There must be a more credible candidate than Kamala Harris to give Donald Trump a run for his money
Biden bilge
THE same people who lied and lied about Joe Biden’s mental frailty now invite you to believe that a woman they privately consider a vacuous dud would make a sublime leader of the free world.
In their blind panic over a second Trump presidency, many US Democrats will say and do anything.
Biden’s condition has long been obvious.
The debate which finally destroyed his presidency merely confirmed it.
But even after the shocked world watched him mumble gibberish on live TV, his party and its media cheerleaders laughably claimed he WON that showdown.
He was fine . . . just “tired”.
How their story has changed in 48 hours.
Now Biden is brave, noble, confronting his clear difficulties, heroically sacrificing himself for America’s sake.
Yet they also claim he’s perfectly competent to see out his term.
Really? Is he even vaguely in command? If not, who is?
How long have his unelected aides secretly been running America?
Biden should have quit long ago, giving the party time to pick the very best replacement.
That cannot surely be Kamala Harris — a woman unpopular with voters and with nothing to say beyond the weird, convoluted banalities she mistakes for oratory.
Most Democrats seem to want her anointed within weeks, though, chiefly on the basis of her race and gender.
There must be a more credible candidate to give Trump a run for his money.
Mind the cap
DID left-wing Labour MPs listen to Rachel Reeves as they campaigned for office?
The Chancellor insisted she would not spend money we could not afford.
Now in power, a rump of backbenchers demand billions to lift the two-child benefit cap.
Ms Reeves is in far greater touch with reality than they are.
Everyone wants to alleviate child poverty.
But we cannot inflate the vast welfare bill further with gigantic sums the nation doesn’t have.
That will do nothing for growth, which Ms Reeves is rightly prioritising to deliver higher living standards and lower bills.
And it is plain wrong to argue the two-child limit is unfair or immoral.
No one is saying parents cannot have more kids.
Merely that they, not taxpayers, must fund any more than two.
That is entirely reasonable, which is why voters overwhelmingly support the cap.
Nail the thugs
THE 37 per cent surge in violence against women and girls in four years is appalling.
Some is down to more victims having the confidence to come forward.
Some is an increase in the crime itself.
Attackers are increasingly young men, some influenced by misogynists online.
Support for survivors is vital.
But courts must have no mercy for the thugs.
This crime epidemic must be eradicated.