Mr Deep State Calls On Joe Not To Run

I've known a few people like David Ignatius, having been around the edges of those circles from time to time in both Washington and Los Angeles. His Wikipedia entry is instructive:

Ignatius was born in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His parents are Nancy Sharpless (née Weiser) and Paul Robert Ignatius, a former Secretary of the Navy (1967–69), president of The Washington Post, and former president of the Air Transport Association. He is of Armenian descent on his father's side, with ancestors from Harput, Elazığ, Turkey; his mother, a descendant of Puritan minister Cotton Mather, is of German and English descent.

Ignatius was raised in Washington, D.C., where he attended St. Albans School. He then attended Harvard College, where he studied political theory and graduated magna cum laude in 1973. Ignatius was awarded a Frank Knox Fellowship from Harvard University and studied at King's College, Cambridge, where he received a diploma in economics.

Like his fellow Washington Post columnist Jonathan Turley, Ignatius was born into the Establishment, and you can see the markers here: exclusive prep school, then Harvard, and this is a consequence of a cabinet-level father and a blueblood mother. The Wikipedia entry continues,

After completing his education, Ignatius was an editor at the Washington Monthly before moving to The Wall Street Journal, where he spent ten years as a reporter. At the Journal, Ignatius first covered the steel industry in Pittsburgh. He then moved to Washington, where he covered the Justice Department, the CIA, and the Senate. Ignatius was the Journal's Middle East correspondent from 1980 through 1983, during which time he covered the wars in Lebanon and Iraq. He returned to Washington in 1984, becoming chief diplomatic correspondent. In 1985 he received the Edward Weintal Prize for diplomatic reporting.

This guy wins lots of prizes. He knows all the right people, and he's joined all the right clubs. All his photos show him with a confident, happy smile.

In 1986 Ignatius left the Journal for The Washington Post. From 1986 to 1990 he was the editor of the "Outlook" section. From 1990 to 1992 he was foreign editor. From 1993 to 1999 he served as assistant managing editor in charge of business news. In 1999 he began writing a twice-weekly column on global politics, economics and international affairs.

Indeed, that column won him the 2000 Gerald Loeb Award for Commentary and a 2004 Edward Weintal Prize. But there are toads in the garden:

Ignatius's coverage of the CIA has been criticized as being defensive and overly positive. Melvin A. Goodman, a 42-year CIA veteran, Johns Hopkins professor, and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, has called Ignatius "the mainstream media's apologist for the Central Intelligence Agency," citing as examples Ignatius's criticism of the Obama administration for investigating the CIA's role in the use of torture in interrogations during the Iraq War and his charitable defense of the agency's motivations for outsourcing such activities to private contractors.

Back when I read the Journal and the Post -- in the days before the internet, when I got free copies in my hotel room when I was on travel -- I had the impression that David Ignatius simply wrote stuff that Deep State insiders told him to write, because they knew his dad, and he won prizes for it. That's because I'd known guys like that all my life. I don't think I've been wrong. But now the prizewinning David Ignatius has said Joe shouldn't run in 2024 (the actual Post column is behind a paywall):

A top Washington Post columnist has joined the fray of pundits calling on President Biden to step aside and not seek reelection.

“. . . I don’t think Biden and Vice President Harris should run for reelection. It’s painful to say that, given my admiration for much of what they have accomplished,” Ignatius continued. “But if he and Harris campaign together in 2024, I think Biden risks undoing his greatest achievement — which was stopping Trump.”

The problem, of course, is that Joe hasn't actually stopped Trump. Trump is back, which has the Deep State worried. The Hill piece continues,

Ignatius suggested Biden’s age is a liability heading into 2024, citing recent polling that shows a majority of voters believe the president’s age is an issue when it comes to serving a second term. Biden is 80 and would be 86 at the end of a possible second term.

The columnist and occasional novelist argued that, as a result of Biden’s age, voters may focus more on Vice President Harris, who he noted carries a favorability rating around 40 percent.

"Age", of course, is just a convenient excuse, except insofar as it puts the focus on Harris. The biggest issue, which Ignatius doesn't mention directly at all, is the foreign payments to the Biden family.

Ignatius also said the now-president should have stopped his son, Hunter Biden, from joining the board of a Ukrainian energy company, which has become fodder for GOP attacks and investigations.

The current Democrat line is, of course, that Hunter's problems are entirely separate from Joe, poor Hunter was a victim of his tragic addictions, but Joe is just showing he's a loving father. But Ignatius thinks Joe should nevertheless bow out because of Harris? That doesn't compute.

What I think this shows is that Ignatius's sources in the Deep State are in fact worried about Trump. The congressional Democrats and those in state offices mostly have safe seats, and while they may lose majorities in 2024, it will be the moderates in swing districts who lose their jobs. Trump, on the other hand, will be coming after the higher-ups in the organs of state security. They're the ones who have the most to lose, and right now, they're talking through their mouthpiece, David Ignatius.

But the politicans right now don't see themselves in the same straits. Most of them likely have a clear picture of what will or won't happen in 2024, in particular to them specifically, and they don't see the same threat. They'll mostly still be in office, and the rivers of cash will keep on flowing -- at least for the foreseeable future. The bureaucrats are expendable.