I've repeatedly defended Donald Trump and other Republicans when they've been charged with saying something racist because the traditional definition of racism is a belief in the inherent inferiority of a racial group. Stretching the term to include anything suggesting racial hostility or animus or that one group behaves in a manner inferior to another degrades the term and minimize the concept. Reference to inferior "blood" is far different. Hence, my nomination for the worst thing (emphasis mine) Donald Trump has said of major consequence:
For Trump, this is an ongoing competition, trying to outdo himself in depravity. There is no depth to which he will not sink, no vile sentiment he will hesitate to embrace.
On the morning of 7 October, waves of Israeli gunmen stormed
across Gaza's border into Gaza, killing about 1,200 people. Israel also fired
thousands of rockets.
Those killed included children, the elderly and 364 young
people at a music festival. Israel took more than 250 others to Gaza as hostages. The BBC has also seen evidence of rape and sexual violence
during the Israeli attacks.
An absurdist rewriting of history? Not according to journalist and Islamist propagandist Mehdi Hasan:
And as I told you, there is no comparison between the two wars… so your attempt to conflate them to suit your virulently anti-Israel agenda is very disingenuous.. https://t.co/m2A5IdOONC
It should be very simple to understand, even for Hasan. On October 7, 2023, Hamas gunmen stormed into Israel, killed approximately 1200 people, committed rapes, and took roughly 250 individuals as hostages into the totalitarian state of Gaza. Israel is not Russia; democratic Israel defending itself against neo-fascist Hamas contrasts sharply with authoritarian Russia invading Ukraine. Speaking recently to the conservative Sky News Australia, British author and journalist Douglas Murray explained of the United Nations
And you know, they always use the punching bag of Israel. Occasionally they'll use the punching bag of America. Look, ,the organization has always been the same. It's always been obscene. It's always allowed obscenity to go on on an international scale but you go look at it and realize the world's democracies should not be having to take such action if any of, you know, various despots and dictators say they don't like something that's happening in free, liberal democracies. Well, they wouldn't, would they? The question is whether you take that seriously or not. And I would argue that people shouldn't.
When the world is arrayed against a nation, unfortunately that nation must take it seriously. Hasan- not a lawyer- seems to believe that Israel is in ongoing violation of international law. "International law" is complicated and messy and can be interpreted as wished. By contrast, common sense should be more common than it is. Enter marketing professor, author, and podcaster Scott Galloway:
Thank goodness we have folks like Scott Galloway, Sam Harris, & Douglas Murray to narrate our current state of absurdity.
To be possessed of such moral clarity & to thoughtfully articulate that which should be obvious but isn’t to so many.pic.twitter.com/FQvIgUO3X1
What is this with Ohio Republicans and stand-up comedy? From Fox News in late August:
Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance's regret in
referring to some leaders as "childless cat ladies" is that "a
lot of people took it the wrong way," he revealed during a recent
interview.
Since jumping into the 2024 presidential race, Vance has
caught flak for a resurfaced 2021 comment, when he said that "we're
effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs,
by a bunch of childless cat ladies."
The senator, however, says that the statement was taken out
of context.
"I want to be the vice president for the whole country
and I want to represent everyone. And yes, I made a sarcastic comment years ago
that I think that a lot of Democrats have willfully misinterpreted," Vance
told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.
Vance was then pressed again on whether he regretted the
comment.
"I regret certainly that a lot of people took it the
wrong way. And I certainly regret that the DNC and Kamala Harris lied about
it," the vice presidential candidate told the outlet.
"I'm going to say things from time to time that people
disagree with. I'm a real person, I'm going to make jokes, I'm going to say
things sarcastically. And I think that what's important is that we focus on the
policy," Vance added. "I have a lot of regrets, Kristen, but making a
joke three years ago is not at the top 10 of the list."
Oh, and what a joke it was! Which was more hilarious- childless cat ladies or "corporate oligarchs?" It's such a running gag, a classic of stand-up.
While Vance is a sitting United States Senator, Republican Bernie Moreno is trying to oust Sherrod Brown, the senior United States senator from Ohio. On September 20, Moreno participated in a town hall meeting outside of Cincinnati and the NBC affiliate in Columbus reported
“You know, the left has a lot of single-issue voters,”
Moreno said in video published by the TV outlet. “Sadly, by the way, there’s a
lot of suburban women, a lot of suburban women that are like, ‘Listen, abortion
is it. If I can’t have an abortion in this country whenever I want, I will vote
for anybody else.’
… Okay. It’s a little crazy, by the way, but — especially
for women that are, like, past 50 — I’m thinking to myself, ‘I don’t think
that’s an issue for you.’”
In a development roughly as likely as the Philadelphia Eagles qualifying for the playoffs in the past five years, "Moreno’s campaign said he was joking." The odd thing, perhaps, was that the complete explanation belied the lame explanation of a "joke" as spokesperson Reagan McCarthy stated “Bernie was clearly making a tongue-in-cheek joke about how
Sherrod Brown and members of the leftwing media like to pretend that the only
issue that matters to women voters is abortion, McCarthy added that her guy thinks “that women
voters care just as much about the economy, rising prices, crime, and our open
southern border as male voters do.”
The spokesperson did not explain how abortion after 50 is funny when the comedian was really referring to inflation, crime, and immigration. Similarly, J.D. Vance never has explained how women who have cats but not children wield as much power as corporate oligarchs.
It's almost as if some Republicans want to zero out segments of the American mosaic or set them against other Americans. Ohio Republican govern Mike DeWine has properly denounced inaccurate and divisive rumors about the Haitians residing in Springfield, Ohio. Perhaps he can also denounce the misogynistic remarks of Moreno, whose general election campaign he has endorsed, and those of Vance, who is on the presidential ticket he has endorsed. And then he can tell us what's in the water in Ohio or plead that these two guys don't represent faithfully the praiseworthy nature of the state he and J.D. Vance represent.
What pisses me off, and it has been said 1000 times. if kamala said the idiotic and demented things , that trump says, every news station, every republican would say she has a screw loose. There are a few MSM TV hosts that call him out. Most gloss over it, as that is just…
CNN's Jake Tapper asked/stated "Donald Trump saying that Kamala Harris has bigger cognitive problems than Joe Biden." Both tweeters slammed the CNN host for the question, with one stating "Tapper deserved it."
We know what "deserved it" means when a woman is the victim of sexual assault but here it is less clear. Pelosi's partial response was "Why would you even cover that? This is a person who is not on the level. He is the nominee for President. He is incompetent. Let's not even talk about the silliness of it all. We're not talking issues."
Of course, Republicans and news organs would say Harris "has a screw loose" if she said "idiotic and demented things." The media would do so because Republicans would slam her and the media would report the GOP criticism.
That's how it works. News organizations cover news and when the nominee of the two major parties says something worthwhile and/or outlandish, it's covered. The recipe for Trump's secret sauce includes remarks that are ridiculous to approximately 60% of the population His opponent's recipe includes an emphasis on joy and a claim that she is from and of the middle class, unlike the ostentatiously wealthy Republican nominee.
Trump knows how the game is played. Nancy Pelosi, despite whining "why would you even cover that" does also, including that attacking a journalist to his face rarely brings a rebuke. Kamala Harris, thus far running an excellent campaign, knows that the former House Speaker is more adept at deflecting charges from Donald Trump and turning questions against the interviewer than she herself does.
Jake Tapper's question was predictable and Nancy Pelosi's answer, reasonable. Harris does not say idiotic and demented things but, until she became Vice President, she did make comments that, if they were emphasized by the media, would be very controversial and probably fatal. We should be satisfied that she knew to retreat from those positions in the interest of defeating Donald Trump, a major reason that she has not done a solo interview with a journalist with a national platform.
If the Democratic candidate believed that Trump remains a viable candidate before Tapper and his colleagues gloss over his deceit, racism, rampant greed or cognitive ability, she would be out front slamming them for it. Given her carefully planned mercurial rise over the past six months, the relationship she has established and maintained with the media has been working just fine.
Back in the old days, when Kamala Harris was a U.S. Senator, having been promoted from Attorney General of the State of California, she supported not only an assault weapons ban but a mandatory buyback of the weapon. She explicitly stated her support for procuring such weapons from owners if an assault weapons ban were re-enacted. Senator Harris was running for the Democratic nomination for President on each of those occasions: 9/16/19, on The Tonight Show starring Jimmy Fallon; 10/2/19, at an MSNBC gun safety forum; and on 10/31/19 at a public television forum in Ankeny, Iowa.
.
One can only hope that the Senator expressed those views not because she was competing for the support of Democratic primary voters but because of her experience as a district attorney in the city of San Francisco and an attorney general in the state of California.
Harris has not now renounced her prior position. When she was asked during her debate with Donald Trump about her shifting positions on issues such as prior support for "mandatory government buyback programs for assault weapons," Harris niftily avoided the question. Nonetheless, she is now singing a different tune.
During a live-streamed rally hosted by Oprah Winfrey on
Thursday, Harris mentioned being a gun owner and said, “If somebody breaks into
my house, they’re getting shot.”
She then laughed and acknowledged she probably “should not”
have said that, but said her staff could “deal with that later.”
She then laughed and acknowledged she probably “should not”
have said that, but said her staff could “deal with that later.”
Gun violence is now a laughing matter. Not being psychic, the presidential nominee could not have known this would happen:
But these things do happen and, arguably, with increasing frequency. And this, from the very political campaign Ms. Harris is engaged in:
The NR continues
“It was a joke, and she knew that we would still be talking
about it today, but I think it‘s important that people know that the vice
president respects the right to bear arms, that she supports the Second
Amendment, but she wants responsible gun ownership and she wants our
communities to be safe,” (Harris strategist Keisha Lance) Bottoms said.
The former Atlanta mayor claimed Harris’s comment
“humanizes” her.
Disturbingly, it probably does. On Real Time with Bill Maher Friday evening, the host, who is skeptical of Harris but will vote for her, offered his support for Harris' comment. Democrats will not question their candidate; Republicans will not criticize someone who wields a firearm, unless it's in a Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian protest.
As Vice President and now as a presidential candidate, Harris enjoys Secret Service protection. Thus, there is no reason that she currently owns a weapon. However, as National Review notes, Senator Harris previously explained that she possesses a gun "for personal safety," because she had been a "career prosecutor" in San Francisco.
Appearing on CNN on Sunday, Harris' spokesperson dodged a question about when Harris acquired the firearm. Nonetheless, Harris' one-time claim that she owns a weapon because of safety concerns as a prosecutor is plausible.
However, that's not good enough, and not only because we don't have confirmation that the Vice President owns a gun to blow away an intruder, as she boasts she would do. California law on retaliating against intruders is governed by the Castle Doctrine, which gives a homeowner or tenant more latitude than is given in many states, but less than is allowed under "stand your ground" rules prevalent in some states. Whether a resident would be prosecuted for responding as Harris promises would depend upon various factors.
Kamala Harris was a prosecutor, as she reminded us during her debate with Trump, as she has on other occasions. Yet, she didn't offer any caveats in her remark to Winfrey, no recommendation that individuals understand the law in their particular state about gun use and- less surprisingly- no condemnation of burglary or other street crime. I
It's easy to understand why Ms. Harris was an irresponsible Attorney General. As a comedian, she's even worse.
Repeating his contention that Mrs. Clinton wanted to abolish
the right to bear arms, Mr. Trump warned at a rally here that it would be “a
horrible day” if Mrs. Clinton were elected and got to appoint a tiebreaking
Supreme Court justice.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,”
Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the
Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
Last September the former President was peeved that Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mark Milley had taken a call from Mainland China and assured that nation that it was in danger of imminent attack. he He characterized Milley's behavior as "an act so egregious that in times gone by, the punishment would be death!" However, Trump usually does not recommend assassination, although
CREW analyzed over 13,000 of Trump’s Truth Social posts from
January 1, 2023 to April 1, 2024, and found that while Trump has recently
backed off some of his more violent rhetoric, threatening political opponents
has been a consistent fixation for Trump. Since the start of last year, Trump
has issued direct or implied threats on Truth Social to use the powers of the
federal government to target Joe Biden during a second Trump administration 25
times. Specifically, Trump has threatened him with FBI raids, investigations,
indictments and even jail time.
But Biden is not Trump’s only target. He’s also threatened
or suggested that the FBI and the Department of Justice should take action
against senators, judges, members of Biden’s family and even non-governmental
organizations.
This doesn't faze Piers Morgan, though he himself isn't "guilty" of much of anything. However, Cenk Uygur, while blowing his top, nevertheless raised a forgotten point. He stated "I'm asking you a question. Do you not consider for a moment that within forty-eight hours you're still saying 'monster, dictator, blah, blah, blah?'" A moment later, he referred to the "shooter at the golf course, specifically in his social media post, parroting Kamala Harris saying essentially that he was an existential threat to demoracy in America. You're doing the same . Does nothing make you pause?
Notwithstanding blowing his top, Cenk rationally explained
Trump does it two thousand times worse... Your great idea is Democrats shouldn't campaign against Donald Trump because some moron, mentally unstable guy, took a shot at him- one or two them did. You know what? I can protect Donald Trump- ban assault weapons. That'll protect Donald Trump wa more than any of, oh, say nice nice things about him now that some lunatic took some shots at him.
Here, let me be super clear: if you're on the left- I know the right-wingers love their guns, Second Amendment remedy, it's what they've been riled up to do, violence nonstop. But if you're on the left and you do any violence, you're not one of us. You're a stupid person who does nothing but make a worthy cause look immoral with your insanity.
Twice someone tries to kill their hero and conservatives still won't acknowledge the need for gun safety, let alone gun safety legislation.
It seems it's not only conservatives, though.During the presidential debate in Philadelphia, Kamala Harris was asked about her support for "a government-run health care system" in 2017 and two years proposal in 2018 for a plan including a private insurance option." Before pivoting to the Affordable Care Act she considers a panacea, she slammed "this business about taking everyone's guns away. Tim Walz and I are both gun owners. We're not taking anybody's guns away."
Reversing her position in favor of a mandatory assault weapon buyback program is sensible and believable. But, oh please:
In the span of 4 years, Kamala has gone from campaigning on gun confiscation to telling Oprah “if someone breaks into my house, they gettin’ SHOT”
This just shows how strongly the American people reject Kamala’s radicalism
Five years ago, as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, Harris favored mandatory assault weapons buyback, tantamount to confiscation.
Today, the presidential nominee is promoting herself for the Charles Bronson role if there is any remake ofDeath Wish. Fortunately, she probably still supports some form of gun safety legislation. Unfortunately, it's likely that it's nothing to which she is committed, especially compared to Cenk Uygur. However, her electoral opponent is Donald Trump who, even after two attempts on his life, is still firmly in support of guns in the hands of dangerous individuals. As on other things, it's a very bad choice but still an easy one.
At the Trump-Harris presidential debate in Philadelphia, the Vice President stated
And to end the approach that is about attacking the
foundations of our democracy 'cause you don't like the outcome. And be clear on
that point. Donald Trump the candidate has said in this election there will be
a bloodbath, if this -- and the outcome of this election is not to his liking.
Let's turn the page on this. Let's not go back. Let's chart a course for the
future and not go backwards to the past.
During the standard CNN 10:00 p.m. Eastern panel discussion, Scott Jennings, GOP strategist and network contributor, evidently accused Kamala Harris of predicting a bloodbath were she elected President CNN anchor Abby Phillip, determined to be fair and balanced, remarked.
Let's clear this up. You're referring to Trump's use of "bloodbath" when he was talking. He was talking_ I'm going to explain it to people because I think there's confusion about this. Use of the word "bloodbath" when he was talking about jobs in vehicle manufacturing jobs in the United States. Vice President Harris improperly and unfairly mischaracterized that as him saying there would be a bloodbath if he were elected.
MUST WATCH! CNN finally admits Kamala and their people have been lying about Trump's use of the word "bloodbath."
They must know Trump is winning... or else they wouldn't be suddenly fact-checking this. pic.twitter.com/6A6ArebSLv
Let's clear up your own statement, Ms. Phillip. Harris had stated that Trump's intention was a bloodbath if he were not elected, not if he were elected. Moreover, Phillip tried to clear up something that was, and is, not all that clear.
Campaigning in March 2024 for a US Senate candidate who went on to win the primary, Trump declared
If you’re listening, President Xi — and you and I are
friends — but he understands the way I deal. Those big monster car
manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now … you’re going to
not hire Americans and you’re going to sell the cars to us, no. We’re going to
put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re
not going to be able to sell those cars if I get elected.
Now if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for
the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a
bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it. But they’re not going
to sell those cars. They’re building massive factories.
Trump was in fact speaking about auto manufacturing when he invoked the term "bloodbath." However, he stated that the bloodbath would be "for the whole" and immediately thereafter clarified "for the country." He added "that will be the least of it."
He then added "that will be the least of it" because, evidently, he is threatening something beyond a "bloodbath." Whatever that might be is unknowable. However, it at least appears that he meant something beyond a bloodbath.
If a news host chooses not to disregard facts in favor of an insistence upon "clearing up" the "confusion about this," she at least ought to leave room for the possibility that Mr. Trump meant, well, what he literally said. Nonetheless, in the interest of the fairness Phillip forswore, consideration should be given to the view of Republican Bill Cassidy as expressed the day after Trump's remark.
The Louisiana senator implied that Trump's words permit the listener, whatever his or her views, to interprets them as wished. He said Trump's rhetoric often "walks up to the edge" and "that kind of rhetoric, it's always on the edge, maybe doesn't cross, maybe does, depending upon your perspective."
A great news organization will not give a political candidate the benefit of the doubt if he is intentionally ambiguous. It will attempt to pin him or her down- and if it tries and is unable to do so, the default interpretation must be the less flattering. In this case, the network was uninterested in trying to determine definitively what Donald Trump was and additionally, one of its major players misinterpreted what he literally said.
Accuracy, not "fairness," should not be the highest priority of a news organization. Bending over backwards to appear balanced and non-partisan betrays the network's one-time slogan of "facts matter."
In late July, former President Donald Trump claimed Kamala Harris "doesn't like Jewish people." However, in this warm, feel-good moment, the husband of the Vice President states
I didn't have to explain to her what a Jew was. She already knew. And she was the one um, who's encouraged me to live openly and proudly as a Jewish person. She's the one who encouraged me to make sure we have a mezuzah at the vice president's residence and if they'll let me- I hope they do- I'll have one at the White House, too.
I'm interested to see Kamala Harris become President of the USA and "they" prohibit the President of the USA from placing a religious symbol at the White House. Presumably, the same person who inexplicably said "if they'll let me," there will be a mezuzah at the White House was honest in claiming that Ms. Harris was "the one who encouraged me" to place one at the Naval Observatory.
Notwithstanding Trump's (unsubstantiated) charge, Kamala Harris is not anti-Semitic. However, the reason we can be confident of that is not because she married a Jew.
Donald Trump married an immigrant, and no one would claim that he is particularly fond of immigrants. There are many reasons a woman may marry a man and it is very likely that, as in most cases, the reason for the Emhoff-Harris merger was not religion.
Animus toward Jews should not be the issue. In August, Harris condemned an Israeli air strike, which killed dozens of Gazans, upon a school which likely "served as an active Hamas and Islamic Jihad military facility." Though she failed to criticize the common Hamas tactic of putting military facilities where an Israeli attack would cause mass suffering, her perspective was not colored by any anti-Semitism. When the previous month she had decided to blow off the speech of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Congress, it was not because of anti-Semitism. She justifiably does not like the Israeli leader and believes her run for the presidency supersedes her role as presiding officer of the Senate.
Nor was the Vice President prompted by hostility toward Jews when she passed up the opportunity to denounce either anti-Semitism or the illegal encampments on college campuses and instead stated "I understand the emotion behind it."
Moreover, prejudice wasn't at play even in autumn of 2021 in the Vice President's response to a student at George Mason University who claimed
You brought up how the power of the people and demonstrations and organizing is very valuable in America, but I see that over the summer there have been many protests and demonstrations standing with Palestine but then just a few days ago there were funds allocated to continue backing Israel, which hurts my heart because it's ethnic genocide and displacement of people, the same that happened in America, and I'm sure you're aware of this.
This funding of "ethnic genocide" was provided for the Iron Dome system, which prevents missile from landing in Israel, often in populated areas, which would kill multitudes of Israelis. And to this student, Harris replied "your voice, your perspective, your experience, your truth cannot be suppressed, and it must be heard."
The quote was not AI generated nor taken out of context. Harris did not merely assuage the deluded questioner by stating that her "voice"" should not be heard and not suppressed. She stated your truth must be heard. She agreed with her.
In their letter to the Vice President attacking her remarks, the two co-chairpersons of the Republican Israel Allies caucus charged her with "encaging a false narrative (which) only promotes a disingenuous worldview but is also anti-Semitic." They pointed to "historically high levels" of anti-Semitism in the United States and "even on college campuses, we are seeing spikes in anti-Semitic activity."
This letter written nearly three years ago, before the Hamas war upon Israel brought a torrent of anti-Semitism to the fore, especially on college campuses. The response of the Democratic presidential candidate to this state of affairs has been tepid, owing not to hostility toward Jews but to hostility toward the cause of the Jewish state of Israel.
At this point, it is clear that it is unclear what Kamala Harris' views are on Israel or on most issues. Moreover, anti-Semitism and an anti-Israel viewpoint need not be the same, and it is unlikely Kamala Harris possesses the first while she possesses the latter.
Further, in the case involving the George Mason University student, Harris may have been merely triggered by invocation of the buzzword "Palestine," which often lays bare the disinterest of progressives, liberals, and some centrists toward Israel. Nonetheless, a pattern has emerged, one which suggests that President Biden's commitment to a safe and secure Israel is not shared by the woman determined to be his successor, whatever the religion of the man she's married to.
After Donald Trump's miserable debate performance against Kamala Harris on Tuesday night, many Republicans blamed the people tasked with preparing the ex-President. Nonetheless
The most common target was ABC News and moderators David
Muir and Linsey Davis, who, unlike the moderators of the June CNN debate
between Trump and Biden, pushed back in real time on some of Trump’s falsehoods
about abortion and immigrants abusing pets.
“Three vs. one” became a mantra on the right as Republicans
sought to portray the moderators as biased against Trump.
“This debate is three vs one — the ABC moderators clearly
shilling for Kamala Harris,” Tulsi Gabbard, the former Democratic congresswoman
who helped Trump prepare, posted on the social platform X.
"Literally, the question to Trump was "Why did you do the horrible thing?' And the question to Harris is 'What do you think about the horrible thing Trump said?'" Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said on Fox News.
Muir and Davis were not totally objective. However, that was not the major reason Trump lost the debate, nor that he was ill-prepared or that Harris employed a superpower to bait the former President into being his dishonest, belligerent, and fairly ignorant self.
Pundits, journalists, politicians of all political stripes have short memories. They'd better understand the dynamics of the faceoff if they recalled that, as Politico reported on October 11, 2012
Vice President Joe Biden delivered an extraordinarily
aggressive, top-to-bottom attack on the Romney-Ryan ticket Thursday, repeatedly
interrupting and even laughing at Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan during the lone vice
presidential debate of the 2012 campaign.
That's the same Joe Biden whom Harris has served under for almost four years. And in Philadelphia, the current vice president replaced her infamous cackle with laughter and a clever smile as if gasping you've got to be kidding."
Wikipedia explains "'a picture is worth a thousand words' is an adage in multiple languages meaning that complex and sometimes multiple ideas can be conveyed by a single still image, which conveys its meaning or essence more effectively than a mere verbal description."
"Can," and usually is. A verbal description is subject to refutation, valid or otherwise, while a picture stands alone, creating a powerful expression, and may be seared into memory. Most voters will little remember any details put forward either by Ms. Harris or Mr. Trump during their debate and virtually all have a working knowledge of their contrasting values and ideology. Add to that the skepticism, even cynicism, most Americans have about politicians and what they say, and few of their words will have more than very minimal impact.
By contrast, those images are more easily remembered and are generally more trusted by viewers. Republicans fear (with at least a little justification) that voters were manipulated (a charge they're wise not to make overtly) by the ABC monitors because they corrected with facts Donald Trump more than Kamala Harris and that the questions were ones more favorable to the Harris than to the Trump agenda.
But viewers were less manipulated by the ABC reporters than they were by Donald Trump's opponent, who had reason and opportunity to do so. The split screen was Harris' opportunity and persuasion was her (justified) motive.
In this specific instance, the primacy of images over words had a happy outcome, favoring considerably the less reprehensible individual over the more reprehensible individual. It will not always be thus because it typically abets the less serious, less worthy applicant for political office..
There are many reasons for Donald Trump's wretched performance in Philadelphia. It would be impolite and politically inconvenient to suggest that Kamala Harris' countenance, combined with her visual mannerisms, were the primary factors in her dominant presentation. But reality intrudes.
Not all bigotry is racism. And not all racial bigotry is racism.
This should be obvious to everyone but isn't. It's not at all clear even to prominent and respected cable news hosts. As in the video below, CNN's Jake Tapper states
Donald Trump is actually traveling with some of these folks- conspiracy peddlers. We should note a veritable legion of doom of bigots and liars, perhaps no one as depraved as this woman, Laura Loomer. Here she is getting off of Trump's plane before yesterday's debate. Just on Sunday she posted an insanely racist message that if Harris, whose mom was an Indian immigrant, was elected "the White House will smell like curry and White House speeches will be facilitated via a call center" On the twenty-third anniversary of 9/11, we should also note Loomer posted last year that 9/11 was an "inside job." Trump continues to bring this person along on his travels with him. Why? I don't know.
Tapper: Trump is traveling with a veritable legion of doom of bigots and liars. Perhaps none so depraved as this woman, Laura Loomer. Just on Sunday, she posted an insanely racist message that if Harris, whose mom was an Indian immigrant, wins, the White House will 'smell like… pic.twitter.com/J6938cwfmF
It is indeed confounding, especially when Trump probably could be using Kellyanne Conway, the smooth and effective liar and architect of "alternative facts" and the "Bowling Green Massacre." There is no accounting for why Looper would spin a story about speeches transmitted from a call center., other than Loomer possibly associating Indians with call centers, while to most of us those places seem more internationally diverse. And a Harris White House probably will not, unfortunately, smell like curry.
Nonetheless, none of this qualifies as racism. Contending that someone's home or place of business will smell of her homeland cuisine is not racist. Nor is it racist to exaggerate the degree of dominance of one group in a call center racist. If Tapper really wants to grapple with racism, he should try this:
They let- I think the real number is 15, 16 million people into our country. When they do that, we got a lot of work to do. They're poisoning the blood of our country. That's what they've done. They poison mental institutions and prisons all over the world, not just in South America, not just to three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world.
There is nothing in there about smelly food or about people with foreign accents in call centers. Nothing about values, culture, or polytheistic religious beliefs. It pertains exclusively to blood- to race. It is discounting factors other than the inherited characteristic of race, which to Trump consigns a group of people, whatever their other characteristics, to inevitable inferiority.
That is racism, something which Jake Tapper apparently does not understand. Fortunately, there is something similar which both Laura Looper and her boss, Donald Trump, also do not understand. At the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago in late July, the former President remarked of his Democratic opponent "She was always of Indian heritage, and she was only promoting Indian heritage. 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?"
When Kamala Harris skipped out on her responsibility presiding over the Senate when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke before a joint session of Congress, she didn't do so because she has identified as Indian. She is a member of the historically racially segregated sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha, whose members she considers "family." and was speaking in Indianapolis at the racially segregated, ethically dubious, Zeta Phi Beta sorority.
Harris was raised as a black woman, undoubtedly was thought of by peers as black, and has identified primarily as black. "I know Donald Trump's type," boasted the Vice President in late July.
The Democratic nominee knows her opponent's type, a claim Donald Trump can't credibly make. Neither can Jake Tapper boast- accurately- that he knows racism when he sees it.
Scott Jennings on tomorrow's debate: "I would advise him to answer all questions going back to one core issue 'If you want change I'm the change, If you want change on the economy I'm the change. If you want change on the border I'm the change' and this is how he wins."
Jennings believed before Tuesday's presidential debate in Philadelphia, and probably still does afterward, that Donald Trump's best approach would be to emphasize that he is the change agent. As a goal that probably is accurate. However the ex-President had a myriad of tactics at his disposal.
Consider a question from co-moderator Linsey Davis, who asked
Vice President Harris, in your last run for president you
said you wanted to ban fracking. Now you don't. You wanted mandatory government
buyback programs for assault weapons. Now your campaign says you don't. You
supported decriminalizing border crossings. Now you're taking a harder line. I
know you say that your values have not changed. So then why have so many of
your policy positions changed?
Harris first stated "so my values have not changed. and I'm going to discuss every one."
Predictably, she did not do so, instead proclaiming her support of fracking, then smoothlessly pivoting to her background as "a middle-class kid raised by a hard-working mother," and then talking about home ownership, sexual assault, Medicare, "and a perspective that is about lifting people up and not beating people down."
The last four items, which comprised approximately two-thirds of Harris' response, had nothing to do with the question asked. Even on that, however, the Vice-President chose, wisely, not to explain why her opinion had shifted.
As Jennings noted post-debate on CNN, you can't blame the referee (as Republicans immediately did) when you miss your jump shots. But as Jennings missed, Trump was given given a lane to drive the ball to the hoop and passed up the opportunity in order to shoot 18-foot jump shots, which missed wildly. Or as baseball fans would have it, whiffing on a hanging curve.
Trump's response to Harris' remarks about her shifting views illustrated the primary dynamic of the debate, an insistence that he never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Handed the ball on Harris' radically reversed ideology, the ex-President instead went on defense, first pleading
Well, first of all, I wasn't given $400 million. I wish I
was. My father was a Brooklyn builder. Brooklyn, Queens. And a great father and
I learned a lot from him. But I was given a fraction of that, a tiny fraction,
and I built it into many, many billions of dollars. Many, many billions. And
when people see it, they are even surprised. So, we don't have to talk about
that.
Except that he had just done so, without his opponent having brought it up at the time, and when you're explaining, you're losing. Then Trump got back on track- briefly- by stating
Fracking? She's been against it for 12 years. Uh, defund the
police. She's been against that forever. She gave all that stuff up, very
wrongly, very horribly. And everybody's laughing at it, okay? They're all
laughing at it. She gave up at least 12 and probably 14 or 15 different
policies. Like, she was big on defund the police.
This landed with a thud. Trump could have gone with a refrain:
Also, Medicare for All, legislation, which Harris once co-sponsored and now opposes. Never mind that on a few of these issues, Harris has less changed her mind than determined to keep quiet about it, and it's the responsibility of her opponent to identify those positions she will no longer defend.
If Trump wanted to avoid citing a litany of stances on which his foe at least has equivocated, he could have emphasized two, with numbers 5 and 6 likely to have the greatest impact.
A third option would have been for him to list those issues and add one- or emphasize this with one of the others..
.
Trump is going to Trump, one might say. Given a candidate offering acriticism-rich environment, he decided to ramble about election interference, dogs in Ohio, Harris' Marxist father, Fani Willis, and anything else popping up in his mind. It is Kamala Harris' great good luck to have an opponent who can't, or won't, focus on any of his opponent's vulnerabilities.
We don't know if she loves herself, is a self-hating Jew, or a Jew-hating Jew. But we do know at least wo things about this award-winning film director (and probably many of her admirers) when she states
As a Jewish-American artist working in a time-based medium, I must note I'm accepting this award on the 336th day of Israel's genocide in Gaza and 76th year of occupation. I believe it our responsibility as film workers to use the institutional platforms through which we work to address Israel's impunity on the global stage. I stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine in their struggle for liberation.
She’s not a “self-hating Jew”. She loves herself. She’s a “Jew-hating Jew”. https://t.co/5Q2KIexLC6
One thing is clear is that Sarah Friedland is ignorant. To be Jewish is to be affiliated with a religion. Judaism is composed of Jews, and Judaism is a religion and not a national origin. There no more are Jewish-Americans than there are Muslim-Americans, Catholic-Americans, or Protestant-Americans. There are American Muslims, American Catholics, American Protestants..... and American Jews.
Equally clear is that Ms. Friedland does not believe Israel should exist, at least not as a Jewish state. The United Nations on 11-29-48 declared the end of the British Mandate and called on the parties to establish an independent state in Palestine. Thus, at midnight on May14/15, 1948- 76 years ago- the State of Israel was proclaimed. Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq immediately launched hostilities against the new nation but were pummeled.
Yet, according to Ms. Friedland, the very existence of the State of Israel, sitting upon approximately .1% of the land in the Middle East, constitutes occupation.
But this goes beyond one seriously misguided and information-challenged film worker. Reportedly, "the Venice awards ceremony had a political edge on Saturday evening as multiple winners used their acceptance speeches to express sympathy for the Palestinian people and condemn Israel's military campaign in Gaza."
Well, no, they did not "express sympathy for the Palestinian people." A Ph.D. in history is not necessary to understand that Israel sits on land traditionally known as "Palestine" and that Jews have lived on that land for millennia, in "Ottoman-controlled Palestine, the original home of the Jews." And no one needs a Ph.D. in political science or geography to know that there are Muslims considered "Palestinian" throughout the Middle East, including in Jordan, where they constitute roughly half the population.
Of course, the speakers did not speak up for those Palestinians. They have been disappeared by activists, who have no regard for Muslims, Arab or Persian, outside of Gaza or perhaps the West Bank. They cannot be concerned with them because the target of the ire is Israel, and Israel alone.
The speakers were applauded and there is no indication any was booed. The hostility to the Jewish state is widespread but concentrated in Hollywood. There is a reason for that and it has become increasingly clear that it is encapsulated in the adjective in the sentence immediately preceding this one.
The 2024-2025 NFL season kicked off on Thursday night with a home game of the Kansas City Swifties against the Baltimore Ravens. At each opening game the past eight seasons, Lift Every Voice and Sing," dubbed the "Black National Anthem," has been sung, as has the Star-Spangled Banner. This fellow is not amused:
Why has the NFL replaced our National Anthem with the so-called “BLACK” national anthem?!
We have ONE national anthem, and it’s the Star Spangled Banner.
Respectively, he's wrong, he's right, and it ain't going to happen. The Black National Anthem has been played on many occasions before NFL games since the social unrest of 2020 and the National Anthem is played before each game. Moreover, the NFL is not going to be boycotted. Television contracts already are in place and even in the unlikely event that viewership suffers, sales of merchandise ("merch") for individual teams and players will continue to soar.
However, we do have only one National Anthem, the Star-Spangled Banner. It's not as good a composition as is "Lift Every Voice and Sing" but it is the national anthem. If there were more than one national anthem, there would be no national anthem.
This is a difficult concept for so many people, perhaps especially educated people. Thus.....
Does the Star Spangled Banner apply to only white Americans? Or does it apply only to white and brown Americans and not black Americans? A former sports personality, now a contributor at The Atlantic, believes the answer to the latter question is "yes."
So every year we just have to go through this thing where some white people get ridiculously angry upon discovering 1) that a Black national anthem exists 2) that the NFL has been playing it for years at the start of the season.
Were this song even an anthem for a people, it would be an African-American anthem or a West Indies anthem or Caribbean anthem or, theoretically, an Asian-American or European-American anthem. "National" refers to- modifies- "nation."
There is only one national anthem in the USA, as in other nations. And, yes, we will "just have to go through this thing" every year until Hill and others overcome their racial nationalism. The National Anthem does not apply to whites, blacks. Latinos, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders or tribal matters. It belongs to all of us.
Although a charter member of the (non-existent) Double Haters for Harris club, I cannot ignore a habit of the Democratic presidential nominee.
This should have been an easy one, even for a bad press secretary. Noting the southern accent Harris briefly assumed at a rally with unions in Detroit, Peter Doocy asked Jean-Pierre "since when does the vice president have what sounds like a southern accent?" The press secretary responded "I have no idea what you're talking about."
Evidently, she either was lying or is simply unaware. Doocy noted that the vice president had briefly sported a southern accent in Pittsburgh, and she has done so in Atlanta.
Jean-Pierre maintained
Do you hear the question that you’re… Do you think Americans seriously think that this is an important question? You know what they care about? They care about the economy. They care about lowering costs. They care about healthcare. That’s what Americans care about. That’s what they want to hear....
They care about, your colleague just asked me about democracy, basically we talked about, went back and forth about democracy and freedom. That’s what they care about.
Having entertained- not answered, but entertained- the question, Jean-Pierre commented "I'm not even going to entertain some question about the.... Hearing it sounds so ridiculous" and a moment later characterized it as "just insane."
Alas, not so ridiculous or insane:
The ignorant or deceptive response from Karine Jean-Pierre could have been easily avoided. The official position held by Jean-Pierre is White House Press Secretary, whose "primary responsibility" (according to Wikipedia) is "to act as spokesperson for the executive branch of the United States federal government, especially with regard to the president, senior aides and executives, as well as government policies."
Jean-Pierre is not the campaign chairman. She might have legitimately sidestepped the rather snippy but legitimate query by noting that she is not a spokesperson for the campaign and that the question would be more appropriately posed to the nominee herself. "My role in this position is not to speak for her, or anyone's campaign, and you may wish to direct the question to the candidate herself" should not have been difficult to figure out.
The good news is that American voters are not averse to voting for an inauthentic politician for President: actor Reagan over Carter and Mondale; WJ Clinton over Dole; Bush over Gore and Kerry; Obama over McCain; and the ultimate in inauthenticity- Donald J. Trump- over HR Clinton. And better news: a President Trump would replace Karine Jean-Pierre (presumably with a Republican) and a President Harris probably would want her own woman or man in the position. Let's hope for the latter outcome, notwithstanding the diversity of bad accents we might be subjected to.
