According to British tabloid The Mirror, Alyssa Farrah-Griffin said
So, I actually think it was the right
thing to do and I've hard a lot of folks on the left coming after Joe and Mika
saying, 'Don't normalize him.' Well, 75 million plus voters normalized Donald
Trump by making him President-elect Donald Trump ... They met with him for over
90 minutes. They both raised very valid concerns. They both see themselves as
opinion journalists who want to actually be able to engage the person they talk
about every day, actually be able to raise issues with them when they're concerned
Not quite as idiotically, Sara Haines remarked
I absolutely think it was the right decision and I think it's good they work on MSNBC. I don't want only FOX people going to see them. That was some of the problem that I think everyone can agree, maybe even people who voted for Trump can agree, that the things they were watching on FOX are wrong. That's the only network that's had to pay billions of dollars because they got it wrong....
I don't need to know [Joe and MIka's]
motivation. I just know you get nowhere in silence. Conversations had to be had
... I would absolutely sit down and always have a conversation because I'm
confident enough to sit down at a table in contrast and disagree when I
disagree. I'm not scared. I'm not afraid. You have the conversations or nothing
happens.
Those opinions were expressed on Monday morning, soon after Scarborough and Brzezinski broke the news of their November 15 chat at Mar-a-Lago with President-elect Donald J. Trump. It's onfounding that Haines would be unconcerned about motivation, which does not appear to be something other than having a civil conversation with a disagreeable person in order to open lines of communication. On Tuesday morning, CNN reported
In private conversations, Scarborough argued that having face time with a world leader is a no-brainer. Some of his MSNBC colleagues agreed, but there was more to the Mar-a-Lago meeting.
According to two sources with direct knowledge of the matter, Scarborough and Brzezinski were credibly concerned that they could face governmental and legal harassment from the incoming Trump administration.
Scarborough claimed that the duo did not intend to "defend or normalize" Mr. Trump. Yet, Brezinski described the the incoming President, an accomplished actor, as "cheeful" and "upbeat." She also cotended that he appeared "interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues," whicht he shrewdly aimed to have Brzezinski deliver to the MSNBC audience.
Other journalists face the possibility of retribution but didn't immediately cave. Jennifer Rubin has not. Neither has Will Bunch, who noted
it was more than a little shocking Monday morning when Scarborough and Brzezinski revealed their unorthodox way of dealing with a “fascist” president — that they’d gone to Mar-a-Lago Friday to meet with the president-elect, presumably on bended knee. It certainly can’t be called an act of journalism, because there were no cameras present. “Don’t be mistaken: We are not here to defend or normalize Donald Trump,” Scarborough — a firebrand conservative GOP congressman in the 1990s who now is an independent — told his presumably shocked viewers. “We are here to report on him and to hopefully provide you insights that are going to better equip all of us in understanding these deeply unsettling times.” But the MSNBC star also claimed that an “upbeat” Trump “seemed interested in finding common ground with Democrats on some of the most divisive issues.”
Brzezinski, for her part, answered her own question of how could they meet with Trump by asking, “How could we not?” A better question and answer would have been the one way the MSNBC stars could have gone to Mar-a-Lago while retaining their integrity, and even performing a public service: by demanding that Trump only agree to speak to them on camera, unedited, with no subject restrictions, and to ask some of the tough questions that the president has avoided, like his wackadoodle cabinet picks or his plans to use the military for mass deportations.
Joe Rogan very likely would have bagged an interview with candidate shortly before the presidential election. However, he justifiably insisted that the meeting would take place in his studio in Austin, Texas.As Bunch argues, the Scarboroughs should have demanded that Trump speak to them- unedited- on camera and with no restrictions. Conducting the interview or having the chat at Mar-a-Lago also does the public a disservice compared to an exchange at a neutral site.
.
Honest and professional journalists who do not want to ennnoble President Trump or facilitate his effort to accrue absolute, unquestioned power face rough sledding over the next 4+ years. Their response to the imperial presidency is crucial, and Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski appear headed in the wrong direction.
It's time to face reality. Unfortunately, it's not going to happen, as reflected in the following tweet from this misguided auhor.
This election result isn't about Dem messaging.
Their messaging during the campaign was pitch-perfect in any other iteration of America. It was about helping the middle class, lowering taxes for the average American, continuing with sound economic policies to cut rising grocery… pic.twitter.com/djEWDJGMEW
With Kamala Harris having run an exciting and efficient campaign, Pavlovitz is correct that "there is no messaging that can overcome prejudice and ignorance." Prejudice and ignorance are endemic to the human condition, and the number of black males and, especially, Latino males who voted for Donald Trump is stunning.
Nonetheless, there are many factors which led to the horrific result in the presidential race and racism and misogny are not the two most significant. (Lack of education is a different sort of thing and a whole other issue.)
Of course, there is not "some perfect Democratic candidate." Regrettably, though, Kamala Harris was nearly as far from a perfect candidate as is possible.
Perhaps the Democratic Party (or presumptive 2020 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden) should not have selected a candidate who had responded to a 2019 questionnaire from the ACLU in such a problematic way.
Harris was asked whether she would "champion legislation to provide fair and achieval paths to citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants." She stated "As president, I will prioritize immigration reform
with a pathway to citizenship for the 11 million plus people living in our communities." The American people would have preferred "I will prioritize securing the border," even if it had been followed by a "however.'
Asked if she would "commit to ending the use of ICE detainers," she replied that she would do so and bragged that "as Attorney General, I issued a bulletin on December 4, 2012 informing all California law enforcement that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers." That is quite a boast for an ex-prosecutor, thus an ex-law enforcement officer.
And then, of course, there was the big one- as pertained to the presidential election. As a matter of policy, it is virtually irrelevant because these situations occur very rarely. However, Harris' perspective was skillfully exploited by the GOP this fall. The ACLU queried
As President will you use your executive authority to ensure that transgender and nonbinary people who rely on the state for medical care — including those in prison and
immigration detention — will have access to comprehensive treatment associated with gender
transition, including all necessary surgical care? If yes, how will you do so?
The then-candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination checked the "yes" box and explained
It is important that transgender individuals who rely on the state for care receive the treatment they need, which includes access to treatment associated with gender transition. That’s why, as Attorney General, I pushed the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to provide gender transition surgery to state inmates. I support policies ensuring that federal prisoners and detainees are able to obtain medically necessary care for gender transition, including surgical care, while incarcerated or detained. Transition treatment is a medical necessity, and I will direct all federal agencies responsible for providing essential medical care to deliver transition treatment.
Unlike some of the other answers which at least represented good policy, this is a bad idea. And Senator Harris should have realized that at some point in a general election campaign this would come back to haunt her. And haunt her it did, when she was caught on video reassuring the LGBTQIA community of her commitment:
Yet, given her oppponent, the Vice President still had an excellent chance of claiming the presidency. And she appeared in the best possible venue, one which included only as interviewees only supporters of hers and audience members poised to applaud enthusiastically a candidate on the precipice of becoming the first female President of the USA. An entire cheering section, in miniature a replica of the huge rallies she handled expertly. And then, this:
It's awkward when a Vice President is confronted about whether she or he would do anything different than has the incumbent President. For Ms. Harris, it should hae been, as characterized by questioner Sonny Hostin, a "layup."
Moreover, it's a question she had to know she would be asked, if not on The View than elsewhere. And it turns out that she was:
This failure to prepare wasn't about racism, misogyny, lack of education, or even the campaign. It was about the candidate. The candidate wasn't the only reason for defeat of the Democratic nominee. However, it was a major reason, and failure to recognize and acknowledge that is an exercise in self-delusion.
Former Democrat, now an independent (sort of) partial to Republicans,
Tulsi Gabbard is expected to be nominated by Donald Trump by Donald Trump to be
the Director of National Intelligence. On an unrelated matter, she is
particularly exorcised by the acceptance of most Democrats of gender transition
treatment for children. In May, we learned
Tulsi Gabbard, the former Hawaii congresswoman known for
criticizing the Democratic Party, says Democratic elites have put themselves in
the place of God and seek to erase the deity from American public life.
A former Democrat, Ms. Gabbard slammed the Biden-Harris
administration for “using the tools of government [to target] different people,
particularly Christians.”
“This is the fundamental precept of our country, this
freedom of religion,” Ms. Gabbard said in a telephone interview before a
multi-state book tour. “It’s important for voters to know and to understand
what’s going on here and the dangerous mindset that’s driving it.”
She is promoting her new book, “For Love of Country: Leave
the Democrat Party Behind.”
“Many of those who are in great positions of power in the
Democratic Party, whether they admit it or not, or realize it or not, they see
themselves as God. They appoint themselves as the authority,” she said. “They
view themselves as the ones who get to decide how we live our lives, what we’re
allowed to say, who we’re allowed to hear from [and] how we get our
information.”
“They’re most recently [decided] that things that are
objectively true are not, such as the biological differences between men and
women,” said Ms. Gabbard, the first Hindu and first Samoan-American to become a
member of Congress in 2013.
It's quite a trick to see yourselves as something but not realize it. It may even be impossible- if one does not realize something, one does not see himself as that.
Either Tulsi Gabbard is confused about this or it is a feint. We're expected to believe that someone who slams Democratic officeholders for "see(ing) themselves as God" is herself a woman of deep religious faith. And indeed, the former congresswoman may be a woman of faith- in Bashar al-Assad or Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping. However, she is not someone with faith in God. This is her below:
And these are some of the lyrics to that awful- "godawful" obviously would not apply- song written by John Lennon and performed by the Beatles:
Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Livin' for today
Ah
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine there's no heaven.... and no religion, too. Enjoy the song- the lyrics, the melody, the lyrics and the melody- if you wish. Difference of opinion is what makes horse races. Feel free to worship your God, enjoy the song, and sing it in your home. But allowing yourself to appear in a YouTube video singing a song promoting atheism and the erasure of religion, then denouncing a political party for real or imagined affrontery to God, is hypocrisy with a capital H (Hypocrisy, then).
Hypocrisy is not the worst thing about Tulsi Gabbard. Her fondness if for the strongmen who run Syria and Russia is far more serious. Still, it reveals a side of Gabbard's character that is stunningly loathsome.
True, but not only because of Matt Gaetz and the Department of Justice, the latter of which will become a hellhole whether or not the ex-congressman is approved.
In a larger- albeit more speculative sense- democracy is endangered because it appears that the incoming President of the USA will be dancing to someone else's tune.
Snopes set out to examine the claim circulating on social media that "Russian state TV aired nude photos of Melania Trump shortly after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump was announced as the winner of the Nov. 5 presidential election." It explained
An article published on Nov. 8, 2024, by Vox News Albania
read: "Russia's largest television 'denigrates' the First Lady and
publishes 'embarrassing' photos of Melania just 1 day after Trump's
victory."
In short, because Russian state TV did indeed
air revealing photos of Melania Trump taken during her modeling career shortly
after the 2024 U.S. presidential election, we have rated this claim as true.
An article published on Nov. 8, 2024, by Vox News Albania
read: "Russia's largest television 'denigrates' the First Lady and
publishes 'embarrassing' photos of Melania just 1 day after Trump's
victory."
In short, because Russian state TV did indeed air revealing
photos of Melania Trump taken during her modeling career shortly after the 2024
U.S. presidential election, we have rated this claim as true.
The video containing clips from Russian state TV was shared
on Nov. 11, 2024, on the YouTube channel of Russian News Monitor, a project of
Daily Beast columnist Julia Davis that tracks Russian state media propaganda
trends.
Davis also shared it on her X account on Nov. 8, 2024,
writing "Meanwhile in Russia: this is how the most watched state TV
channel in the country welcomed Melania Trump's upcoming return to the White
House. Olga Skabeeva is trying not to laugh. This was probably her idea."
The segments featured in the video aired on Nov. 7, 2024,
during "60 минут" ("60 Minutes"), a Russian political talk
show on the Russia 1 channel, hosted by Skabeeva and Evgeny Popov.
The program was available on Smotrim.ru website, an official
online platform of Russian state television.
The video shared on social media was compiled from separate
excerpts featuring Melania Trump, taken from a program aired in Russia at 6:30
p.m. at timestamps: 41:35-42:18, 42:33-42:48, 43:34-43:42 and 45:28-45:33.
(These clips also appeared in the "60 Minutes" program aired at 11.30
a.m. at time stamps: 1:05:30-1:05:45, 1:06:32-1:06:38 and 1:08:06-1:08:12).
The photos of Melania Trump used in the broadcast were not
new or leaked images but widely known and previously published photos from her
modeling career....
The Russian TV segment also referenced a video in which
Melania Trump asked: "What does my body, my choice mean?"
Melania Trump did not deny that the photos were authentic, instead defending them because "we should honor our bodies and embrace the timeless tradition of using att as a powerful means of self-expression."
This episode is a fitting eptaph to the death, occurring nine years ago, of the Republican Party as the "pro-family" party. Notably, the President-elect has said nothing. He has said nothing because he knows who has him by the short hairs.
Most likely, this is nothing new. In Helsinki in August of 2018
At a news conference after the summit, President Trump was
asked if he believed his own intelligence agencies or the Russian president
when it came to the allegations of meddling in the elections.
"President Putin says it's not Russia. I don't see any
reason why it would be," he replied.
US intelligence agencies concluded in 2016 that Russia was
behind an effort to tip the scale of the US election against Hillary Clinton,
with a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks and fake news stories planted
on social media.
To then-Arizona Senator John McCain, it was "one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory." McCain had a suspicion, as have many others, including invertebrate Kevin McCarthy when in June, 2016 (when he still had a semblance of a spine) he admitted "there's two people I think Putin pays: (US Represenative Dana) Rohrabacher and Trump."
The sarcasm practically writes itself. Due to Donald Trump's forgiving nature wherein he lets bygones be bygones, and shrugs off insults, he has turned a blind eye to the effort of Russian state TV to taunt him.
Returning to reality: Donald Trump does not believe "revenge is a dish best served cold." Everything is an insult to him and he will strike back with a ferocity greater than what is directed to him. He will viciously denigrate the individual any wy he can, as long as he can get away with it.
And yet, he is quiet about this major slap in the face. Sometimes one has to take abuse directed at him. That's especially true when the puppet is due to assume the American presidency and the Russian president is the puppet master.
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who President-elect
Donald Trump announced Tuesday was his pick to serve as US ambassador to
Israel, previously argued that there was “no such thing as a Palestinian.”
Huckabee, who has been a strong defender of Israel
throughout his career, made the statement during his 2008 presidential
campaign, asserting that Palestinian identity was “a political tool to try and
force land away from Israel.”
Well, of course it is. The land of Palestine is as it has been since much of it was occupied by the Philistines in the 12 century B.C. Beyond, "Jews, Muslims and Christians have all claimed special connections to the region" and the Old Testament "contains narratives of ancient Israelites' presence in the land."
Skip to 1918, when in the wake of World War I the League of Nations isued a British mandate for Palestine, to go into effect in 1923. That lasted until 1947, when the United Nations" proposed a plan to partition Palestine into two sections: an independent Jewish state and an independent Arab state."
Great Britain withdrew from the region- Palestine- and in 1948, the State of Israel was declared. This did not amuse Muslims, and five countries attacked Israel. This proved unwise as "by the war's end in July 1949, Israel controlled more than two-thirds of the former British Mandate, while Jordan took control of the West Bank and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip."
Yet over the past few decades, Jews of the region have been transformed- for political purposes, as Huckabee recognizes- into non-Palestinians while other Muslims in the ancient land of Palestine and beyond have been granted psychic status as "Palestinian." So
In a video obtained by CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski during Huckabee’s 2015 run for president, Huckabee suggested that if a Palestinian state were to be created, it should be in neighboring countries like Egypt, Syria or Jordan, rather than within Israel’s borders.
“Basically, there really is no such thing as — I need to be careful about saying this, because people will really get upset — there’s really no such thing as a Palestinian,” Huckabee said at a 2008 campaign stop in Massachusetts while speaking to two Orthodox Jewish men. “There’s not.”
In response to a question from one of the men about the possibility of a Palestinian state existing outside of Israel, Huckabee said he believed this was the preferable option.
“You have Arabs and Persians,” Huckabee continued at the 2008 appearance. “And there’s such complexity in that. But there’s really no such thing. That’s been a political tool to try and force land away from Israel.”
Political tool, indeed. In questioning Israel's policies, journalists, pundits, politicians, and even academics refer to "Palestinians" indiscriminately and unquestioningly, without clarifying who these Palestinians are. While Israel is said to be conducting a war against "Palestinians," Palestinians reside throughout the Middle East, including in the countries (Egypt, Syria, and Jordan) cited by Huckabee. In all, these three countries encompass 492,893 square miles while Israel's land mass is only 1.7% as large.
Yet, we are to believe a Palestinian state must come from land controlled by Israel. Thus
In the video, which was previously published by BuzzFeed, Huckabee added that he thought a Palestinian state could be made out of land in Egypt, Syria or Jordan.
“My point is, if that’s the issue, if it’s real estate, if you look at a map, and say here is how much Israel has and here is how much the Arab states hold, there is plenty of land,” he said.
Huckabee reiterated that point during a 2015 interview on Israeli TV, in which he argued that a two-state solution was “irrational and unworkable” and said “there’s plenty of land” outside of Israel in the “rest of the world” for a Palestinian state.
CNN reached out to Huckabee and the Trump transition team for comment on whether Huckabee stands by his comments.
Unless the situation in the Middle East changes radically, no Palestinian state will come from real estate in Egypt, Sytia or Jordan, especially because no nation wantts any more Palestinians even adjacent to theirs. Jordan deserves to catch a break because Palestinians already comprise half the population of the country, packed into only 34,296 square miles.
That leaves Syria and Egypt. A Palestinian state may be all the more necessary because neither these two nations, nor any in the region (given the ruling coalition in Israel), wants to be part of the solution.
Arguably, there is such a thing as a "Palestinian." Inarguably, the term has become popularized for strategic advantage. It's a good thing that President-elect Donald Trump won't be nominating Mike Huckabee for ambassador to any majority-Muslim nation in the Middle East. However, his appointment will be to Jerusalem and unless somebody comes up with something other than a video in which he is making sense, Mike Huckabee is being sent where he belongs.
A year ago, Donald Trump charged that immigrants (not illegal immigrants- immigrants) are "poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done..." In October, he said of immigrants "you know, now a murderer, I believe this, it's in their genes. And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now."
That's pure, unadulterated, classic racism and only two examples of the identity politics Trump traffics in.
Nonetheless, identity politics, central to Donald Trump's message and appeal, is alive and well on the left and on cable television. I had to watch this twice because I couldn't believe the silliness and stupidity:
"I am NOT going to listen to transphobia at this table!"
CNN panelist loses their mind over "slur" used by Republican strategist during trans sports debate. pic.twitter.com/5PXnSJW4A0
If we wanted an example of the role of identity politics which Zakaria believes played a role in the defeat of the Democratic Party in this cycle, you can't do any better than this exchange.It's hard to hear everything while guests are interrupting other guests, as is common on CNN's Abby Phillip Tonight.
Conservative Republican Shermichael Singleton can be heard remarking "I think there a lot of families ut there who don't believe boys should play girls' sports." Openly gay Jay Michaelson, a writer, journalist, professor, and new-age rabbi angrily retorts "They're not boys. I'm not going to listen to transphobia at this table."
There is no such word as "transphobia," except insofar as it was made up for ideological purposes. It has been common to take something we believe in- in this case, trans- and add "phobia" to it to disparage critics or skeptics. Moreover, though "trans," which is cooler than "transsexual" or "transvestite," has become a thing, it is not a word but a prefix. As the absurdly politically correct Merriam-Webster puts it (italics theirs)
While the word trans has been used as a shortened version of both transgender and transsexual, the word transsexual is dated and sometimes offensive. The word transgender is preferred..
Preferred by whom? The answer, evidently, is those who for whatever reason are "offended" by "transsexual." Not that "transsexual" isn't accurate- it makes people feel bad. By contrast, as has been explained
"But crushing truths prish from being acknowledged," (Albert) Camus writes- and what a wise observation. There are so many applications of that statement! Acknowledging something negative about your condition (something you were avoiding) is the same as acknowledging a crushing truth- but only after you acknowledge it can you conquer it. Go to an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, and they will tell you that getting past denial is the first and hardest step towards recovery.
Another truth is that transsexualism exists, notwithstanding Merriam-Webster's intent to disappear it. And so does the widespread sentiment that boys now are being invited to play against girls in girls' sports leagues. Whether Shermichael- with whom I typically disagree- believes that they should be allowed to do so, or even whether transgendered individuals are still male- is not his point.
As it is, it is not at all clear that boys attempting to transition to girls are now female, or that they are yet male, despite Michaelson's apparent certitude. But assuming the unassumable- that these individuals are not boys- the "I'm not going to listen to transphobia at this table" is very problematic.
Not only is it usually self-defeating not to listen to- or rather, to shout down- individuals with whom we disagree, it is particularly reprehensible to do so on Abby Phillips Tonight, which is meant to showcase differing opinions. Unfortunately, the host seemed not to understand the raison d'etre of her own show when she stated
Look, this is a really heated issue, alright? Shermichael, I know you. I know that you understand that people have different views on this. I think out of respect for Jay, let's try to talk about this in a way that is respectful.
Singleton then assured her "let me rephrase this since I'm being targeted here," (which was obviously the case) and the show went on. Contrary to Phillip's implication, Singleton was disrespectufl by neither manner nor words. And ironically, his point was in fact that people have different views on this, contrary to the heated Michaelson, who believed either that everyone is of the same view as is he or, more likely, that anyone who disagrees with him is a bigot or dunderhead.
Posing as open-minded, Abby Phillip runs a dishonest program. More importantly, though, the exchange exemplifies the identity politics Fareed Zakaria believes has come to define the Democratic Party in the mind of voters. This wasn't the only, and not even the most important, factor in the awful results from Election Day. And it's unclear how exactly sensible politicians separate themselves from the narrow-minded people who believe sexuality and race must define their own Party. But they must start with an open acknowledgement of the problem.
On the Overtime portion of Real Time with Bill Maher, the host led a discussion with John Heilemann, Sarah Isgur, and Michael Douglas about the recently concluded presidential election. Isgur, who has worked for Carly Fiorina, Mitt Romney, the Republican National Committee, President Trump, and a few media outlets, remarked (at 7:29 of the video below)
And that's what I feel like they did to Kamala Harris. When Biden refused to step aside and not run again, he was supposed to be that bridge. He backed off on that promise due to arrogance and then he dropped out after a catastrophic debate performance and they set up Kamala Harris to fail.
That was a three month campaign and she was supposed to introduce herself to the American people. No wonder people were Googling "did Joe Biden drop out?" (During the show itself, Maher stated that "Did Joe Biden Drop Out" was a popular search on November 4 among people Maher characterized as "Christmas Eve shoppers.")
Isgur is correct that President Biden had a catastrophic debate performance. Otherwise, she was way off-base. Were three months insufficient for the Democratic nominee to "introduce herself to the American public?" Memories are short, but fortunately we do have that Google machine to disabuse ourselves of any thought that Harris was deprived of the time to introduce herself.
Vice President Kamala Harris capped one of the most extraordinary months in modern political history Thursday night with a speech that rallied Democrats around themes of patriotism — and cast Donald Trump as the enemy of classic American principles.
“In the enduring struggle between democracy and tyranny, I know where I stand. And I know where the United States belongs,” she said.
With the cadence of a courtroom prosecutor, Harris delivered on the promise many Democrats saw in her when she launched her first presidential campaign five years ago, and when Joe Biden chose her as his running mate in 2020.
Harris went directly at her Republican rival. She laid out the former president’s legal troubles. She blamed him for the horrors some women have faced amid the implementation of strict state-level abortion laws. She issued a reminder of what she called the “chaos and calamity when he was in office.”
Symbols, visuals, and memes have recently overshadowed words
and text in political communication. Nonetheless, last week’s Democratic
National Convention proved that words still matter, that a 21st century
rhetoric can still inspire in a digital-visual world.
Ronald Reagan was called the “great communicator” because he
mastered the language of the living room with stories that relayed big ideas
and evoked the communal experiences of Americans. A lineup of successful
speakers at the DNC did the same, foreshadowing the party’s messaging for the
next two months.
Convention speakers used language that invited Americans to
remember cherished moments of being together: cheering from the bleachers on
Friday night, call and response from pews on Sunday morning, watching Team USA
win Olympic gold, and conversations with your best friend on girls’ night out.
They reminded us of the words we use when our team wins or loses, when we thank
veterans for their service, we celebrate a wedding anniversary, welcome the
birth of a child, or mourn the death of a mother.
And they did it in short words and phrases Americans use
every day. This was a change for Democrats. Out were abstract ideas, in were
muscular verbs and concrete nouns. Out were 10-point policy speeches, in were
stories of patriotism and service, sports and teamwork, family and faith.
Harris' acceptance speech "rallied Democrats around themes of patriotism... with the cadence of a courtroom prosecutor" as she "issued a reminder" of the failure of President Trump. The nominee "proved that words still matter" as she capped off a convention replete of speakers who
used language that invited Americans to remember cherished moments of being together: cheering from the bleachers on Friday night, call and response from pews on Sunday morning, watching Team USA win Olympic gold, and conversations with your best friend on girls’ night out. They reminded us of the words we use when our team wins or loses, when we thank veterans for their service, we celebrate a wedding anniversary, welcome the birth of a child, or mourn the death of a mother.
Kamala Harris had it going on. The Democratic Party had it going on, and the latter was all in on the former.
The American people liked what they heard. They got to know her much better over the course of the next 75 days and changed their mind, at which time she lost decisively to a fellow with an approval rating of approximately 42%. We knew that Donald Trump had a high floor but a low ceiling. Then he met Kamala Harris.
After Isgur's foolish remark, Maher responded
No, no. You think three months wasn't long enough? It was too long; it was long enough.... It's not that they didn't have time to introduce. They met someone. They didn't like them.
Nor did Joe Biden ever promise to serve only one term, nor did he "back off" any promise. On March 9, 2024, in a "nod to three people expected to be considered for the vice presidential nomination" (which included Harris), Biden stated "Look, I view myself as a bridge, not as anything else. There's an entire generation of leaders you saw stand behind me. They are the future of this country."
His people refused to say whether he'd serve only one term. However, when Biden finally realized that winning re-election was not plausible, he dropped out and endorsed Harris. The notion that he held out due to "arrogance" reflects a failure to understand that it's difficult for an elderly man (perhaps a woman, also, but that's another issue) to understand when his time is up. When that elderly man has been a President- and a highly effective one- it's even more difficult.
Voters met Kamala Harris, who made a good first impression. They met her again and again, and eventually were turned off by her. They turned against the candidate, a problem time could not cure.
Admittedly, Joe Biden did make a major mistake. By early summer of 2020, he had decided to select as his running mate a woman, very likely black, who probably would be the leading contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in either 2024 or 2028. Turns out, he chose the wrong woman.
The verdict is in. Kamala Harris lost to Donald Trump and the reason is....
There's no silver medal. You win or lose, and failing to objectively analyze your past performance is the best way to keep losing. Difficult yes, but Trump was very beatable. Harris not breaking off sharply with Biden was a choice. Poorly addressing inflation was a choice. https://t.co/Qmy70zZvR2
However, that's not accurate. If the Democratic Party wanted a candidate who would break off sharply from the unpopular Joe Biden, it could have nominated someone who wasn't a part of his Administration. The universe of individuals which would have qualified would have been..... anyone but Kamala Harris.
Nonetheless, replacing Joe Biden on the ticket, which was virtually unavoidable, could have resulted in victory, and should have against an individual most of the country believes is repugnant.
Victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan. Alternatively, victory always finds a hundred fathers but defeat is an orphan, depending upon whether you want to credit (respectively) John F. Kennedy or Benito Mussolini. So no one will be honest enough to admit that the Harris camp ran an excellent campaign. Thus, even though the Harris camp ran an excellent campaign, you won't hear that, even though it was implied repeatedly the last few months by everyone with a last name beginning with any one of 26 letters.
First, it was the message of joy at the Democratic National Convention, which not only energized supporters but also emitted the scent of momentum, which turned into reality after the convention. The sight of dozens of flags waving at the affair, appearance of country music stars, and periodic chants of "USA! USA!" proved nearly orgasmic among centrists and liberals alike, giving hope that, at last, Democrats had sagely learned to be Republicans.
Harris was declared the indisputable "winner" of the debate with her opponent. She "won" that partly on merit- but also because her team successfully negotiated a smaller podium, thus negating the appearance of a difference in height between the 5'4" or 5'3" Harris and the 6'3" or 6'2" Trump. Also,- and for whatever reason- the lighting at the debate gave clear advantage to the Democratic nominee.
The nominee was derided for avoiding interviews or news conferences. Recognizing her own limitations, Harris consented to a few interviews while eschewing news conferences, which would have exposed her to hostile questioning.
One of those interviews was with Brett Baier of Fox News, which can be considered a coup by Harris strategists assuming Baier was truthful (which he was):
During an on-air discussion following the interview, Baier
said that Harris arrived to the interview around 5:15 p.m., later than
expected, and that Fox was "pushing the envelope" to complete what
was expected to be a 25-minute interview before 6 p.m.
Baier said the following about the end of the interview
during a broadcast of Hannity a short time later: "It was cordial, I said,
'thank you so much, Madame Vice President, for the time.' Her people, like
probably four people, were wrapping me with big, you know, moving arms. That's
why I looked out to the side and said, 'I've got to wrap up.'"
The once unusually unpopular presidential candidate of 2020, current vice president and now "brat," she was riding the wave of a good "vibe." She chose to be interviewed or chat with the friendly Call Her Daddy podcast, moderately liberal Democrat Howard Stern, Oprah Winfrey, and the National Association of Black Journalists. These were excellent choices by the campaign, as was hoisting a beer with Stephen Colbert (phony, sure, but strategically wise). The once unusually unpopular presidential candidate of 2020 and current vice-president rose in popularity.
.
Similarly, the women of The View- each of whom, rather passionately, supported Harris- should have bolstered her popularity. Yet when asked, in a question she had to expect, what she would do differently than President Biden, she answered "there is not a thing that comes to mind."
This was not a slip up by the campaign- or by Joe Biden- but by the candidate herself. Asked a question she could have answered in several ways, she whiffed.
Nonetheless, "blame Biden" has been all the rage. Forbesnoted
Atlantic columnist Tyler Austin Harper wrote in a piece
bluntly titled “Blame Biden,” that while Harris bears some responsibility, “she
had an 81-year-old albatross hanging around her neck: Joe Biden.”
Writer Ross Barkan, who also titled his Substack column
“Blame Biden,” wrote that Biden’s “ego blinded him and his myopic advisers
enabled a foolhardy campaign,” opining that Biden should have announced his
retirement in 2022 and allowed Democrats to hold an open primary.
Franklin Foer, Biden biographer and Atlantic staff writer,
wrote "Biden cannot escape the fact that his four years in office paved
the way for the return of Donald Trump. This is his legacy. Everything else is
an asterisk." David Plouffe, who helped engineer Barack Obama's win in
2008 and was a senior adviser for candidate Harris, claimed the campaign
"dug out a deep hole but not enough."
Matt Bennet, an official at Third Way, contended "Harris was dealt
a really bad hand. Some of it was Biden's making and some maybe not."
That "bad hand" the candidate was dealt, as well
as the hole alleged, was Kamala Harris.
The night before Election Day, Harris held outside the
Philadelphia Museum of Art a "star-studded" rally which
"featured performances and appearances by pop star Lady Gaga, hip hop
artist Fat Joe, hip hop producer DJ Jazzy Jeff, pop star Ricky Martin, hip hop
group the Roots, soul singer Jazmine Sullivan and Oprah Winfrey." This served to remind the voting public that
the candidate was promising
a celebrity presidency.
Despite an effective campaign strategy, very few people voters wanted a celebrity Commander in Chief, nor a second Biden term. Still, they did know that Kamala Harris is no Joe Biden. Given her opponent, it is an unfortunate reality that voters unambiguously decided they did not want her to replace him.
Dick Van Dyke has made news as on the day before Election Day, the Daily Mail noted
The 98-year-old acting icon — who recently sparked concerns
after he was forced to cancel his first appearance outside of Los Angeles in
months — addressed the camera in a stark black-and-white clip shared on his
Instagram page....
Although his speech did not mention either Vice President
Kamala Harris or former President Donald Trump by name, the stage and screen
star made it clear that he was supporting Harris by tagging her personal
account, the Harris campaign's account, and the official account of the vice
president.
I don't like Kamala Harris for varied reasons. These include, but are not limited to, a 180 degree swing on criminal justice.as an Attorney General who defied the US Supreme Court on releasing from prison non-violent criminals to a cheerleader for the black lives matter movement. Her extreme approach to criminal justice brings to mind an explanation by the late nutritionist, Carlton Fredericks. If you have one foot in a bucket of ice water and the other in a bucket of hot coals, you're experiencing an average temperature. But it's not good.
So I appreciate support for President of the Vice President of the USA by an individual who resists the temptation to make the latter out to be anything beyond what she is. She is a vessel- beginning a few months ago, the only vessel available- to keep Donald Trump from re-occupying the White House.
Van Dyke recognizes that Kamala Harris is not Donald Trump, and that must be all we need. We have been presented with a near- Hobson's Choice and the man with fascist character, rhetoric, and views is no choice at all.
Welcoming November, on Friday Donald Trump said of former US Representative Liz Cheney, a Republican who was a US Representative from Wyoming and now is Kamala Harris' chief surrogate
She’s a radical war hawk. Let’s put her with a rifle standing
there with nine barrels shooting at her, okay? Let’s see how she feels about
it, you know, when the guns are trained on her face.
Though Bill Maher will vote (or already has) for Harris-Walz on Election Day and weeks ago guaranteed a Harris victory, he criticized individuals who charged that Trump had thereby urged Cheney face a firing squad, On the Overtime segment of Friday's Real Time with Bill Maher, the host began (at 3:06) a brief discussion of Trump's comment and at 5:02 remarked
But just don't lie to me. I don't like Donald Trump. Don't lie to me and tell me he wants her in front of a firing squad. He was saying something that by the way, if it came out of the mouth, some of it- not the stupid part- again, sounds like what hippies used to say about not sending people to....
Guest Michael Moynihan, pointing out that the ex-President had specified that Cheney would possess a rifle, agreed that Trump wasn't referring to a firing squad. That may be the case, though the reference to "nine barrels shooting at her" renders Trump's comment ambiguous. In any case, this is not Trump's first rodeo. Four months ago, CNN reported
Former President Donald Trump amplified posts on social
media calling for a televised military tribunal for former Republican Rep. Liz
Cheney and the jailing of top elected officials, including President Joe Biden
and Vice President Kamala Harris.
“ELIZABETH LYNNE CHENEY IS GUILTY OF TREASON,” one post
created by another user that Trump amplified on his social media website Truth
Social on Sunday reads. “RETRUTH IF YOU WANT TELEVISED MILITARY TRIBUNALS.”
Cheney responded on X, “Donald - This is the type of thing
that demonstrates yet again that you are not a stable adult—and are not fit for
office.”
A separate post Trump amplified on Truth Social Sunday
includes photos of 15 former and current elected officials and says, “THEY
SHOULD BE GOING TO JAIL ON MONDAY NOT STEVE BANNON!”
In addition to Biden and Harris, the post includes photos of
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell,
former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Vice President Mike Pence and members
of the House select committee that investigated the January 6, 2021 attack on
the US Capitol.
Also, referring to chants of “lock her up,” Trump in early June
told a Newsmax host
wouldn’t it be terrible to throw the president’s wife and
the former secretary of state– you think of it, the former secretary of state,
but the president, the president’s wife into jail. Wouldn’t that be a terrible
thing? But they want to do it. So, you know, it’s like it’s, it’s a terrible,
terrible path that they’re leading us to. And it’s very possible that it’s gonna have to happen to
them.
Donald Trump, on his social-media network, Truth
Social, wrote that Mark Milley’s phone call to reassure China in the aftermath
of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “an act so egregious
that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.”
Liz Cheney and Mark Milley, although specified by name, are not alone in so annoying Donald Trump that the ex-President would threaten execution. Helen Lewis of The Atlantic notes that just yesterday, on Sunday November 3, 2024, when at a rally in Lititz, Pennsylvania
Describing how his open-air podium was mostly surrounded by
bulletproof glass, the former president noted a gap in that protection, and
added: “To get me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news, and I
don’t mind that so much.” And by “fake news,” he meant the members of the press
covering his rally.
Lewis wrote "once again fantasizing about violence against his perceived enemies...." Fantasizing? Were it only so, Liz Cheney may be thinking.
Hymie’s, a popular Philadelphia Jewish deli, raised some
Jewish hackles when it served as the scene of the Republican Jewish Coalition’s
closing ad — featuring Jewish actors playing older women who, after supporting
Democrats, were switching their votes to Donald Trump.
So 10 days later, a Democratic organization stepped in to
film a pro-Kamala Harris ad at the same deli, featuring real Jewish people from
Pennsylvania — one of seven swing states both parties are closely focused on
ahead of Tuesday’s close-fought election.
Former Gov. Ed Rendell, the state’s Democratic governor from
2003 to 2011, launches the Harris ad by
sitting in a booth and contemplating his favorite Hymie’s offering, a turkey
special. “They’re the best,” he says.
Lita Cohen — who served as a Republican in the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives from 1993 to 2002 — says her preference is the lox and
bagels, but adds immediately, “I’m very upset with that recent Trump ad that
stereotypes Jewish people,” a reference to local unhappiness with the deli for
allowing the RJC to use its premises.
The ad does stereotype Jewish people- poorly- with hand gestures, "oy vey," mugs reading "life, liberty, and pastrami," and "amen" at its conclusion, with a pronunciation uncommon to Jews. Further
The ad is paid for by Patriot Majority USA, a political
action committee founded 14 years ago to counter the rise of the Tea Party,
which was then in the early stages of becoming very influential within the
Republican Party. The PAC did not return requests for comment; nor did Specter,
who is now a marketing consultant.
Each ad seeks to identify the other party’s nominee with
extremes: the RJC ad ties Vice President Kamala Harris to the anti-Israel
protesters roiling campuses. “Oy vey,” one of the three actors says. “Trump I
never cared for, but at least he’ll keep us safe.” That ad ends with the three
women raising their mugs to a vote for Trump.
The RJC acknowledged that the women, whom it referred to as "bubbies,: are actors but said they were all Jewish and voting for Trump. It would not make them available for interviews.
Not only would many Jews be turned off by the stereotyping but it reinforces what some anti-Semites believe about Jews. Donald Trump probably did not know that this ad was coming but if he did, he likely would have approved it. He has run an awful campaign and is preparing for the excitement of the period between the election, which he believes he will lose, and Inauguration Day.
The debate Donald Trump endured with Kamala Harris on September 11 was not a shining moment in his campaign. Yet, that was only one of the acts of
political malpractice by the Republican campaign.
At a rally in Pennsylvania in September, Donald Trump maintained "as President I have to be your protector," a remark which would
alienate some women and please only those women who already were determined to
vote for the faux macho ex-President. Then he added "women will be happy, healthy, confident
and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion," thus reinforcing
the Democrats' claim that the GOP ticket is weird.
"My people told me about four weeks ago, I would say
'no, I want to protect the people. I want to protect the women of our country.
I want to protect the women,'" (Donald) Trump said, describing how his
advisers said it would be "very inappropriate for you to say."
Inappropriate, patronizing and creepy but then the Republican
presidential nominee continued "I said "Well, I'm going to do it,
whether the women like it or not, I'm going to protect them.'" The "whether the women like it or
not" is akin to bad icing on a terrible cake. It only made it worse.
Further, if his advisers told him it would be
"inappropriate" to say, it should have brought to mind Hillary
Clinton's infamous "basket of deplorables" comment in September of
2016, which was immediately preceded by 'You know, to just be grossly
generalistic..." Pro tip: when you
suspect you're being "grossly generalistic," stop right there. And
when your advisers suggest your words would be "very inappropriate,"
stop right there.
But that was not Trump's biggest mistake of the week. When
comedian Tony Hinchcliffe at the Madison Square Garden rally of the
ex-President characterized Puerto Rico as a "floating island of garbage," he sparked inevitable backlash.
The remark itself was not disastrous. It was Trump's reaction
to it which was, if not disastrous, obviously self-defeating. The candidate
could have absorbed the blowback and let it die out. Or he could hold a rally
in majority-Latino Allentown, Pa. and turn it into a Sister Souljah or Sister
Souljah-like moment, turning the kerfuffle to his advantage
Continuing a bad campaign, he decided to do neither.
Trump could have denounced the offensive, pejorative remark,
a la Bill Clinton's attack on Sister Souljah. Or he might have
criticized comedian Hinchcliffe while insisting that this has nothing to do
with immigration or the "the border," Republican-speak for
"illegal immigration" (or perhaps "immigration,"
period). Puerto Ricans, he would have
explained, are Americans and are entitled to respect and protection- unlike the
hordes of individuals who, in MAGA world, threaten the homeland, take benefits
from taxpayers, and vote Democratic.
Instead, he took the weasel's way out and ignored the controversy. Thrown a hanging curve by the intemperate remark of a comedian,
Trump took the pitch for a called strike.
As Kamala Harris toured with Liz Cheney, touted endorsements
from hundreds of Republicans, and promised to put a Republican into her cabinet
and otherwise sought the vote of Republicans skeptical of her opponent,
journalists, pundits, and others noted the absence of Nikki Haley in the Trump
effort. The nominee would have had to swallow a little pride, but among
Republicans, Haley trumps Cheney and then some.
In the past month, the GOP presidential candidate has
traveled to California, New York City, and New Mexico: Safe bet: Kamala Harris
wins all three states, the first two easily, the third fairly comfortably.
Something very unusual is occurring in the Trump campaign.
However, if one is to recognize this and also believe journalist and lawyer Eli
Mystal, there may be an explanation, though it is a little complicated.
Set-up:
During the Nazi-throwback rally at Madison Square Garden on
Sunday, after Donald Trump and his MAGA cohorts finished insulting pretty much
every non-white person who might even think of voting for him, Trump revealed
that he doesn’t actually need votes to be installed as president again.
Referencing a “secret plan” he has with Speaker of the House Mike Johnson,
Trump said this: “I think with our little secret we are gonna do really well
with the House, our little secret is having a big impact, he and I have a
little secret, we will tell you what it is when the race is over.”
When pressed, Speaker Johnson released a statement
effectively confirming the existence of the plot: “By definition, a secret is
not to be shared—and I don’t intend to share this one.”
Constitutional background:
Most educated guesses assume that Trump and Johnson are
“secretly” talking about installing Trump as president through a “contingent
election,” whereby the House of Representatives, not the Electoral College,
determines the president. I think the plot goes deeper than that, but let’s
start with the contingent election idea.
To understand how this could work, you have to understand
the 12th Amendment of the Constitution. Here’s the key language: “The person
having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if
such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no
person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not
exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of
Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in
choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation
from each state having one vote[.]”
This is what people are talking about when they mention a
contingent elAs John Roberts and his cabal of antidemocratic goons (and their
wives) have repeatedly shown this year, the Supreme Court is willing to do
Trump’s dirty work. In 2020, the Supreme Court rejected almost all of Trump’s
various nonsensical claims to overturn that election. But I wouldn’t be so sure
they’ll do so again, especially because this time the Trump people will not
necessarily be asking the court to overturn the results of a state’s election.
They’ll just be asking them to delay certification of those results, until some
later date. In addition to ruling for the Trumpers outright, the court could
simply delay hearing the case for as long as the delay is helpful for Trump.
The Supreme Court can put its thumb on the scale for Trump simply by pretending
to “stay out of it” and allowing the “process” to play itself out.
If enough states refuse to certify the results of the
election and submit a slate of electors—with the Supreme Court’s blessing—the
math is not actually hard for Trump. What the amendment means is that, if no
candidate wins a majority of the Electoral College, the House gets to decide
who the president is. The key here is that the process is based not on a vote
of the full House but a vote of House delegations, with each state getting an
equal vote. Currently, Republicans control 26 of the 50 House delegations,
meaning they could hand Trump the presidency in a contingent election scenario.
Method:
That would be a neat trick for Trump, but I don’t think the
Republican plan even requires them to get to a contingent election where the
House chooses the president. I think the plan is to steal the Electoral College
outright by getting states Trump loses to refuse to certify the results of
their election. That’s because the 12th Amendment provides that the president
is the person who wins the majority of the “whole number of Electors
appointed.” That “whole number” is supposed to be 538. But one potential reading
of the amendment is that Trump doesn’t have to win 270 Electoral College votes
but just a majority of however many electors show up. Trump’s goal, I believe,
is to decrease the number of electors appointed until he wins.
The first step in such a process is to get Republicans in
states Trump loses to contest the certification of their own elections. In
2020, Trump and his team illegally tried to get slates of alternate electors
submitted in states where Republicans control the state legislatures. They
could try that again, but for this scheme to work, they don’t even have to get
“fake” electors submitted but just to convince Republican state legislatures or
Republican governors not to submit their valid slates of electors before
statutorily imposed deadlines. All slates of electors are supposed to be
certified by December 11. Those electors are then supposed to vote and submit
their results by December 25.
What this means is that Republicans just have to delay long
enough to pass those deadlines. They don’t have to win; they just have to
stall.
There are currently 27 states with Republican state
legislatures, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and
Wisconsin. There are currently 26 Republican governors running states like
Florida, Georgia, Nevada, and Virginia. If some of these people are able to
delay certification past the deadline, the “whole number of Electors appointed”
would be diminished, lowering the number of electors Trump would need to hold a
majority.
Johnson:
The new House isn’t sworn in until January 3. As the violent
MAGA people in your family already know, January 6 is when the House certifies
the results of the Electoral College, but that is just a ceremonial day. By the
time we get to January 6, the electors are supposed to have voted. December 11
is the deadline for appointing electors, December 25 the deadline for voting.
Mike Johnson will still be in charge on both of those days.
The odds are against this ensuing because Trump has an
approximately 50% chance of winning outright, itself a frightening prospect and
damning indictment of the American electorate. However, if Harris wins and
without an Electoral College blowout, chances are that Trump and/or Johnson
will attempt this maneuver or something very close to it.
The late, great New York-based radio host Barry Gray would
frequently assert "I love a hungry fighter." Trump certainly is a fighter, going even so
far as threatening enemies with execution. However, a plan to manipulate the
12th Amendment to his advantage, coupled with the conduct of a very bad
campaign, should prompt doubt that Donald Trump is hungry for an actual win at
the polls.
