Dems dawdle on Joe’s age woes, Minnesota OKs indoctrination and other commentary

From the left: Dems Dawdle on Joe’s Age Woes

President Biden is “losing now and there’s no plan to fix the problems,” moans Nate Silver at Substack.

“His advanced age” turns out to be “an enormous problem for voters.”

That’s driving the fact that “Biden has consistently trailed Trump in polls both nationally and (more importantly) in swing states” and his approval rating, just 39%, “shows no signs of improvement.”

“Even the most optimistic Democrats, if you read between the lines, are really arguing that Democrats could win despite Biden and not because of him.”

“The Democratic convention is not until August.” Replacing him is “an option that Biden, the White House and Democratic leaders need to seriously consider” — it may be the “best option for beating Trump.”

Education watch: Minnesota OKs Indoctrination

A Minnesota administrative law judge just “gave the state final approval to implement the most ideologically progressive and intellectually vapid social studies standards in America,” rails Max Eden at City Journal.

The goal of the new social-studies standards: “to produce graduates who embrace left-wing activism and promote a left-wing worldview.”

“State social studies standards typically insist that students know particular facts, figures, and treaties.”

Not in Minnesota, where “students should ‘examine dominant and non-dominant narratives’ about huge swathes of history.”

Under this framework, “graduates will learn to resent things that they never even got the chance to understand” and some “will look back at their education and properly recognize it as part of a contemporary system of indoctrination.”

From the right: DOJ Can’t Ignore Bobulinski

It’s “a scandal” the Department of Justice has acted like ex-Hunter Biden partner Tony Bobulinski “does not exist,” fumes the Washington Examiner’s editorial board.

Bobulinski “told Congress last week that no one in the DOJ, FBI, IRS, or local law enforcement followed up on an explosive interview he gave the FBI on Oct. 23, 2020,” in which he “outlined serious allegations against the family and backed his accusations with significant corroborating evidence.”

“When law-enforcement investigators ignore the main original source of crime allegations, something is obviously rotten. When that failure protects the U.S. president, it is probably as much of a cover-up as it looks.”

If Justice “does not open an investigation into President Joe Biden’s involvement in Hunter Biden’s foreign business, Congress should investigate and hold it accountable.”

Border beat: Krugman vs. Krugman

Paul Krugman has lent “his prestige as a Nobel Prize-winning economist to the assertion of partisan Democrats that mass unskilled immigration” is “beneficial to America,” notes Michael Lind at Tablet.

Yet in 2006 he asserted “many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico.”

In fact, notes Lind, “the soundness of Krugman’s 2006 views on labor economics and immigration has not diminished.” “Why the shift?”

“If Krugman wrote that in the political climate of 2024, he would be denounced in the overwhelmingly Democratic prestige media as a racist, xenophobic Trumper who is ignorant of economics.”

Krugman’s authority “depends on the perception that he is a principled expert on economics.”

Well, “you have seen the evidence. You decide.”

Foreign desk: See Putin for the Enemy He Is

Three years ago, President Biden told reporters he’d warned Vladimir Putin of “devastating” consequences if Alexei Navalny dies in prison, yet now that the Russian opposition leader is dead, Biden says Russia’s already faced consequences — making his threat sound like mere “bluster,” thunders National Review’s Jim Geraghty.

Presidents George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump also failed to see Putin for the enemy he is. “We keep getting one president after another convinced that he can get Putin to see reason.”

“Wouldn’t it be nice to have a president who saw Putin with the same contempt as Putin sees us, and who didn’t always fear that some action would be ‘provocative’ or ‘escalatory’ against a foe who commits war crimes as easily and naturally as he breathes?”

— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board