First Interview, Not Interview

Congratulations to Tim Walz. The Democrat's vice-presidential nominee sat through a friendly, cozy chat between presidential nominee Kamala Harris and alleged journalist Dana Bash of CNN without bursting out laughing.  He couldn't have been more professional while having to sit through a reunion between two women who could have been BFF's, were there still such a thing as a BFF.

Bash set the cordial tone immediately with "Madam Vice President, Governor Walz, thank you so much for sitting down with me and bringing the bus. Bus tour is well underway here in Georgia. You have less time to make your case to voters than any candidate in modern American history."

She has had plenty of time to make the case. Wisely, she chose to emphasize rallies in front of audiences of sycophants, which gives the impression of a thriving campaign, which increases poll numbers, which in turn increases campaign donations, which can be used for additional rallies.

On Thursday, Harris (with Walz) was given the better part of an hour to film a campaign video while delicately questioned by a supporter- uh, er, journalist-  clearly out of her depth.

Bash's second question was the question every serious presidential candidate knows he or she will receive, "so what would you do day one?"

Memo to the vacuous journalist: no President does anything on day one, aside from recovering from a justified hangover (except Donald Trump, who promises to be a dictator then, but who will take at least a few weeks to get that done). Worse, Bash then asks Walz, "what about you," who then politely refuses to tell the interviewer "nothing. I would be vice president, thus won't do anything substantive without authorization from the President."

Bash later did ask the Minnesotan a substantive question, "you said that you carried weapons in war but you have never deployed actually in a war zone. A campaign official said that you misspoke. Did you?"

Walz then spent approximately 160 words not answering the question, though he did remind us of how proud he is of his service and suggesting criticism is "an attack on my children for showing love for me,or it's an attack on my dog." (Attack on his dog? Is anyone in the two campaigns not weird?)

The vice presidency being a remarkably undemanding job, Walz should consider a part-time gig as a comedian, remarking "and my wife the English teacher told me my grammar's not always correct." One hopes this was a subtle joke, given that "grammar is not always correct" is the grammatically correct phraseology.

More significantly (but not much), the governor did not admit nor deny that he "mispoke" or, as normal people (which excludes Walz, Vance, and Trump) would put it, "lie." Another memo to the journalist: be willing to hold a candidate's feet to the fire or ignore the subject altogether. Walz has lied, as presidential nominee Trump does repeatedly. He also served the country for 24 years. Better to move on.

And so, unfortunately, she did because she proceeded to ask the Vice President "Because we haven't had a chance to- to talk, I'm just curious, staying on President Biden, when he called you and said he was pulling outta the race, what was that like? And did he offer to endorse you right away or did you ask for it?"

Joe Biden, the President of the USA, the guy who selected (nominated, technically) Kamala Harris for Vice President four years ago, did not endorse Harris immediately. He waited until his second statement when obviously- if he had any respect for her- he would have done so immediately. And Harris will- as she should- either note that the details of conversations she had with the President must remain confidential or simply lie. Nothing can be gained by this line of questioning, though it did give Harris the opportunity for one of her favorite things, noting that she is "proud."

Asked about the border and her having been "tasked with addressing the root causes of migration in southern counties," Harris vigorously defended the work of the Administration, condescendingly noting "and let me tell you something. The Border Patrol endorsed the bill."

Harris presumably was referring to the National Border Patrol Council, which under then-President Brandon Judd endorsed the legislation as preferable to the status quo. However, when speaking at an even for Arizona GOP senatorial candidate Kari Lake earlier this month, former President Judd explained (beginning at 2:29)

I then met with (Homeland Security Secretary) Mayorkas after she (Vice-President Harris) was appointed to address the root causes of migration and I met with them and I gave them point-by-point what they could do- not like alight switch, not like remain in Mexico. I stayed within their parameters. Their parameters were going to take a period of time but it could have been done and even with staying within their parameters.

Harris refused to implement any of the policies, programs or operations that were given to them that would have addressed this issue. That is extremely frustrating, especially now that she is going to try to redefine herself and now that she is going to try to rewrite history and say that she was never the border czar when in fact she was charged with- and again, address the root cause of migration. She failed to do that, she had the policies, she could have implemented the polies that fit within her parameters and she refused refused to do it.

That is consistent with Bash's follow-up question, in which Harris was asked "Just one other question about something that you said in 2019 when you first ran. There was a debate. You raised your hand when asked whether or not the border should be decriminalized. Do you still believe that?"  Harris craftily responded

I believe there should be consequnce. We have laws that have to be enforced that address and deal with people who cross our border illegally. And there will be consequence. And let's be clear.....

Of course, "let's be clear." It worked for Barack Obama, thus may work for Harris. More significantly, "there will be consequence."

Whatever the "consequence"- which could be anything from a slap on the wrist to, well, a slap on the wrist- is, the Vice President didn't say. This represents no change from Harris'' 2019 assertion (by raised hand) that the border, in Bash's terminology, "should be decriminalized." She thought at the time it should not and, given that she has indicated policies she has reversed, suggests that she still believes crossing the border illegally should be a mere civil offense.

 

Harris' response to the question was wily and may have been strategically wise.  But Bash needed to understand that "consequence" could be anything from a fine which usually would not be paid to a real talking-to. It does not suggest that the Veep supports classifying illegal border crossings as a criminal offense. She should have researched the July, 2019 debate at which Harris raised her hand when asked, with the other candidates, to "raise your hand if it should be a civil offense rather than a crime to cross without documentation?"

If she had, she would have (presumably) discovered that Senator Harris at the same time on the same subject also bragged that the federal government's policy 

was to allow deportation of people who by ICE's own definition were non-criminals. So as attorney general, and the chief law officer of the state of California, I issued a directive to the sheriffs of my state that they did not have to comply with detainers, and instead should make decisions based on the best interests of the public safety of their community.

This was a legitimate response to a detainer- but a very bad one. It was the self-described (and accurate) "chief law officer of the state of California" telling ICE, and sometimes a judge, to go pound sand. Now, that same former chief law enforcement officer touts her prosecutorial experience as an argument to be elected President of the United States of America. It would have behooved her questioner to ask Harris whether, as head of the federal government, she would take the same position and possibly direct the nation's Attorney General to refuse to honor immigration detainers.

Of course, Bash failed to do so, as he failed in closely questioning the Vice President on any issue. She evidently believed it her role to touch upon virtually every issue she could in a relatively brief interview, notwithstanding the importance of the public hearing clear and definitive responses from the candidate. 

There was another motive in conducting the interview this way, however. At the conclusion of the show, Dana Bash noted that presidential nominee Trump and vice presidential nominee Vance have been invited for an interview on CNN. Judging by her unwillingness to probe sufficiently a candidate's view on any one subject, the Republicans  would be foolish not to pounce on the offer- as long as they're confident that Dana Bash would receive the assignment.

Share |

The Good and the Weak

In the interests of joy and of being unburdened by what has been, it's a day to be ambivalent about our Democratic nominee for President. A very pro-Israel tweeter is largely wrong:

Asking for 350 million friends. pic.twitter.com/BqlZPtxmXJ

— Hillel Fuld (@HilzFuld) August 29, 2024

The Vice-President did not kneecap President Biden. After the latter's disastrous debate against Donald Trump, it became clear to an increasing number of voters, then of pundits and prominent Democrats, that the incumbent would be a sure loser in November. (And in the unlikely event of victory, he probably could not serve another four years.)

These powerful Democrats included former President Obama, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, National Democratic Redistricting Committee chairman and former Attorney General Eric Holder, and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And no one crosses Nancy Pelosi and lives to tell about it.

At a critical time, in the moments following that epic June 27 debate, the Vice President had been queried about the President's performance of that evening and defended him defiantly and eloquently, remarking "He got into a groove where it counted. Our president showed that he will win the election." It was something that she had no choice but to do because she couldn't be seen undercutting the President. Nonetheless, she was as positive as possible without getting laughed out of the room.

Vice-President Harris was given two- two- primary tasks, one by President Biden and the other by the Constitution. In the first, she to take major strides in helping secure the southern border, a task nearly impossible without cooperation by the United States Congress, and very difficult with. She made little progress, as should have been expected.

The vice-president is constitutionally empowered to cast the deciding vote in the United States Senate in case of a tie.  She set a record by doing so 32 times and was very effective performing that task.

Nevertheless, the tweeter is essentially correct that Ms. Harris refuses to be interviewed for the new position. Tonight, CNN will broadcast a taped interview with the Democratic presidential nominee. Infamously, however, she agreed to appear only with her Emotional Support Governor and running mate Tim Walz. (In the interests of full disclosure, credit must be given to this person, something I've never wanted to do.)

Coincidentally, this puts Harris into a role in which she has excelled. As vice-president, she is de facto required to cast the deciding vote in the Senate as her male supervisor, President Biden, wishes. And now she has bowed to the justified demands of the press that she be interviewed, and will do so only in the presence of another man. I am woman, hear me roar!  Such progress! 

Yet, if the sentiment was good enough for the late Bill Withers, it should be- and apparently is- good enough for Tim Walz and Kamala Harris.

 

Share |

Magnificent Strategy

Because the first is valid, the second isnot.:

Was supremely moved by this speech, which was searing and compassionate. Also seems essential to include a Palestinian speaker to the convention. https://t.co/VoNi6kdQsq https://t.co/Bol88zLkZK

— Chris Hayes (@chrislhayes) August 22, 2024

The National Committee and the presidential nominee could have chosen to allow a Palestinian speaker to address the convention.  As reported by Mother Jones, there were negotiations between the DNC and representatives of Uncommitted delegates to permit Georgia State Representative Ruwa Romman, a Palestinian-American and Democrat, to deliver a (two-minute) speech to the convention. The most radical and controversial portion (really) of the statement would have been

I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. 

That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all.  I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all. What we do here echoes around the world.

Ms. Romman would have called for a ceasefire. which would have end the killing of Gazans.  The most radical of the entire statement was the call for release of all Israeli and Palestinian "hostages" which of course is based on a false premise because there is a significant difference between hostages, taken by Hamas, and alleged criminal offenders, in custody in Israel. 

Nonetheless, according to Romman herself, the DNC never even asked to review her proposed comments. So there probably was something else, such as ethnic attire identity as a Palestinian, which precluded approval of a speech because of its political impact.

It was not "essential to include a Palestinian speaker to the convention" when the organizers included with a speech by Jon Polin and Rachel Goldberg, parents to Harry Goldberg-Polin,  And they stated

We’ve met with President Biden and Vice President Harris numerous times at the White House. They’re both working tirelessly for a hostage and ceasefire deal that will bring our precious children, mothers, fathers, spouses, grandparents and grandchildren home and will stop the despair in Gaza.

While criticizing the role of Arlington National Cemetery in permitting a photo-op for Donald Trump on the fourth anniversary of the botched withdrawal from Afghanistan, Charles Pierce nonetheless wrote "if the families found a kind of peace in his presence on Monday, I respect that and I hope it brings them solace."

In the same manner, I applaud the DNC for giving a forum to family members of a hostage held by Hamas. However, notwithstanding the symbolism, the crux of their statement did not differ significantly from that which Palestinian Romman would have given. The Polins called for "a hostage and ceasefire dealt hat will bring our precious children, mothers, fathers, spouses, grandparents and grandchildren home and will stop the despair in Gaza."

Minus the equivalence of prisoners with hostages, that is very similar to what probably would have been a powerful, though misguided, speech by Romman. They both call for a ceasefire, and they're not calling for a fairly brief one- as supported by Israel- but a permanent one, as demanded by the Hamas representatives. Moreover, the chant that rang out from the floor of the Democratic Convention was not "Release the hostages" as it should have been. It was "bring them home."

 

Hamas cannot "bring them home." Even the relatively neutral parties- Egypt, Qatar, and the USA- can "bring them home." Only Israel can bring them home, presumably only by a negotiated surrender- permanent ceasefire, release of many if not all Palestinian prisoners of whatever citizenship, and perhaps withdrawal from all of Gaza. Further, parents of hostages can have no effect on Hamas, only upon Israel, whether directly or indirectly through pressure on the Biden Administration.

The onus was hence placed on Israel: as Romman would have, the Polins did, and the convention attendees enthusiastically did. The Democratic National Committee might have approved a Palestinian speaker. Instead, it welcomed speakers who are Jewish, have been victimized by the kidnapping of a loved one, and who inspired the message to the Netanyahu government of "bring them home."

"Bring them home" demonstrated a concern for hostages, most of them Jewish. "Stop the despair in Gaza" reflected a concern for Palestinians, most of them Muslim. And it was all done without giving the GOP and its allies fertile ground for an attack ad.. And a ceasefire was advocated, which might not be good for a steadfast American ally or for eventual peace and security for the Middle East but serves well the interests of the convention's guest of honor. From the standpoint of the nominee of the Democratic Party, who is the Vice President serving in an Administration desperate for an agreement (perhaps any agreement), it was brilliance beyond almost anyone's imagination.

Share |

The Power of a Time Lag

Fact check: this guy is a propagandist.

❌Fact Check: False.

When Biden and Harris took office, Iran was months from a nuclear weapon. Now they’re a week away. Iran went from 5% enrichment in 2020 to 60% enrichment under Biden/Harris with no consequences.

Iran is now meddling is our elections in favor of Harris. pic.twitter.com/ET3eKaQnwd

— Morgan Ortagus (@MorganOrtagus) August 24, 2024

In 2018, President Trump withdrew from the nuclear deal with Iran. Tom Collina, a political strategist, national security expert, and co-author of "The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump," wrote in May

To fully understand the enormity of Trump’s decision to leave the Iran deal, consider this: When the U.S. and Iran were complying with the deal, it was estimated that it would take Iran about one year to produce enough fissile material (in this case, weapons grade uranium) for a nuclear bomb (known as the “breakout” time). The states negotiating with Iran (the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, and Germany) assessed that this would be enough time to respond to possible violations and prevent Iran from producing a bomb. Even if Iran were to acquire sufficient fissile material, it could still take another year for Iran to make a deliverable nuclear weapon. As of May, 2018, the deal was working and considered (by most) to be a great success.

Then President Trump unilaterally left the deal, calling it a “horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.” And now we are in a much worse place. Iran says it has no intent to produce nuclear weapons and U.S. intelligence sees no current efforts by Tehran to weaponize, yet Tehran is believed to be not one year but just weeks from being able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb if it chooses to do so.

At the same time, the ability of international inspectors to detect violations in a timely manner has eroded. As one U.S. official said of Iran, “they are dancing right up to the edge." 

Most Republicans incorrectly claim that the high inflation, now subsided, of the past few years resulted from President Biden's spending. Rather, as Fed chairperson Jay Powell noted, "pandemic-related distortions to supply and demand, as well as severe shocks to energy and commodity markets, wee important drivers of high inflation, and their reversal has been a key part of the story of its decline."

The situation is analogous to the growing threat from Tehran. President Trump's decision to withdraw from the treaty with Iran did not immediately precipitate a crisis with Iran. However, Tehran, unbound from its constraints, resumed its uranium enrichment program.  So as Collina explained, now

we are in a much worse place. Iran says it has no intent to produce nuclear weapons and U.S. intelligence sees no current efforts by Tehran to weaponize, yet Tehran is believed to be not one year but just weeks from being able to produce enough fissile material for a bomb if it chooses to do so.

Iran is a very bad actor and has played a major role in making the Middle East a very dangerous place. We can thank Donald Trump for helping making it so.

Share |

It Doesn't Take a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows

If a President Harris is true to form, yes, she will, or at least will try.

They won’t even let any Palestinian American give a couple minute speech. But Kamala Harris is going to exert massive pressure on Israel to end the conflict? https://t.co/MIbHz901TN

— Zaid Jilani (@ZaidJilani) August 22, 2024

The refusal to give a platform to a Palestinian-American to bash Israel does not at all suggest that a President Kamala Harris won't "get up every morning" to try to put an end to a war, even if it means sabotaging a loyal ally.  Summarizing a July, 2020 report in The American Prospect, The Crime Report a few days later explained

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), a leading candidate for vice president, openly defied U.S. Supreme Court orders to reduce overcrowding in California prisons while serving as the state’s attorney general, reports the American Prospect. Working with Gov. Jerry Brown, Harris and her legal team filed motions that were condemned by judges and legal experts as obstructionist, bad-faith, and nonsensical, at one point suggesting that the Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to order a reduction in California’s prison population. Judges seriously considered holding the state in contempt of court. Observers worried that Harris’s office had undermined the ability of federal judges to enforce their legal orders at the state level. The resistance to a Supreme Court ruling was aimed at preventing the release of some 5,000 nonviolent offenders, whom courts had cleared as presenting next to no risk of recidivism or threat to public safety.

Despite a straightforward directive from the Supreme Court to identify prisoners for release over a two-year period, the state spent most of that time seesawing between dubious legal filings and flagrant disregard. By early 2013, it became clear that the state had no intention to comply. Harris refused to comment to the Prospect, which reviewed in detail the events leading up the 2011 Supreme Court ruling that required a reduction in the California prisoner count. In the 5-4 decision, conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy joined the court’s liberals, condemning the state for facilitating “needless suffering and death.” Under Attorney General Harris, the state delayed compliance, and by 2012, a report surfaced that proved the state actually intended to increase its prison population.

Not to worry, though.  That was the, but eight or so years later, the same Kamala Harris seems to have undergone a sea change in her perspective.

If you’re able to, chip in now to the @MNFreedomFund to help post bail for those protesting on the ground in Minnesota. https://t.co/t8LXowKIbw

— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) June 1, 2020

The Minnesota Freedom Fund was formed to bail out protesters arrested after the murder of George Floyd. However, with Kamala Harris' endorsement, the MFF raised approximately $35 million while most of the individuals arrested were released on their own recognizance. Hence, the organization had a lot of money to spend and few black lives matter protesters to spend it on.  Thus, most of the money went to bail out individuals arrested for common criminal infractions, the majority of whom did not commit violent offenses while awaiting return to court.

Unfortunately, "most of them" did not include Shawn Michael Tillman or George Howard.  Mr. Tillman in December 2021 was charged with gross misdemeanor indecent exposure. In May, the MFF posted $2,000 bail for him and he was released but

soon after, Tilllman was accused of killing Demitri Ellis-Strong. After a Ramsey County jury convicted Tillman, 36, of first-degree murder, a judge sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Court records from an unrelated case show that the fund also bailed out George Howard on a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge in early August of 2021. Later that month, Howard fatally shot a man in a road rage incident on I-94 in north Minneapolis. Howard, 50, who’s also known as Ricco Lamont Passmore, pleaded guilty in the case, and is serving a nearly 15-year sentence.

The typical person probably would not have expected that money given to bail out individuals protesting police behavior toward blacks would be diverted. However, Harris was not a typical person. She had been a state Attorney General- a prosecutor, as she reminded us three times during her acceptance speech:

She stated "this is one of the reasons I became a prosecutor" because "everyone has a right to safety, to dignity and to justice." Well, everyone except the likes of Demitri Ellis-Strong and Damian Martinez Ortiz.

She bragged "as a prosecutor, when I had a case, I charged it not in the name of the victim but in the name of the people, for a simple reason. In our system of justice, a harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us." That, and in most jurisdictions, that is routine for a prosecutor's office. Harris added ""every day, in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge...." Remarkable humility, there.

Harris boasted also "as a young courtroom prosecutor in Oakland, California, I stood up for women and children against predators who abused them." Prosecuting individuals charged with a felony was her job, though if she was at all typical, there were many more plea bargains than trials. This emphasis on her prosecutorial experience was unsurprising given

Throughout the convention, speakers echoed a similar message: “Donald Trump rants about law and order as if he wasn’t a convicted criminal running against a prosecutor,” Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said Wednesday.

Angela Alsobrooks, a former prosecutor who is running for Maryland’s open Senate seat, said during her primetime speaking slot at the DNC on Tuesday that Harris is the right candidate to prosecute the case against Trump: “Getting justice for others isn’t a power trip for her—it’s a sacred calling,” she said. “And hear me—Kamala Harris knows how to keep criminals off the streets. And come November, with your help, she’ll keep one out of the Oval Office.”

And yet, in the summer of 2021, Kamala Harris' priority was not "to keep criminals off the streets" but instead to encourage followers to contribute to a fund to bail out protesters. That, it turned out, was unnecessary, something a prosecutor should have been able to ascertain before she tweeted.

So is Kamala Harris the public official who disregards court orders to keep nonviolent offenders locked up- or the "swing the jail doors open" ex-California senator? 

She could be either, which is why her erratic behavior toward the rights of criminal offenders is instructive in trying to discern a President Harris' approach to Mideast policy. The refusal of the presidential nominee in concert with the party's national committee to permit a Palestinian-American to give a speech at the convention is an indicator of nothing. 

Attorney General Kamala Harris, finger sensitive to wind direction, defied the Court to keep inmates, disproportionately black, in prison. In the summer of 2020, Senator Harris' finger again was sensitive as she demonstrated an ability to determine in which way the wind was blowing, toward condemning alleged racial bias.  In the case of the war in Gaza or policy toward Palestinians or Israelis, a President Harris may be neither left nor right but a mere barometer.

Share |

The Joy of Freedom

This tweeter has nothing to do with the remarks of Michelle Obama to which he links. And that's not surprising.

Kamala Harris was so disliked and unpopular - she withdrew from the 2020 Dem Primary.

Without winning a single delegate.

And now - she's been installed as the nominee in 2024? Of the "Democratic" Party? Despite not receiving one single vote?

Is this what they call democracy? https://t.co/T1vM1WpEYA

— Empire Of Lies (@berningman16) August 21, 2024

Mrs. Obama's comments were vague, meaningless, and inspiring. It's hard to counter them.  It's much easier to slam Democrats for nominating for President someone who has never gotten a vote for President.

Yet, it would be much easier if the Democratic Party were to continue President Joe Biden's emphasis on the threat, verifiable and verified, which Donald Trump poses to our democratic republic, or representative democracy. Alas, the Party has decided virtually to ditch its rhetorical interest (maybe more than rhetorically) in democracy (and oh, by the way, justice).. The Washington Post explains that Kamala

Harris on Monday took the stage for a surprise appearance to the rousing beat of Beyoncé’s “Freedom,” her campaign’s unofficial anthem. She was preceded onstage by a nearly three-minute hype video set to the same song, with the narrator promising “freedom from control, freedom from extremism and fear.” Together, the night’s speakers referenced “freedom” more than 100 times. And on Wednesday, the convention’s entire program will be dedicated to the theme “A Fight for Our Freedoms.”

Among the changes in direction since the handoff from Biden to Harris

 the rhetorical evolution is among the most significant, redefining the stakes of the race and giving Democrats a new rallying cry that political practitioners say is far more likely to resonate with voters — including, perhaps, disaffected Republicans and right-leaning independents.

At 100 campaign events since launching his reelection in April 2023, Biden referenced “democracy” 386 times and “freedom” about 175 times, according to a Washington Post analysis of his speeches. By comparison, in nine campaign rallies since he dropped out, Harris referenced “freedom” nearly 60 times and “democracy” around a dozen.

At Harris’s Milwaukee rally on Tuesday night, a part of which was beamed into the Chicago convention, signs reading “FREEDOM” blanketed the arena. “Do we believe in freedom?” she yelled, with the crowd of thousands screaming back an emphatic “Yes!”

There is an obvious short-term advantage to the rhetorical shift because

Where Biden ominously warned that Trump posed a fundamental danger to the future of America’s constitutional republic, Harris has leaned into a term that better fits the more upbeat and optimistic tone she has sought to strike. It can also be applied to a range of issues with a more tangible impact on people’s day-to-day lives, including abortion, education, gun control and the economy.

Long-term, the Party will pay for this, even if the cost- spread through several election cycles- is never acknowledged.  "Freedom" applies to abortion rights, as reflected in the "pro-choice" slogan but application to education, gun control, and the economy is far more tenuous.

The argument that liberal or progressive economic policies impinge on liberty, the freedom of business owners to operate to maximize product whatever the impact upon consumers, workers, and others, has long been a staple of GOP rhetoric and policy. When Democrats recognized that Republicans were making headway with their appeal to the Second Amendment and condemnation of "confiscation," they increasingly substituted advocacy for "gun control" to "gun safety." And the conservative push to replace traditional public education with a more private, profit-driven system typically is framed as proving "choice" for parents.

How soon we forget that President

Biden believed the call to defend democracy would motivate voters to choose him over Trump, as they did in 2020. The message was also integral to Democrats’ successful 2022 midterm election, when they fended off Republican candidates in key state races who repeated Trump’s falsehoods denying the results of the 2020 race.

However, not every voter understands the tenuousness of our representative democracy, nor that the "freedom" craved depends upon perpetuation and stability of our that system of government. And so

Celinda Lake, a longtime Democratic pollster who did polling for Biden’s 2020 presidential campaign, said that “democracy” polled well with older Democrats but not with younger ones “who really don’t think we have a democracy.”

“The freedom message is just broader, more forward-looking,” she saidAnat Shenker-Osorio, a liberal communications consultant, has been urging Democrats to reclaim the term “freedom” for several years. In focus groups she’s conducted with disaffected Democrats and swing voters, Shenker-Osorio said people respond more favorably on issues such as voter suppression or gerrymandering when they are “framed through the language of freedom than through the lens of democracy.”

Or maybe there is a simpler explanation for promoting a Democratic spin on a Republican theme: It could be Kamala Harris, herself always a fan of fweedom.

Keith Ellison, the attorney general of Minnesota and a former Democratic congressman, said the rhetorical pivot is part of a broader shift in mood for the party that coincides with the change in presidential candidates. “The messaging is a little more electric,” he said. “People do operate on fear, but they volunteer out of joy.”

For joy! Ellison's comment is accurate and insightful, and maybe a joyful national convention will help voters forget about a grossly inadequate health care system; a broken immigration system no one is happy with; an ongoing plague of fetanyl use, two regional wars, either of which raise the specter of the use of tactical nuclear weapons; acceleration of the nuclear weapons program in Iran and its malignant, growing influence in the Mideast; solvency of the Social Security system; the burgeoning defense budget.

"Freedom" nonetheless probably will work for the Harris-Walz duo, either catapulting it to victory or to a defeat less lopsided than would be expected otherwise. And if it promotes a loss of identity for the Democratic Party, at least it's better than relentlessly calling Donald Trump and J.D. Vance "weird."

Share |

Deft Dodge

This is a good question and an interesting answer. Well, sort of and sort of.

Harris campaign co-chair Gretchen Whitmer says Gov. Tim Walz giving illegals driver’s licenses, free college, and free health care is sensible policy that’s liked by Americanspic.twitter.com/9bF7iC8t81

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) August 18, 2024

Kristin Welker asks

Well, let me ask you about her running mate, Tim Walz, and particularly on the issue of immigration. Obviously some of his policies in his state have come into focus. He signed into law initiatives allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for driver's licenses, quality free – for free tuition at public universities, and enroll in the state's free health care program for low income residents. Would you like to see the Harris administration adopt those same policies, Governor?

Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer, a Harris-Walz surrogate, answers

Well, I could tell you, you know, Tim Walz is a pragmatic guy. He's a Midwesterner just like me. And I think some of the wonderful things he's done in Minnesota resonate with, you know, Americans in all states. We know that when you give – when you provide free breakfast and lunch for all the school kids in your state, you're saving parents $850 bucks a year per student just on the grocery bill. So I think what you see in Tim Walz is a pragmatist who wants to make sure that we are a beacon that people come to. You need to come legally. We need to secure our borders. But we also know that the great history of this country is that we were the place that people came to for an opportunity. And that’s got to be the great future of it too

Outsiders "need to come legally" and "we need to secure our borders" is boilerplate; no Democrat publicly admits to being partial to illegal immigration. However, Whitmer did not respond to whether Harris-Walz should adopt the radical proposals.

So Welker now follows-up with largely the same question but with a twist:  "But – but – so do you – would you support the Harris administration, if she were to be elected, adopting those proposals I just laid out for you? For example, driver's licenses for those who are undocumented?"

Whitmer's response is revealing:

I think what we need to do is have a system – an immigration system that works, number one. We need to secure the border, we need to make sure that when people are in this country, that they have access to have some form of ID. That's really important. And I think to the spirit of those things, I think, should be a part of any vision for the – for the country, and our security, and how we bring great people into this country legally.

Democrats, learning to say "we need to secure the border," believe it gives them cover for policies which encourage immigration, legal and illegal. The phrase has lost almost all meaning.  Last year, when the border was even more porous than it is no, the Vice President could say with a (rare) straight face 

 

There is no constitutional requirement that individuals illegally residing in the USA  have "access" to "some form of ID." They are here illegally, and to award them with- well, to award them anything- is noxious.

When it appeared that President Biden might be forced from the race, I speculated that the Democrat's strongest nominee for 2024 would be Gretchen Whitmer, though I myself was ambivalent about her beliefs. Speaking to Welker, the Michigan governor suggested that "I.D." be offered' as if it would be an uncomplicated act of compassion, rather than opening the floodgates to additional benefits. Very likely, that would include such things as free tuition at public colleges, free health care, and a driver's license. 

Governor Whitmer herself appears to support these initiatives and even more obviously would support adoption of those moves if Kamala Harris were elected. Avoiding specifics by referring to "beacon" and  "ID" to mollify the left and "secure border" to mollify centrists is increasingly popular strategy. 

As Whitmer demonstrated, these questions are navigable if proper rhetoric is invoked, coupled with a recognition that most interviewers will ask one question with maybe a follow-up, then drop the entire subject.  Now an experienced politician, Kamala Harris recognizes that this is her path to mitigating the damage her tolerance for surges at the border would do to her candidacy.

Both the Democratic nominee and the Republican nominee have embraced extremist views on immigration. The election must assume the responsibility of fleshing out and exposing these views, and more effectively than was done on Sunday's Meet the Press.

Share |

Lies and Bad Advice

Ironically, the Republican nominee facing incumbent senator Robert Casey in Pennsylvania, executes decently a Harris cackle while ridiculing the Democratic presidential candidate:

McCormick: She says she wants the government to stop you all from eating red meat pic.twitter.com/B4bsHJW4Q8

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 17, 2024

A pox on both their houses. Yahoo News fact check recently indicated, Kamala

Harris has never supported “pass[ing] laws to outlaw red meat to stop climate change,” as Trump misleadingly told a North Carolina audience on July 24.

Nor is Harris plotting to “get rid of your cows” as Trump added on July 31 in Pennsylvania....

“Kamala can't have my guns, she can't have my gasoline engine — and she sure as hell can't have my steaks and cheeseburgers,” Cruz said last week on Fox News, where host Sean Hannity has also fixated on Harris’s nonexistent red-meat ban. “She is a radical California leftist.

The genesis of these remarks can be traced to 

when asked about the issue during a 2019 climate change forum on CNN, Harris said that she loves cheeseburgers — and that she thinks updating dietary recommendations to encourage healthy, environmentally friendly eating is a better approach than “banning certain behaviors.”

“Just to be very honest with you: I love cheeseburgers from time to time. Right? I mean, I just do,” Harris said. “But there has to be, also, what we do in terms of creating incentives that we will eat in a healthy way, that we will encourage moderation, and that we will be educated about the effects of our eating habits on our environment … and the government has to do a much better job of that.”

Following up, host Erin Burnett asked Harris if she would support changing the “food pyramid” — aka, the optimal daily nutrition guidelines released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

“Yes,” Harris replied.

“To reduce red meat specifically?” Burnett asked.

“Yes, I would,” Harris said. “I've always believed that we should, you know, expand what's on those cans of those things you buy in the grocery store. We should expand the list. And included in that should be a measure of the impact on the environment.

Harris' take on climate science was sound because

Environmentally, “about 40% of greenhouse gases come from agriculture, deforestation and other land-use changes,” according to Scientific American, with meat — particularly beef — driving climate change through cows’ methane emissions and the conversion of forests to grazing land.

Her take on nutrition science, however, is abysmal. On a micro level, an individual needs to eat what is best for his or her own body- or as the title of a chapter in a book authored by the late nutritionist Carlton Fredericks several decades ago, "The I in 'Diet and the Me in 'Menu.'"

With that proviso that everyone's needs is different, on a macro level, Harris is clearly elitist, suggesting the average American should bear the burden of preventing climate change. And she is and very likely wrong. The average American does not consume an excess of red meat, aside from the processed variety. He or she imbibes a significant excess of carbohydrates, especially of sugar and wheat-based products.

It would be lovely if, discouraged from eating red meat, the consumer would substitute fresh vegetables and nuts. Not going to happen. Take away a major source of fat, he or she would substitute sugary snacks, bread and other items which contain little or no protein and contribute mightily to the development of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and thousands of other physical illnesses- and probably of mental illness. It would be a bonanza for sickness. 

The wealthy Ms. Harris would not have to worry, though. Of course, she doesn't want to ban red meat. It would cut into her own, healthful lifestyle. As Yahoo noted

Harris said in May that her go-to McDonald’s order is the (not-so-radical) Quarter Pounder with Cheese (with a side of fries). She has been known to dine on D.C.’s Ghostburger with her boss. And as an avid cook and avowed foodie, then-Sen. Harris can be seen sharing her meatball recipe with Chef Tom Colicchio on an episode of her 2020 YouTube series “Cooking with Kamala.”

She would do just fine. Yet Republicans, ever allergic to the truth, can't say simply that the Democratic presidential candidate does not know whereof she speaks or wants Americans to suffer for some noble climate goal. Instead, they'll exaggerate grotesquely- even lie- about what she said, again demonstrating that when Kamala Harris goes low, they will go lower.

 

Share |

Muddled

One of Kamala Harris' parents- her mother- hailed from India but became immersed in the civil rights struggle for black Americans. The vice president has fairly consistently identified as black, and no doubt throughout most of her personal life and professional career, she has been perceived as black by nearly every individual and organization.

At the end of July, Donald Trump clumsily stated at the convention of the National Association of Black Journalists "I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black and now she wants to be known as black. So, I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?"

Although Trump continually lies, he may here have been either misguided or confused about a widely misunderstood subject.  In April of 2023, the vice-president had traveled to Africa and

was welcomed as a “daughter of our own country” when she sat down with Zambia’s leader.

The visit, President Hakainde Hichilema said, was “like a homecoming.”

It was a reference to a childhood trip to Zambia when Harris’ grandfather worked here, but she heard similar refrains throughout her weeklong trip to Africa that ended Saturday.

In Ghana, President Nana Akufo-Addo told Harris “you’re welcome home.” In Tanzania, a sign in Swahili told Harris to “feel at home.”

The greetings were a reflection of the enduring connections between the African diaspora in the United States and Africans themselves, something that America’s first Black vice president fostered during her trip. Although her historic status has led to extreme scrutiny and extraordinary expectations in Washington, it was a source of excitement over the past week.

But Kamala Harris never lived in Ghana or in Zambia and is not part of the African diaspora. And in the spirit of allowing the candidate herself- rather than her opponent, Donald Trump- identify herself, as she did in February of 2019 when the former state attorney general said that

she has smoked marijuana and supports the legalization of the drug.

In the interview, given to the New York-based radio show “The Breakfast Club,” co-host Charlamagne Tha God asks Harris if she has ever smoked.

“I have. And I inhaled – I did inhale. It was a long time ago. But, yes,” the California Democrat replies, invoking former President Bill Clinton’s famous “didn’t inhale” remark he made during his 1992 presidential run.

Harris, laughing as she realized the attention that her admission might draw, said that she tried pot in college and noted that it was in the form of a joint.

“I just broke news,” she said.

The 2020 presidential contender dodged Charlamagne Tha God’s question about whether or not she would try it again if it were legalized “all throughout the country,” but said that she thinks “that it gives a lot of people joy and we need more joy.”

As for marijuana legalization, Harris told Charlamagne Tha God that she supports it.

They say you oppose legalizing weed,” he said.

“That’s not true. And look I joke about it, half joking – half my family’s from Jamaica, are you kidding me,” Harris replies, laughing.

In a moment of candor fairly unusual for a politician, Harris pleaded "half my family's from Jamaica, are you kidding me?" Nearly humorous, it was accurate because half of Harris' family is from Jamaica, as she claimed. She is not generational African-American, as she indirectly conceded, instead having a parent from Jamaica which, before the political rise of Kamala Harris, always was recognized as an island country in the Caribbean sea, far from the continent of Africa.

Descendants of someone from Jamaica may originate from Africa- and from other continents. So, too, do white Americans, proud of their descendants from Italy, Ireland, or Poland, have descendants generations ago from continents other than Europe.

Kamala Harris identifies as black which is common and logical as a citizen of the USA who has at least one black parent.  Evidently, this is difficult to understand for some people, including ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who claims to believe hat Harris is bi-racial and yet simultaneously ethnically black. 

Within reason, the vice-president has, as we all do, the right to identify herself. With Kamala Harris, that is black and Jamaican-American, whatever Donald Trump, a famous broadcast journalist, or others may maintain.

Share |

Adept Journalism

The background, courtesy of CNN:

In the hours after President Joe Biden’s historic decision to step aside from the 2024 presidential race last month, journalists across three major US newsrooms began receiving emails from an anonymous person claiming to have tantalizing new information about the election.

The individual, who identified themself only as “Robert,” sent a trove of private documents from inside Donald Trump’s campaign operation to journalists at Politico, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Beginning on July 22, Politico reported, it began receiving emails from an AOL email address that contained internal communications from a senior Trump campaign official and a research dossier the campaign had put together on Trump’s running mate, Ohio Sen. JD Vance. The dossier included what the Trump campaign identified as Vance’s potential vulnerabilities. Politico was also sent portions of a research document about Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who had been among the contenders to join Trump on the GOP ticket.

The Times and The Post later reported that they, too, had been sent a similar cache, including a 271-page document on Vance dated Feb. 23 and labeled “privileged & confidential,” that the outlets said was based on publicly available information.

But despite receiving the sensitive campaign files, the three outlets opted to not publish reporting on the trove they’d been handed, even as the the person suggested they still had a variety of additional documents “from [Trump’s] legal and court documents to internal campaign discussions.”

"Themself?" Anyway, on Saturday, the Trump campaign implied that Iran was responsible for the hack and

On Monday, CNN reported that the FBI and other investigators were probing the apparent security breach, which sources said involved compromising the personal email account of longtime Republican and Trump operative Roger Stone.

Iran has denied the allegations, and the US government has declined to officially blame Tehran for the hack, a source told CNN, adding that the hackers’ techniques closely resembled those used by Iranian operatives.

But while the hacking incident, which occurred in June, set off a scramble in the Trump campaign, the FBI and Microsoft, the three news organizations that had received the files held off on publishing information from the trove. The decision marked a reversal from the 2016 election, when news outlets breathlessly reported embarrassing and damaging stories about Hillary Clinton’s campaign after Russian hackers stole a cache of emails from the Democratic National Committee, publishing them on the website Wikileaks.

The decision underscored the challenge news organizations face when presented with information potentially obtained by nefarious means and the shifting publishing standards of newsrooms in the wake of the 2016 election, during which Russian disinformation efforts we seen as playing a key role in Trump’s victory.

The justice correspondent for The Nation sees it differently:

WHY THE FUCK would Harris give an interview with any of these publications that are so clearly running a protection game for her opponent? Nah. Harris should give an interview to @theGrio and no one the fuck else, until @nytimes @washingtonpost and @politico PUBLISH HIS EMAILS.

— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) August 14, 2024

"News outlets," CNN observes, "breathlessly reported embarrassing and damaging stories about Hillary Clinton's campaign after Russian hackers stole a cache of emails from the Democratic National Committee." Choosing not to do so now may be inconsistent, and the decision in both cases accrued to the benefit of Donald J. Trump.

But that is certainly not the reason for the reticence now. In 2016, news organizations figured Hillary Clinton would win the presidential race anyway and did not want to be accused after the election of running interference for her. (And they generally disliked her.) Now, a victory for the Democratic candidate in what currently appears to be a tossup is less certain than it was in 2016.  News outlets do not want to be accused of putting their thumb on the scale again, as they did for Mr. Trump in 2016.

Moreover, unless one is a Harris campaign operative, it should be clear that the vice-president should be doing interviews. The news media is a conduit to the final destination, the American public, of information gleaned from an interview of a candidate for public office. Information is good. Transparency is good. Even a clash of ideas is good.

One would assume that Elie Mystal would understand that, even though as an employee of The Nation with ideological preferences befitting that role, he's not expected to be objective. Moreover,, as a graduate of Harvard Law School, he need not assume the responsibility of a journalist.  He presumably could fall back on his training as a lawyer and perhaps be of some use in that profession. 

Nonetheless, if Mystal wants to see how a real journalist approaches a subject, he should view the following excerpt of an interview conducted by Bob Acosta.

You know things are bad when CNN and Jim Acosta are calling out Kamala. pic.twitter.com/Lw9KaUogtr

— ForAmerica (@ForAmerica) August 14, 2024

Share |

Assume Nothing

There are bad reasons to vote for Donald Trump; very bad reasons to vote for Donald Trump; and extremely bad reasons to vote for Donald Trump. This is the worst, and a tweeter whose timeline clearly indicates that he is on the left side of the political spectrum has it exactly right until the end:

Why do you keep policing how families behave?
Who cares if he took his wife's hand and gave her an "awkward" hug? It was an awkward situation, on stage in front of millions of people. They're not rehearsed politicians, they're just normal people.

— KO Murphy (@klcmurphy) August 11, 2024

. 

The essential problem, as this liberal tweeter recognizes, is policing how families behave. Vance has been guilty of this, with CNN noting his "childless cat ladies" assessment and

In November 2020, Vance said on a conservative podcast that childless Americans, especially those in the country’s “leadership class,” were “more sociopathic” than those with children and made the country “less mentally stable.” Vance added that the “most deranged” and “most psychotic” commentators on Twitter – now known as X - were typically childless.

In August 2021, one month after launching his candidacy for the Senate, Vance’s campaign sent fundraising emails referring to the “radical childless leaders in this country” following his appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” where he made comments deriding “childless cat ladies” and leaders running the country. The comments sparked a widespread backlash against Vance when they resurfaced on social media following his nomination to the Republican presidential ticket.

(Little did we know before Vance's remark that childless George Washington was radical.) 

Handshakes? How 20th century. If emotion is not exhibited, most Americans evidently believe, the sentiment cannot be authentic.

Relationships among people- especially within marriages- are difficult to evaluate accurately and depth of devotion to a person or a cause cannot be assumed by the degree of fervor publicly demonstrated. At the Democratic National Convention in 2000, Al and Tipper Gore seemed to share a moment of joy and love

              :

Ten years later, they were divorced. Perhaps- perhaps- their marriage deteriorated only following Al's devastating (for him and for the country) loss in the presidential election a few months later. Or maybe it was scripted.  We don't know- and we should assume nothing from a handshake instead of a kiss, its sincerity or what it symbolizes.. 

Share |