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.
