You're reading the Today's Opinions newsletter: Sign up to get it delivered to your inbox.
In another debate today,
Okay. So, would you rather hear bad news or bad news?
That's bad news. We all know the debate was a bad look for Biden and for democracy. Thirty-five minutes into Thursday night's debacle, Catherine Rampell told a columnist's live chat, “This is excruciating to watch.” Forty minutes later, she said she was “yelling at the TV.”
In its summary of the debate, the editorial board described the entire discussion as “90 minutes of agony.”
To be clear, this has as much, if not more, to do with Donald Trump's massive falsehoods and Biden's halting tweets to counter them. Late one night on the East Coast, we were texting back and forth as we edited Alexandra Petri's satirical summary of the debate, wrestling with how to balance talking about what is ultimately a performance when it comes to who ultimately runs the country.
After all, host Dana Bash turned to the camera at the end of her recap and asked, “Have you woken up in a cold sweat and wondering: How did we get to this? Why did we decide that a live television performance was the best way to decide who should run the country? And what exactly was this performance about?”
So how did we get here?
Alexi McCammond believes CNN has shirked its duties by failing to fact-check Trump, a point she discusses in her latest newsletter, Prompt 2024, while Erik Wemple points out the huge obstacles to real-time verification, writing, “I don't think we're any closer to solving the puzzle of whether it's OK for media workers to put Trump on live TV under any circumstances.”
But greater responsibility may lie with the Democrats, who allowed this to happen.
As Dana Milbank wrote in a column consumed by Trump’s lies, “the truth needed a standard-bearer on its stage,” and it’s lamentable that the nation suddenly realized that “Biden was clearly not the man for the job.”
Didn't the people around you already know?
Karen Tumulty has written that there will now be a “Democratic panic” not just among party insiders but among all members: “Democrats' long-held fears about Biden's decision to run for a second term will come to the surface,” she predicted at 11:52 p.m. ET on Thursday, a prediction that was borne out by Twitter and cable news about seven nanoseconds later.
Cullen believes the “unrealistic” scenario of replacing Biden would create a catastrophic upset that would do more harm than good for the Democratic Party. This is not the consensus view at Post Opinion.
George Will wrote in a column (perhaps this was the debate we deserved), “Insisting on Biden's candidacy rather than nominating a president who could potentially serve four years is both sad and frightening, but it would be the most reckless and cruel act by an American political party.”
Ramesh Ponnuru told Democrats that sympathy for Biden “should not entirely replace anger,” because “the more we believe what he says, the more reprehensible his incompetence becomes.”
So Trump is dangerous and a disgrace, and it's selfish and unfair that this is his opponent's biggest argument for reelection, while Biden is making it even more unlikely.
In a live chat with columnists, Jim Geraghty thought the debate may have gone too well for Trump, as the incumbent is the easiest opponent for him to beat, and Jim believes “there may not be a Trump-Biden rematch after all.”
The Chaser: This matchup cartoon by Anne Ternaes captures the tragedy of substance failing to trump bravado.
Okay, now that the bad news is out of the way, it's time for the bad news.
That discussion was tough, but I know what cheers me up! I had a little chat with my good friend, Chevron Difference, and he's in high spirits this morning, as always.
— Alexandra Petri (@petridishes) June 28, 2024
Sorry, Alex. As Karen wrote in another column today, the Supreme Court's conservative wing on Friday overturned Chevron, a 40-year-old precedent that gave government agencies broad discretion in interpreting federal law. The word on the street is that this is the biggest judicial usurpation since Marbury v. Madison.
Cullen knows this all sounds technical, but “the impact of the Court's 6-3 decision could affect far-reaching aspects of American life, from the cleanliness of our air and water to the safety of consumer products to how financial markets work.”
Expect Congress to struggle to write more detailed laws on subjects it has no expertise in (and federal judges probably have even less).
Cullen writes that we wouldn't be in this mess if deference to Chevron hadn't eroded Congressional expertise. “If there's a silver lining to the Supreme Court's ill-advised decision,” she says, it's “the opportunity to reclaim the power the Founding Fathers intended to give Congress.”
Kathleen Parker writes that abortion drove a Republican woman out of the South Carolina Senate, so what Republican men want, Republican men get. Jason Rezaian explains why low voter turnout may be what the Iranian regime fears most about its fake elections. And finally, a ray of hope comes from Fareed Zakaria, who writes that even if America is losing confidence, the world still knows it well.
It's a goodbye. It's a haiku. It's… “goodbye.”
After last night's humiliation
The real debate begins
Plus! A Fri-ku! from reader Leonora O.
Have a newsy haiku of your own? Please email me with any questions, comments, concerns, etc. Have a great weekend!
