,” compared with just 31% who feel it’s going in the right direction.

Generally when people express confidence in higher education, they are thinking of four-year institutions, according to Gallup. But the survey found that more people have confidence in two-year institutions. Forty-nine percent of adults say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in two-year programs, compared with 33% of Americans who feel that way about four-year colleges.

California college student Kristen Freeman understands why.

“It’s about saving money. That’s why I went to a two-year. It’s more bang for your buck,” says Freeman, 22, a sociology major at Diablo Valley Community College with plans to transfer to San Jose State University for the final two years of college.

Freeman understands the concerns about indoctrination and whether college prepares students for life and work but also feels the only way to change structural problems is from the inside. “I am learning about the world around me and developing useful skills in critical thinking,” Freeman says. “I think higher education can give students the spark to want to change the system.”

Critical thinking skills have, are, and will always be needed for ourselves and our democratic societies!

Tony

Courtesy of The Daily Beast.

Dear Commons Community,

Donald Trump tried to distance himself from Project 2025, a massive proposed overhaul of the federal government drafted by longtime allies and former officials in his administration, days after the head of the think tank responsible for the program suggested there would be a second American Revolution.

“I know nothing about Project 2025,” Trump posted on his social media website. “I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they’re saying and some of the things they’re saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them.”

The 922-page plan outlines a dramatic expansion of presidential power and a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers to replace them with Trump loyalists. President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign has worked to draw more attention to the agenda, particularly as Biden tries to keep fellow Democrats on board after his disastrous debate.

“He’s trying to hide his connections to his allies’ extreme Project 2025 agenda,” Biden said of Trump in a statement released by his campaign Saturday. “The only problem? It was written for him, by those closest to him. Project 2025 should scare every single American.”

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said on Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast Tuesday that Republicans are “in the process of taking this country back.” Former U.S. Rep. Dave Brat of Virginia hosted the show for Bannon, who is serving a four-month prison term.

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,” Roberts said.

Those comments were widely circulated online and assailed by Biden’s campaign, which accused Trump and his allies of “dreaming of a violent revolution to destroy the very idea of America.”

Some of the people involved in Project 2025 are former senior administration officials. The project’s director is Paul Dans, who served as chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Personnel Management under Trump. Trump’s campaign spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt was featured in one of Project 2025’s videos.

John McEntee, a former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office in the Trump administration, is a senior adviser. McEntee told the conservative news site The Daily Wire earlier this year that Project 2025’s team would integrate a lot of its work with the campaign after the summer when Trump would announce his transition team.

Trump’s comments on Project 2025 come before the Republican Party’s meetings this coming week to begin to draft its party platform.

Trump owns Project 2025!

Tony

Justin Sullivan, Kevin Dietsch, Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Dear Commons Community,

South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham added his voice yesterday to a chorus calling for cognitive and physical evaluations for Joe Biden – but also called for the same for Donald Trump.

The Republican lawmaker recommended such tests for all future presidential nominees as well as those who may take over from a president or a nominee.

“All nominees for president going into the future should have neurological exams as part of an overall physical exam … Let’s test Trump. Let’s test Biden. Let’s test the line of succession”, the 68-year-old Graham told CBS’ Face the Nation on Sunday.

“This is a wake-up call for the country,” he added. “We need to make sure that the people who are going to be in the line of succession are capable of being commander-in-chief under dire circumstances.”

Graham’s call for cognitive tests came after California Democrat Adam Schiff said he’d be “happy” if both Biden and Trump took tests – and predicted: “frankly, a test would show Donald Trump has a serious illness of one kind or another”. Schiff also said Biden should “pass the torch” if he can’t win “overwhelmingly”.

The issue of presidential cognitive testing comes as Biden, 81, the oldest US president in history, struggles to free himself from claims that his admittedly bad debate performance against Trump 10 days ago was not symptomatic of a broader mental decline – and that he was fit to remain the presumptive Democratic nominee for reelection this November.

Graham added: “I’m offended by the idea that he [Biden] shouldn’t take a competency test, given all the evidence in front of us,” Graham said, adding that he thinks Biden is in denial and that’s dangerous.

Asked if Trump, 78, should, too, Graham said: “Yes, yes, I think both.”

With pressure mounting on the White House, Graham said: “Most of us are concerned with the national security implications of this debate about President Biden’s health”, adding: “I’m worried about Biden … Biden being the commander in chief for the next four months.”

Graham also predicted that Biden will “most likely will be replaced” as the Democratic nominee with the US vice-president, Kamala Harris, being the most obvious choice.

“If she does become the nominee, this is a dramatically different race than it is right now, today. I hope people are thinking about that on our side”, he said.

I don’t agree with Graham on too many issues but on this I do!

Tony