They knew.
They will tell you they didn't know. They'll pretend that this was as much of a shock to them as it was to you and to me. But they knew.
By "they," I mean anyone involved in the media-political complex that propped up a man in visible, irreversible organic decline for four years because he was their best option to have a Democratic president.
They all knew, at some level, he was incapable of carrying out the job he had campaigned for and was elected to do. And, until Joe Biden demonstrated on a debate stage on Thursday just how incapable he was for the position he holds, they contended that anyone who pointed out the obvious was involved in "misinformation" or "cheap fakery" or ageism.
But, I avouch to you, they knew. Furthermore, I can almost guarantee you that, slowly but surely, we will find out how much they knew and when they knew it. Indeed, we're already finding out that the most powerful Democrat not named Joe Biden pretty much knew, too.
According to an Axios report Friday evening, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer "had signaled to political allies that he was open to options other than President Biden if his debate performance was disastrous."
"Schumer was clearly bracing for the possibility that his party's presumptive nominee — whom he served with for two decades in the Senate — could have a bad night," the outlet reported, before tersely noting: "Biden did."
Furthermore, the report confirmed one "conspiracy theory" that was floated around online in the hours following Thursday's debacle, which I've heard more than once referred to as the most damaging public rhetorical performance by a sitting leader since Nicolae Ceaușescu took to a Bucharest balcony almost 35 years ago and tried, very unsuccessfully, to ensure the Romanian people that any rumors of unrest or regime weakness were greatly exaggerated.
"Schumer wasn't hatching a secret plan to swap out Biden for a player to be named later, but he liked the idea of any early debate for a couple of reasons," Axios reported, citing two people familiar with the matter.
The outlet continued: "It would give Biden time to recover from a potentially poor showing. It would also give the Democratic Party more time to consider the best way forward."
"Best way forward" is one hell of a euphemism -- considering that, with the nomination clinched and Biden supposedly in tip-top, or at least serviceable, shape, there should be only one way forward: campaigning for him. If there was a bad performance, everyone would do their best to spackle over it. That's what you do if your candidate is fit for office.
On every network, though, you heard every connected pundit echoing the same thing, over and over and over again, in the hours following the debates: Democrats were looking for the exit door and inflatable slides like Air Force One had just crash-landed in a CNN studio in Atlanta:
John King says they might replace Biden on the ticket. #CNN #Debates2024 #Election2024 pic.twitter.com/58c6Iv6GRz
— 𝓲𝓼𝓷𝓽𝓭𝓪𝓿𝓮𝓸𝓷𝓮 (@IsntDaveOne) June 28, 2024
Van Jones is very depressed about how that debate went for Biden and calls for the Democrats to replace him on the ticket
"That was painful" pic.twitter.com/B8VsiRFiMs
— Did I Piss You Off? (@DIPYOMUCH) June 28, 2024
When Joy Reid is bashing Biden’s performance you know it’s bad news!
Who do you think they’re gonna replace Biden with? pic.twitter.com/32BuBPN8iY
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 28, 2024
"Best way forward," in other words, means the "best way forward without Biden." Consider, for instance, that it took less than 24 hours for the editorial board of the semi-official media organ of the Democratic Party -- The New York Times \-- to call for Biden to step aside from the race.
“At Thursday’s debate, the president needed to convince the American public that he was equal to the formidable demands of the office he is seeking to hold for another term. Voters, however, cannot be expected to ignore what was instead plain to see: Mr. Biden is not the man he was four years ago,” the editorial board wrote.
The Times further denigrated Biden's ability to lead: “Even when Mr. Biden tried to lay out his policy proposals, he stumbled. It cannot be outweighed by other public appearances because he has limited and carefully controlled his public appearances ... The truth Mr. Biden needs to confront now is that he failed his own test."
Granted, Schumer hasn't publicly come out and said he's going to follow the Times' editorial board in suggesting Biden step aside, because that isn't how this dance works.
Through a spokesperson, he reiterated his support for the president: "Leader Schumer has always supported and continues to support President Biden as the nominee and believes he will be re-elected."
And there was the pro forma social media post, as well:
Tonight's debate made the choice clear:
Four more years of progress, or four more years of attacks on our fundamental rights and our democracy.
We’ve got to get out the vote for @JoeBiden, @KamalaHarris, and a Democratic Senate and House!
— Chuck Schumer (@chuckschumer) June 28, 2024
However, aside from Democratic leaders, news outlets like Axios and the Times -- which are as friendly and charitable to Biden as it's possible to be without being official arms of the campaign -- have had the closest access to the president, the White House and those in his orbit as it is possible to have.
The Times, less than a day after the debacle in Atlanta, is publicly calling to ditch Biden. Not on the opinion page, but as the official position of the paper. And Axios, almost simultaneously, reports that Majority Leader Schumer had already been open to ditching Biden before he even debacled.
These people knew. The Times knew, Axios knew, Schumer knew. They may have pretended it was an "issue" with voters, that it was something Republicans "pounced" on with their "cheap fakes" on social media. But they knew.
And now, judging by how quickly their position on our president's fitness for office has shifted, we know they knew. This is not a change that happens in 24 hours. This is simply an acknowledgement that a lie carefully and diligently maintained over a four-year period can be maintained no longer. The question isn't whether they acknowledge it or not, the only question is when.
