Judge, jury and executioner
The votes are in. Joe Biden is out.
Wait, you say, did I miss the election? Nope, the political media has relieved you of that burden.
Welcome to the Feeding Frenzy.
No one will dispute that Biden had a debate performance that can charitably be called atrocious. The Biden team has not helped its cause by explaining what, if anything — cold medication for example — may have played a role in his initial performance that appeared to emulate a deer caught in headlights.
That’s led the nation’s newspaper of record, the one that proclaims it publishes all the news that’s fit to print, to offer an editorial urging Biden to withdraw. And for the news columns, the ones where opinions are not supposed to appear, to offer these words:
“And yet, like the bystanders at the car crash, voters do not need to be told what happened during the face-off with Mr. Trump. They saw it with their own eyes.”
And therein lies the problem. While the editorial page at the Times and other outlets are clearly within their rights to offer opinions, no matter how presumptuous they may be, what are the rules for reporting? Particularly when that same newspaper refused to label what emerged from Donald Trump’s mouth as lies, even, to paraphrase, as voters heard it with their own ears?
And I’m not just talking about the Lie-a-Pallooza Trump offered on Thursday night, something mentioned but obscured by the torrent of verbiage on Biden’s pathetic night.
We’re in the middle, yet again, of what University of Virginia political science professor Larry Sabato has labeled a feeding frenzy, something we witnessed earlier this year in response to special counsel Robert Hur declining to prosecute Biden for retention of classified documents because “he is an elderly man with a poor memory.”
No one can dispute Biden’s age has been a major focus on campaign coverage, although there are legitimate questions of how well it’s been covered. Biden had, until the debate, shown no signs of mental infirmity — unlike Trump. Yes, Biden moves slowly and his speech can sometimes be halting, the result of a lifelong battle with a stutter.
Aside from a largely anonymously sourced piece that relied on a flip-flopping Kevin McCarthy for an on-the-record quote, there’s been scant reporting in mainstream outlets about Biden’s mental acuity.
Biden, unlike his predecessors, has largely avoided one-on-one sit downs, a source of much ire to Times publisher A. G. Sulzberger. In cases where he has done interviews, Biden has come across well. Here’s how New Yorker writer and Biden biographer Evan Osnos described the 81-year-old chief executive:
“His voice is thin and clotted, and his gestures have slowed, but, in our conversation, his mind seemed unchanged. He never bungled a name or a date.”
Osnos was quick to point out that was different from the man who fumbled the debate.
But it’s the broader lack of access that galls White House reporters, who don’t achieve the beat without a considerable level of ego. And speaking from my own experience covering a governor for six years, there’s quite a rush in knowing what the lead story will be the next day before everyone else.
On the flip side, covering elected executives is in many ways the equivalent to a steno pool given the way all elected executives control access — especially in a era of websites and social media. You can get snippets here and there from the PR staff or from chatty lower-level types — on background and not for attribution of course.
So when you have an event like the Debate Debacle, it’s time to make up for lost ground. Or pay back for perceived indignities.
All people have good days and bad days. And abominable ones. Context? We don’t need no stinkin’ context!
The Biden folks are guilty of not offering explanations — preferring to move ahead with a speech the next day where he appeared hale, hearty and full of vim and vigor. But that’s not good enough.
Biden needs to do a press conference or, at the very least, sit down for more one-on-ones — yes, starting with the Times.
Or course, where was the Times editorial board in demanding that Trump step down after being found guilty of 34 counts of falsifying business records in pursuit of a plan to influence to 2016 elections?
A bad debate, er, trumps, a criminal conviction in the view of the Times?
The stakes are now higher than ever with the Supreme Court giving Trump breathing room in a months-delayed decision effectively saying what lower courts said last year, that unofficial acts are not immune from prosecution — things like fomenting an insurrection to stay in office after losing an election and 62 lawsuits contesting the results.
That makes any federal court trial before November a virtual impossibility, even if Judge Tanya Chutkan offers a quick ruling in the case dumped back in her lap. That means if Trump returns to the White House, the convicted felon would be able to toss out two additional cases that spell out his alleged criminality in copious detail.
Pundits and other observers who think it’s a simple matter to replace Biden on the ticket are clearly lacking in the complexity — and infighting — that would ensue. They are Democrats after all.
Perhaps the most intriguing argument offered for Biden staying in the race comes from another convicted criminal — and jailbird for the next 120 days. Hearken unto the words of Steve Bannon:
“The campaign is starting to wake up after spiking the football, I think wrongly. Trump’s Thursday was a Pyrrhic victory. … You’re going to take out a guy you know you can beat and beat badly, and we’re going to have a wild card.”