A Reason that Biden's Withdrawal Was Unavoidable

In the last 48 hours, we've learned why it was necessary for Joe Biden, a very good President, to bow out of the presidential race and why selecting Tim Walz over Josh Shapiro was a very wise decision by Kamala Harris. (If Harris loses this election, and solely because of losing Pennsylvania, please forget this latter point.)

Politico White House bureau chief and MSNBC host Jonathan Lemire has written

The White House scrambled Tuesday night to clean up a remark by President Joe Biden, who appeared to refer to Donald Trump's supporters as "garbage" — though the president and his aides vehemently denied that was his intention.

“The only garbage I see floating out there is his supporter’s — his — his demonization of Latinos is unconscionable, and it's un-American,” Biden said in a Zoom call with the organization Voto Latino, a liberal nonprofit group, on Tuesday evening, according to a White House transcript. “It's totally contrary to everything we've done, everything we've been.”

It was not only "according to a White House transcript" and the White House did not have to "clean (it) up." It's what Joe Biden literally said.

An  Axios reporter similarly was confused, although an English-speaking progressive blogger tried to clear up his confusion:

One of those cases where it's clear what Biden said and the only question is how much MSM journalists will allow Trumpers to lie about it. Nothingburger. "demonization" coming after supporters makes no sense unless it's the supporters demonization. Again, Trump's closing on… https://t.co/W0HI0U3J9n

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) October 30, 2024

To make matters worse

When asked whether Biden should clarify his comment, Shapiro replied, "Well, I think President Biden will decide what he wants to say. It's certainly not words that I would choose, and I think it's important that we remain focused on the contrast between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump and not attacking supporters of either candidate."

(Of course, it doesn't help that Harris misinterpreted Biden's remark. But, Kamala Harris.)

Josh Shapiro is the Democratic governor of the state most likely to provide the pivotal electoral votes in this election, and he was refusing to tell CNN's Kaitlan Collins that she was, at the least, misinterpreting the Biden remarks. He might have tried something such as "they're not words that I would use. However, the President was not referring to Americans but the demonization of Latinos by such a loyal supporter of an ex-President that the guy was chosen to speaking at a Trump rally."

Would that have been so hard? No, especially because Shapiro is not up for re-election this cycle. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that the Pennsylvania governor, who ultimately was passed up by Kamala Harris, for Tim Walz, is out for himself. That is not the case with Walz, which contrasts favorably to Shapiro and to the party's presidential nominee.

Surprise! (Not surprise.) Harris, who could have stated "as the President's clarification confirms, neither I nor the President believes voters should be criticized for whom they vote," instead refused to defend the man who put her on his team four years ago.

 

Nonetheless, the several instances of misinterpretation, probably deliberate in some instances and unintentional in others, illustrates the danger which continuation of the Biden candidacy would have posed.  The media simply doesn't like the guy, in a manner in which "doesn't like" is doing a lot of work.

You may recall that in the months prior to (and unavoidably, after) Joe Biden's debate with Donald Trump, that the media obsessed over polls taken about the President's mental and physical fitness to continue in office.  Trump has mistaken rape victim E. Jean Carroll for Marla Maples; former California state senator Nate Holden for former San Francisco mayor and political fixer Willie Brown; Nancy Pelosi for Nikki Haley; and Joe Biden for Barack Obama (eight times). But there are oh, so many questions about Biden's mental acuity and voters wouldn't stand for it, we were told.

In 2020, Trump refused to release his medical records; in 2020, his doctors pretended his case of Covid-19 was less serious than it was; in 2024, he won't allow doctors to talk about his medical condition after the assassination attempt in western Pennsylvania. Yet, it was Joe Biden who was portrayed as inadequate to perform the tasks of the presidency for lack of vigor and vitality.

Fortunately, for Kamala Harris, there is no such concern. Not only is she appreciably younger than Biden (or Trump), far less hostility prevails in the media toward the Vice President. There is even a bounce in their step that the nation may be on the verge of electing the first black (or Asian-American or bi-racial, as the media prefers it at the time) woman to the presidency.

By contrast, Joe Biden was never a darling to the Fourth Estate. And reaction to the incident in which the words (arguably) and the context (inarguably) indicate that the President was not calling Trump's supporters "garbage" demonstrate yet again that Biden is not the sort of individual they believe should be operating in the Oval Office.

If Kamala Harris has a far better chance- as she does- to keep Donald Trump away from the absolute power he intends to wield, the withdrawal by Joe Biden from the race was a great patriotic act. And with her choice of a running mate, a President Harris won't have to watch her back.

Share |

Enemy Within

Well, this can't be good: 

It was not the first time that Donald J. Trump has referred to "the enemy within.when on October 13

“I think the bigger problem is the enemy from within,” Trump said. He added: “We have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the big — and it should be very easily handled by, if necessary, by National Guard, or if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

Trump has repeatedly invoked the phrase “enemy from within” in recent speeches. On Saturday, he used it to refer to Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., a prominent Trump critic who oversaw the congressional investigation that led to Trump’s first impeachment. Schiff is now running for the Senate.

More recently, on October 20 Fox News' Howard

Kurtz asked Trump, “You talk about the enemy within, then America’s enemies outside, the enemy within is a pretty ominous phrase if you’re talking about other Americans. Who are you talking about?”

“I think that’s accurate,” Trump responded before taking a dig at Pelosi and Schiff.

“These are bad people. We have a lot of bad people,” Trump said. “But when you look at ‘Shifty Schiff’ and some of the others, yeah, they are to me, the enemy from within. I think Nancy Pelosi is an enemy from within.”

However, appearing on October 28 on CNN's State of the Union with Jake Tapper

Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance insisted that Donald Trump’s attacks on “the enemy within” were not directed at Democratic Party leaders but dissenting Americans he described as “far-left lunatics” poised to riot if the former president wins in November.

Grilled by CNN’s Jake Tapper on Trump’s use of the loaded phrase, Vance defended his ticket mate, saying the former president would not unleash the military on “Americans writ large.”

“He’s said publicly that he wants to use the military to go after the enemy within, which is the American people,” Tapper said in an interview that aired Sunday on “State of the Union"....

Yet according to Vance

He said that he wanted to use the military to go after far-left lunatics who are rioting, and … he also called them ‘the enemy within.’ He separately, in a totally different context, in a totally different conversation, said that Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff were threats to this country.

Well, no, Trump once singled out Adam Schiff as one of those enemies of the people and on another occasion argued "when you look at 'Shifty Schiff' and some of the others, yeah, they are to me, the enemy from within. I think Nancy Pelosi is an enemy from within."

However, this is not only Trump and the guy he once described as possibly "America's Hitler."  CNN noted also that Vance was

echoing a script other Republicans have stuck to when asked similar questions.

“I did not hear President Trump in that clip say he’s going to sic the military on Adam Schiff. That’s not what he’s saying,” the Louisiana Republican said. “You got two different clips in two different contexts.”

The week before, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin, also speaking to Tapper, said Trump was not talking about political opponents.

I guess what I want to just make very clear is that it’s my belief that what former President Trump is talking about are the people that are coming over the border, that, in fact, are committing crimes, that are bringing drugs, that are trafficking humans and that are turning every state into a border state,” the Republican governor said.

There has been no known, credible threat from American leftists – many of whom have soured on Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris – relating to post-election violence or “riots.”

That was that nice Glenn Youngkin, a "moderate Republican" to much of the media, and who is rarely or ever considered "MAGA." It should be a warning to mainstream media that if Donald Trump is elected, he will move aggressively toward establishing a police state, and that major Republicans will not balk at his evisceration of the Constitution. The danger will come not only from a President Trump but also from his Republican Party, whose members will unhesitatingly line up behind him, because it is the Republican Party.

Share |

Danger Below Deck

It's over! Kamala Harris has been elected President and Donald J. Trump has been shoved into the dustbin of history. We know that because

At a rally Friday in Houston in front of 30,000 people — the biggest crowd of her campaign — the vice president sought to unleash the energy of her first days as a candidate for president.

There was a DJ who kept the crowd on their feet singing and doing the wave for hours. A performance by music legend Willie Nelson. And glowing wrist bracelets distributed to an energetic crowd that included people who waited more than five hours to enter the stadium.

And, amid deafening cheers and applause, arguably the most famous woman in the world introduced Harris to the stage: Beyoncé.

“Is it possible not to feel the energy in this room,” Beyoncé said before quickly switching to a serious tone.

“I’m not here as a celebrity, I’m not here as a politician, I’m here as a mother,” she said. “A mother who cares deeply about the world my children and all of our children live in. A world where we have the freedom to control our bodies.”

(Well, yes, because when I think of Beyonce, it's not as a great pop star or beautiful woman, it's as a "mother.")

There is something happening here, of which this is only a part, which the media neither understands nor is exploring, a strategy targeting Donald Trump, and only Donald Trump. 

The July rollout of the Harris-Walz campaign, which sparked immense enthusiasm and a sharp rise in favorable polls, would eventually hit a brick wall and require a reset. The vice president realized that there are many Independents (and a few Republicans) who believe both parties are committed only to winning elections and the special interests which back them. They believe politicians are addicted to bickering with, and getting an edge on, the opposition while accomplishing nothing.

And so in late August, Kamala Harris told CNN's Dana Bash that she "would" appoint a Republican to the Cabinet. Nominating Adam Kinzinger as Secretary of Veterans Affairs or someone else reasonably characterized as a Republican in Name Only would be reasonable. Nonetheless, the Vice President could have been less explicit, explaining that she would tap the best individual who would reflect the values of her Administration and her determination that government serve the American people effectively.

            

This is only a small item, in which "hope." unveiled at the Democratic National convention, has been replaced with an emphasis on bipartisanship..

On July 21, 2024 President Joe Biden announced that he will not be seeking re-election. On September 4, former US Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming publicly endorsed Kamala Harris for President, stating "because of the danger that Donald Trump poses, not only am I not voting for Donald Trump but I will be voting for Kamala Harris." On October 3, Cheney appeared with Harris at a rally in Ripon, Wisconsin, the birthplace of the Republican Party, and asserted "I have never voted for a Democrat but this year, I am proudly casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris."  She noted Donald Trump "is petty, he is vindictive, and he is cruel, and Donald Trump is not fit to lead this good and great nation."

On October 21, Harris and Cheney began a tour of the battleground states of the northern tier, appearing together in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

It is not by coincidence or oversight that the very conservative Liz Cheney, daughter of the destructive vice President Dick Cheney (who also has endorsed Harris), warns the voting public of the evil of Donald Trump, the lawlessness of Donald Trump, and the danger posed by Donald Trump (all accurate).  Cheney was co-chairperson of the January 6 commission and was vanquished in a House primary by a relatively unknown candidate endorsed by Donald Trump, who has recommended a military tribunal try Cheney for treason. The penalty for treason is death and the former congresswoman takes the threat seriously. Hanging focuses the mind.

 

Cheney is courageous, the evidence being that few other former or current Republican officeholders, have been as definitive or as public as she has in urging the defeat of Donald Trump by Kamala Harris. The current Speaker of the House is only one Republican, albeit a uniquely powerful one, who is enthusiastically supporting  the former President. This comes even (especially) after Trump has attacked the "enemy within" and has been credibly described as a "fascist" by his former Chief of Staff, who reports that President Trump openly lamented that "my generals" weren't as deferential to him as he believes Adolf Hitler's generals were to the Fuehrer.

Amidst the former GOP officials who last month signed a letter supporting Harris and the Trump administration officials who promulgated a letter backing General Kelly's description of Trump, very few Republican officeholders have anything but favorable words for the ex-President. Now on board are Senators Marco Rubio, Lindsay Graham, Mike Lee, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, former governor Nikki Haley, and numerous other prominent Republicans who condemned Trump in the wake of the 1/6/21 insurrection or whom he condemned.

Not a word Liz Cheney- still a Republican- has said nothing about these individuals. Kamala Harris is stunningly quiet.  Add to them the Harris-Walz campaign and the vast majority of Democratic insiders, who have turned mum about members of what many had legitimately termed a "cult."

This appears to have been a conscious choice by a presidential candidate who is not only concerned most about her own campaign, but exclusively on her own campaign. And this is very likely having ramifications for down-ballot Democrats.

It's difficult to determine how much impact there has been from the decision to vilify Donald Trump- as he should be- while pretending no other Republican has stymied the agenda of incumbent Democratic President Joe Biden or added to the toxic atmosphere in Washington or across the nation. But we can get a clue from the changing outlook for one Democrat, Senator Tammy Baldwin, in the swing state of Wisconsin.

When Joe Biden was still the more or less presumed nominee, pundits noted that Democrats would lose the Senate race in West Virginia, with their other most endangered seats in Maryland, Ohio, Montana, and Arizona. Though the Democratic candidate in Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Wisconsin was not a shoo-in, the GOP was seen as unlikely to overcome the odds there.

The races in the latter states are now, as Dan Rather would put it, "hotter than a Times Square Rolex." On July 21, Baldwin led her GOP challenger, Eric Hovde,, 48.0% to 43.2%, according to the Real Clear Politics average of polls. 

On September 10, with Harris riding high, Baldwin enjoyed a 50.8 to 44.9 lead. However, on September 24, her lead had declined to 50.8 to 46.0 and on October 10, it was 49.4 to 46.0. In the latest numbers, of October 24, the lead had shrunk to 48.0% to 47.2%, less than a one percent advantage. On October 10, it was 49.4 to 46.0 

It is only one state, maybe there was an issue. peculiar to Wisconsin involved, and there is always the margin of error factor. However- again a Ratherism, this race is "tight as the pages in a book." So, too, has the Democratic advantage in Senate races dwindled in Nevada and Ohio, and the Republican challenger to Democrat Jon Testa in Montana has winded.

Once Biden had his infamous, disastrous debate with Trump in early July, Donald Trump was at "first and goal from four yards out" (yes, Rather again). Fortunately, Trump has been driven back and the end zone, while still in his sight, is much further away.

It seems that all the while, the fortunes of Democratic senatorial candidates have been dwindling.  Moreover, the Democratic Party's advantage in the generic preference for the House of Representatives  "has slipped to just +0.5 points over the Republicans, down from a peak of 12.6 in early September.".

The slippage in the possibility that Democrats will fare well in Senate races and regain control in the House should not be surprising. Kamala Harris' campaign of joy relied not on defense of the Biden-Harris record nor ideological principle but primarily on the personal appeal of Kamala Harris as contrasted to the sour, dour, raging anger of Donald Trump. The emphasis in the latter half of the campaign has been on the peril of Donald Trump, and Donald Trump alone, as if he is not faithfully representing the extremist values and divisive strategy of the Republican Party.

Undecided voters, the Vice President hopes, have gotten the message. She can get along with Republicans, and they like her. No more will Washington be a cacophony of quarreling factions, accomplishing nothing. 

Such voters, most of them Independents and presumably all independent-minded, are being called upon to pull the lever (or punch the card, or whatever) for Harris-Walz. Many of them (as Kamala Harris likely realizes) will decide to opt for her, then be faced with a decision on down-ballot candidates. Having- however reluctantly- gone for the less divisive presidential candidate, they will choose to balance out their vote by choosing Republican candidates (bipartisanship, you know).

Most of them believe both parties are generally rancid and that neither party deserves much of an advantage over the other. So they will have little reason not to split the difference, especially because the Democratic Party, as guided by the top of the presidential ticket (the top of the pecking order) now appears to stand for only one thing: Trump bad, Republicans good.

Share |

Hitler-Lite

As noted by Fox News

CNN commentator Scott Jennings addressed former Trump chief of staff John Kelly's claim that former President Trump once spoke favorably of Adolf Hitler on Tuesday.

"I would humbly submit to Mr. Kelly that if he’s worried about Hitler and he’s worried about fascism, he ought to pick up the newspaper," Jennings said, referring to anti-Israel protests that have continued to divide U.S. college campuses following the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israel.

"There’s thousands of Hitlers running around this country right now, running around college campuses, running around New York City, chasing Jewish people around, blocking their access on college campuses," Jennings said. "If you’re worried about Hitler and you’re talking about Donald Trump, maybe open your eyes and take in what’s happening on the American left in this country. Those are the Hitlers I’m worried about."

General Kelly had

said the former president would seek to rule like an authoritarian if he returned to the White House. In the interviews published on Tuesday, he quoted Trump as having told him German Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler "did some good things."

Trump's team has denied the accounts.

"He certainly prefers the dictator approach to government," Kelly said, according to the newspaper. "Certainly the former president is in the far-right area, he's certainly an authoritarian, admires people who are dictators - he has said that. So he certainly falls into the general definition of fascist, for sure."

For firsthand testimony, it's not only John Kelly anymore.

Trump Homeland Security Official Kevin Carroll:
Trump “frequently said to senior staff, ‘Why don’t my generals support me the way that H!tler’s generals supported him?’”
pic.twitter.com/7u5X8YwYe0

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) October 23, 2024

As with some of those "thousands of Hitlers running around this country," Donald Trump is profoundly bigoted and ignorant. But unlike the others, he is within striking distance of the presidency, is almost uniquely corrupt, is a convicted felon who has been otherwise thrice indicted, and is determined to be a tyrant, which wouldn't end on Day One.

Share |

Harris Campaign Trivia

Shakespeare wrote "to be or not to be. That is the question." The question now is "did she or didn't she?" but perhaps should be "and does it matter"?

The Telegraph reports that 

According to Quentin Fulks, her deputy campaign manager, she worked at a branch of McDonald's in Alameda, California during the summer of 1993, while she was a student at Howard University....

Ms. Harris did not refer to the job in either of her memoirs, published in 2010 and 2019, and appears to have first revealed the job during a rally in Las Vegas in 2019.

The Telegraph indicates that McDonald's has been striving to stay out of the controversy, apparently instructing employees to refuse comment. The corporation did remark "We and our franchisees don't have records for all positions dating back to the early 80s." However, "according to Quentin Fulks, her deputy campaign manager, she worked at a branch of McDonald's in Alameda, California during the summer of 1993, while she was a student at Howard University."

Consequently, it is unclear whether Kamala Harris worked at the fast-food "restaurant" as she said she did. Not unclear, however, is that still

Former President Trump appears to be sticking to his years long stance of declining to make his tax returns available to the public as the 2024 presidential campaign enters its final stretch.

With a little more than two months to go until Election Day, Trump has yet to release his most recent tax returns, while Vice President Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent, has so far released 20 years’ worth of tax returns.

Trump’s decision during his initial White House run and subsequent presidency not to release tax returns bucked nearly 50 years of precedent established by President Nixon. The only other president not to make his full tax returns public during this period was Gerald Ford, who provided a tax summary.

It's roughly the same deal with their medical records as recently

the White House released medical records for Vice President Kamala Harris, with her physician describing her as being in "excellent health."

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump has yet to release his medical records despite promising numerous times to do so. Trump previously released the results of a physical exam and memos on his health from his personal physicians.

After the rally, yet even three months after the attempt on the life of the ex-President, the Trump campaign "has refused to discuss his condition, release a medical report or records, or make the doctors who treated him available, leaving information to dribble out from Trump, his friends and family."

A week after the tragic incident, the campaign released a letter from right-wing extremist Ronny Jackson, now a member of the US House of Representatives from Texas and Trump acolyte, and formerly White House physician to Trump and Barack Obama He claimed

ABC News noted Trump sustained a gunshot wound to the right ear that came "less than a quarter of an inch from entering his head, and struck the top of his right ear."

The bullet track, he said, "produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear. Three was initially significant bleeding, followed by marked swelling of the entire upper ear." 

As to his credibility, this is the same Ronny Jackson who was investigated in March, 2021 by the Department of Defense Inspector General and 

After interviewing 78 witnesses and reviewing a host of White House documents, investigators concluded that Jackson, who achieved the rank of Rear Admiral, failed to treat his subordinates with dignity and respect, engaged in inappropriate conduct involving the use of alcohol during two incidents and used sleeping medication during an overseas trip that raised concerns about his ability to provide medical care to the President and other top officials, according to the report.

The report also notes that the investigation into Jackson “was limited in scope and unproductive” as White House counsel under Trump insisted on being present at all interviews of current White House Medical Unit employees, which had a “potential chilling effect” on the probe.

Sometimes a zebra does change its spots, though evidently not with the congressman as last August

Newly released video shows U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Amarillo, being slammed to the ground by police and angrily confronting a state trooper with profanity during a hectic altercation late last month at a rodeo outside Amarillo.

“You are a fucking full-on dick!” Jackson told the trooper after being brought off the ground, according to bodycam footage provided by the Department of Public Safety. “You better recalculate, motherfucker!”

DPS Trooper Cade Young repeatedly told Jackson that multiple people asked him to step aside so EMS could respond to a medical emergency. Jackson, a physician to two presidents, disagreed and continued to confront Young on the sidelines of the event, with bystanders physically restraining Jackson as he lunged toward the trooper, jabbing his finger and yelling profanities.

“I’m gonna call the governor tomorrow and I’m gonna talk to him about this shit because this is fuckin’ ridiculous,” Jackson told Young at one point. “Fuckin’ ridiculous.”

Seems nice. The odds that Donald Trump, who was released from the hospital almost as soon as he was admitted, actually was struck by a bullet rather than shrapnel probably is about as great as that Kamala Harris did actually work at McDonald'. Somewhere between very unlikely and maybe seems about right. 

The validity of  Harris' purported stint dishing out french fries is far less important than a reported assassination attempt which Donald Trump weaponized with a defiant "Fight!" seconds after being shot/not shot. And we still don't know the status of the Republican candidate's medical condition, nor his tax status or business entanglements with foreign nations.

It probably doesn't matter that we cannot be certain that Kamala Harris was telling the truth about a minimum wage (or thereabouts) job she held while at law school. By contrast, Donald Trump is a Nazi sympathizer.

James Carville’s reaction to Trump at McDonald’s: He’s doing a Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden pic.twitter.com/GbqkALC2yX

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) October 21, 2024

Share |

Tossing Things Against the Wall

You won't be surprised that U.S. Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, once on Donald Trump's short list for vice president, has jumped to a venomous conclusion.

2/3 of America is Christian.
1/4 of America is Catholic.

Kamala has made it clear that she DOES NOT want YOUR vote.

She skips key Catholic events.
They mock Communion.

And she even told voters who believe "Jesus is Lord" & "Christ is King" that they were at the "WRONG RALLY." pic.twitter.com/zz54zJec4c

— Byron Donalds (@ByronDonalds) October 20, 2024

The eight-second video which mocked Communion featured Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer was tasteless, part of an equally tasteless social media trend. Although Whitmer was wearing a camoflauge Harris-Walz cap, the video did not include either the presidential or vice-presidential candidate, and Whitmer herself has sort-of almost apologized for the incident. Thee is no "they" who mocked the Christian sacrament but Whitmer currently is running for nothing, so a "she" became a "they" to Donalds.

And Harris does not avoid "key Catholic events."  Outside of the Washington, D.C. beltway, southern California, or Manhattan, no one cares about the Al Smith dinner. Tens of millions- conservatively speaking- of Americans don't know who Al Smith was and even fewer care. Admittedly, it does give the power elite a chance to shell out $5,000 (minimum) for a ticket, dress up and hobnob with the power elite but the event long ago lost most of its luster and significance.

By contrast, Trump did appear so that he could deliver a "bitter, profanity-laden rant against his political opponents," including "I don't give a shit if this is comedy or not." Worse yet: "Catholics, you gotta vote for me. Just remember. You better remember that I'm here and she's not." A dinner event, he believes is less important to Catholics than the economy, national security, gun safety, reproductive rights, or whether to give unlimited power to a guy who believes immigrants are sub-human. And you better remember-  or else.

More significant is the claim about the rally.  The congressman remarks "And she even told voters who believe 'Jesus is Lord' & 'Christ is King' that they were at the 'WRONG RALLY'."

You are to believe that Kamala Harris told voters they were at the wrong rally because they believe Jesus is Lord and Christ is King. 

However, that does not appear to be what happened. According to Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel's Laura Schulte

Vice President Kamala Harris was interrupted by hecklers at a rally for supporters at the La Crosse Recreational Eagle Center Thursday.

It was the Democratic presidential nominee's second campaign event in the battleground state of Wisconsin on the day. About 20 minutes into Harris' speech, a number of attendees were escorted out, while shouting "Jesus is Lord" at those around them.

Unfazed, Harris stopped her remarks and countered. "Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally," she said. "No, I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street."

The crowd erupted into cheers and applause as the protesters were shown toward the door.

It wasn't "unfazed," rather a great line delivered at just the right time, almost as if the candidate had the line ready for when she would be heckled. (Skip the "almost.") The Independent reported

“Remember Donald Trump hand selected three members of the United States Supreme Court with the intention that they would undo the protections of Roe vs. Wade,” Harris said as murmurs began coming from a section in the crowd.

“And they did as they intended,” the vice president concluded, before being met with a chant of “Lies! Lies! Lies!” from one rallygoer and at least one more shouting out. The crowd erupted into cheers and applause as the protesters were shown toward the door.

Neither news article is complete, though it seems that any Christian chant occurred after the heckling had garnered Harris' attention and the protestors were asked to leave.

This latest incident smacks of the exploitation of the  Springfield, Ohio Haitians-eating-dog and cats (unfounded) rumor, which eventually prompted Trump's running mate to admit that he likes to "create stories."  We don't know for sure what happened at that rally but prominent Republicans really don't care what the truth is about that, or almost anything else. And that is probably even more important than the anti-Semitic or as anti-Catholic attributes of her opponent.

Share |

Could Have Been Worse

There are a few things wrong with Katie Phang's perspective here.

It’s disrespectful to cut off Kamala Harris and not allow her to respond to the question.

If you don’t want to hear her answer, then don’t invite her to do the interview. https://t.co/fdoKhJQ6nI

— Katie Phang (@KatiePhang) October 16, 2024

Brett Baier was not disrespectful to Kamala Harris, whom he respectfully called "ma'am." If you don't want to be cut off, try not to filibuster, a common tactic because there is only so much time allotted for the interview. Harris no doubt was aware of that and thus showed up late and ended the interview early. Further, if you don't want to do an interview with a particular journalist, maybe not request him as the interviewer.

Harris dodged Baier's question "how many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years?"  So Baier asked "do you regret the decision to terminate the remain in Mexico at the beginning of your administration?" The Vice President then noted

within practically hours of taking the oath, the first bill that we offered Congress, before we worked on infrastructure, before the Inflation Reduction Act, before the Chips and Science Act, before the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first bill, practically within hours of taking the oath, was a bill to fix our immigration system.

Aside from the last phrase, that is accurate. On the morning of January 29, 2021, Vox explained

On his first day as president on Wednesday, Joe Biden will send an ambitious immigration reform bill to Congress that would create an eight-year path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, bolster border security with new screening technologies, and deliver aid to Central America.

The bill, known as the US Citizenship Act of 2021 and outlined in a four-page summary shared with reporters, would represent the most sweeping immigration reform package passed since 1986.

It marks both a symbolic and substantive break with the restrictionist immigration policies that have defined the last four years under Donald Trump, setting the tone for what Biden promises will be a more welcoming era for immigrants in the US. At its core is a long-awaited proposal to legalize the more than 10.5 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the US, many of whom have lived in fear of being deported and uprooted from their families for years.

If that was "a bill to fix our broken immigration system," "fix" is used very loosely. As Vox implied- without using the loaded term- this was, at base, largely a bill promoting amnesty. In its Fact Sheet, the White House asserted

The bill allows undocumented individuals to apply for temporary legal status, with the ability to apply for green cards after five years if they pass criminal and national security background checks and pay their taxes. Dreamers, TPS holders, and immigrant farmworkers who meet specific requirements are eligible for green cards immediately under the legislation. After three years, all green card holders who pass additional background checks and demonstrate knowledge of English and U.S. civics can apply to become citizens.

Eventually, after complicated legal proceedings, "Remain in Mexico" was reinstated. Eventually, too, a bipartisan bill was crafted but shelved after, learning that the White House supported passage, Donald Trump successfully leaned on Speaker Mike Johnson to refuse to post the bill. The former President was eager to block passage of legislation designed in part to ease pressure on the border and Democrats haven't let him forget it. In the transaction which offended Phang, Harris argued 

..... we worked on supporting what was a bipartisan effort, including some of the most conservative members of the United States Congress, to actually strengthen the border (but Trump) leaned about that bill and told them to kill it because he preferred to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.

If the former President is at all self-aware, he rues the day he lobbied against the bill because his attitude has become the go-to answer for any Democrat pressed on the border crisis.

On social media, supporters of Kamala Harris have either whined about allegedly disrespectful treatment of the Democratic candidate or maintained that Harris gave Baier an ass-whipping. However, neither assessment is accurate.  As Bill O'Reilly, critical of Baier and especially of Harris, recognized "when the Vice President did not answer direct questions, Baier should have said that to audience, not in a disrespectful way but point out that the question was not answered, 'would you like another chance to answer the question that was asked?'"

Baier did not do that, nor ,when he cut off the interview prematurely because the candidate's handlers so insisted, did he report that to the audience. The supporters of Kamala Harris should be thankful that her campaign remains in effect, virtually unharmed, by an interview which could have gone much worse.

Share |

The Joy Is Gone

On Wednesday evening, Kamala Harris sat down with Fox News’ Brett Baier for what Politifact termed “a frequently contentious, sometimes testy exchange.” 

Most news outlets described the faceoff in similar terms. Forbes called it “a contentious interview” in which, The Hill noted, “the two sparred frequently.” The Washington Post noticed the candidate “sat for a contentious interview with Fox News” while Roll Call remarked that Harris “jousted with Fox News anchor Brett Baier in an interview (which was) her most contentious so far.” For The New York Times, it was "the most adversarial interview of her campaign."

The Democratic nominee aiming to be the first black female president had been interviewed by the National Association of Black Journalists; black entertainer Charlemagne tha God; 60 Minutes- which generously saw fit to edit its interview; liberal radio host Howard Stern; Oprah Winfrey, who first noticed politics when Barack Obama ran for President; and the Call Her Daddy podcast. So any exchange in which the questioner was not already in her corner would have to be “her most contentious so far.” Good job in assembling an Amen choir, Ms. Harris.

Nonetheless, the Fox News confrontation was less a friendly chit-chat than an interrogation, which should defined interviews with all serious presidential candidates, and as would be an interview with Donald Trump were he man enough to accept one.

My, how times have changed! In very early September Errin Haines, editor-in-chief of weekly newsletter The Amendment, spoke for conventional wisdom when she observed

Kamala Harris’ campaign for president has been largely defined by joy — which some people seem to think is a bad thing….

(But) For many Black Americans – particularly Black women – joy has long been a form of resilience and resistance, a method of survival. For Harris, it is also now political, as a key pillar of her campaign that is resonating with many Democrats. It’s attracting Americans who may be curious about her and this new feeling in our politics and tired of the divisive climate that has dominated much of the last decade.

Harris’ joy is also a visible rejection of the idea of the “angry Black woman,” a stereotype rooted in racism and misogyny that has long worked to dismiss and diminish Black women’s voices, leadership and agency across society. In this campaign, it is Trump who is the angry one, lashing out at Harris with personal attacks.

Her joy is a tactic that has disarmed Trump….

Well, evidently Ms. Harris has concluded that the strategy of joy has not sufficiently disarmed Trump. The Vice-President, justifiably or otherwise, was visibly annoyed at the questions she was asked and at being interrupted by Mr. Baier a she characteristically veered off-topic to attack Donald Trump and avoid answering the questions posed. Being challenged is very uncomfortable for the former Senator and state Attorney General.  There is no indication yet whether Ms. Haines, who decried the notion of the "angry Black woman," is pleased that Harris has helped confirm the stereotype.

The nominee's strategy, whatever it is now, may be more effective than the alternative of leveling with voters and still marks her as more honest and forthright than her opponent. In turn, that highlights the best argument for the election of Kamala Harris to the presidency: we are given a binary choice, and if Donald Trump’s opponent were only a dead armadillo or a live groundhog, he still would be the less qualified option.

 

Share |

He Didn't Build It Alone

Dude, that is the game. Podcaster and former actor Joe Rogan remarks

It's much more that he's a guy that is not going to play the game. Yeah. And that when he gets in there, he's going to, like one of the things he's talked about is having Elon come in and do some sort of a government efficiency agency. They're terrified of that because it's not efficient, you know, and he's going to come in with that Tesla mind set. It's like "you're working sixteen hours a day and you're sleeping on the fucking couch. We're here to get some shit done."

NEW: @joerogan says the establishment is "terrified" of @realDonaldTrump and @elonmusk's plan for a government efficiency agency.

"That's why I think they're really terrified about Trump. He's not going to play the game."

"He's talked about having Elon come in to do a… pic.twitter.com/LXOHfGWCDJ

— KanekoaTheGreat (@KanekoaTheGreat) September 27, 2024

As long ago as 2015, we learned that great, Musk-driven, government-averse, private company Tesla Motors Inc. and

SolarCity Corp. and Space Exploration Technologies Corp., known as SpaceX, together have benefited from an estimated $4.9 billion in government support, according to data compiled by The (Los Angeles) Times. The figure underscores a common theme running through his emerging empire: a public-private financing model underpinning long-shot start-ups.

“He definitely goes where there is government money,” said Dan Dolev, an analyst at Jefferies Equity Research. “That’s a great strategy, but the government will cut you off one day.”

The figure compiled by The Times comprises a variety of government incentives, including grants, tax breaks, factory construction, discounted loans and environmental credits that Tesla can sell. It also includes tax credits and rebates to buyers of solar panels and electric cars.

Moreover

Tesla, since its founding over two decades ago, has benefitted from government assistance, largely because of its role in moving the U.S. toward cleaner cars. Tesla’s first major manufacturing facility, in Fremont, California, was developed with the help of a $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy, repaid three years later.

More recently, Tesla has reaped almost $9 billion since 2018 by selling what are known as “regulatory credits, opens new tab,” securities filings show. The credits, awarded in the U.S. by the federal and state governments to manufacturers who surpass increasingly strict emissions rules, can be sold to other carmakers who are unable to comply.

There was no Tesla without California’s regulatory bodies,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said at a 2022 conference, citing the importance of the state’s credits to the carmaker’s finances.

That "role in moving the U.S. toward cleaner cars" are tax subsidies to purchasers of electric vehicles. Good- barely- neoliberal strategy for reducing fossil fuel use but excellent for Musk's motor vehicle company.

Donald Trump is proposing

 a government efficiency commission to audit the entire federal government (and) claimed that in 2022 "fraud and improper payments alone cost taxpayers an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars.” He said the commission would recommend “drastic reforms” and develop a plan to eliminate fraud and improper payments within six months, which he said would save trillions of dollars.

It would be led by Elon Musk despite- no, because- he is one of America's biggest welfare queens and avatar of crony capitalism. 

Nonetheless, as a "populist" such as Joe Rogan will explain, the problem with American business and government is that workers don't toil 16 hours a day as he argues they do at Tesla. So much for the Fair Labor Standards Act and that dreaded eight-hour workday. That is not Trump "not going to play the game". It is the game- a government of, by, and for Elon Musk and his fellow oligarchs.

Share |

Then What About Russia?

J.D. Vance is right. and not only in the manner in which he suggests.

If 60 Minutes had an ounce of integrity, they would release the full, unedited interview.

The person who can't answer basic questions about national security wants to be our next president. Show us what she actually said, in full. https://t.co/E7iMpnZcoV

— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 10, 2024

 

If CBS News does have integrity, it will release the full, unedited interview. The media should leave it to the individual campaigns to edit remarks by their opponents. Notwithstanding Donald Trump's claim(s), it is not illegal or an example of "fake news," however that's defined. However, it is not the responsibility of a news outlet to do the messaging of either the candidate or the opponent of the candidate.

Of course, 60 Minutes and much of the broadcast media omit portions of an interview from that which is telecast. However, this is a candidate for office, the most important one in the land, and everything said by the interviewer and interviewee should be telecast. If that's not done- whether it makes the candidate look better or worse- the interview shouldn't be shown at all.

             

So Vance is right about CBS ethical obligation to release the full interview and the importance of a presidential candidate to "answer basic questions about national security." Unfortunately, Donald Trump, refusing to sit for an interview with 60 Minutes, chose not to answer or even entertain questions about national security or anything else. Kamala Harris deserves a passing grade for effort and Donald Trump a failing grade for the same.

However, of greater importance than balking, thus far, at releasing portions edited out of an interview is failure to release 

In his new book, War, Bob Woodward has reported that

As the coronavirus tore through the world in 2020, and the United States and other countries confronted a shortage of tests designed to detect the illness, President Donald Trump secretly sent coveted tests to Russian President Vladimir Putin for his personal use.

The deal having been down on the down low, Putin wisely cautioned Trump to keep his mouth shut about the transcription.  America First! The collaboration continued post-Trump presidency as

Four years later, the personal relationship between the two men appears to have persisted, Woodward reports, as Trump campaigns to return to the White House and Putin orchestrates his bloody assault on Ukraine. In early 2024, the former president ordered an aide away from his office at Mar-a-Lago, his private club and residence in Florida, so he could conduct a private phone call with the Russian leader, according to Woodward’s account.

The book does not describe what the two men purportedly discussed, and it quotes a Trump campaign official casting doubt on the supposed contact. But the unnamed Trump aide cited in the book indicated that the GOP standard-bearer may have spoken to Putin as many as seven times since Trump left the White House in 2021.

Trump may have violated the Logan Act, for which he would not be prosecuted if elected and for which he would not be prosecuted if defeated. Of more immediate concern-- more critical than Kamala Harris' answer about Israel- is whether Woodward's rendering is accurate and, if so, who initiated the calls and what was discussed.  A lawyer and former FBI agent understands

The thing no one is talking about with regard to Trump's Pooty calls over the last several years is that not only do we not know what they talked about, it's almost certain that Russia has recordings of them. Which means they have leverage. (I know, what's new, but still.)

— Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) October 9, 2024

J.D. Vance believes a vague, somewhat meandering answer about national security should be

Failure to air  a vague, somewhat meandering answer about national security by a presidential nominee is irresponsible. Ignoring a credible report about a liaison of a presidential nominee with Vladimir Putin is irresponsible and deeply dangerous.

  

 

Share |

For Some, It's Turmp, Not Republicans

This tweeter is on the right track but makes one major error.

If I wanted a Republican in office or in power, I would have voted for them! Democrats are perpetual losers who continually insist Republicans are fascists that want to take away our rights, while also saying how proud they are to have them in their administration. https://t.co/ymSrbh3Jd9

— AshleyStevens (@The_Acumen) October 8, 2024

Democrats do not continually insist Republicans are fascists. Democrats- several, anyway- insist Donald J. Trump is a fascist.

Consider the widely-acclaimed, and beloved among Democrats, acceptance speech in Chicago by Kamala Harris.  The nominee invoked the name "Trump" (or "Donald Trump") sixteen times. She invoked the word "Republican" (actually, "Republicans") one time.

If we thought that Harris instead referred to "Congress" or the "House of Representatives" as shorthand for "Republican," we need to think again.  She stated "as a part of his agenda, he and his allies would limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban, with or without Congress." 

There was no suggestion that it is Republicans aiming to "limit access to birth control, ban medication abortion and enact a nationwide abortion ban." It is the generic "Congress."

A moment later, she would add "and when Congress passes a bill to restore reproductive freedom, as president of the United States, I will proudly sign it into law." There was not even a hint that there is no chance Congress would pass such a bill if it is not controlled by Democrats, nor even that Democrats are the ones who would like to make this a reality.

And not only abortion rights because soon thereafter Ms. Harris would remark

Last year, Joe and I brought together Democrats and conservative Republicans to write the strongest border bill in decades. The border patrol endorsed it. But Donald Trump believes a border deal would hurt his campaign, so he ordered his allies in Congress to kill the deal.

It wasn't Republicans, to hear Harris explain it. It was Trump's allies, with no mention that they were Republicans. It was all Donald Trump, with no accountability assigned to his party.

And then there was the 60 Minutes interview aired on Monday, October 7. Vice President Harris was asked about her economic plan, with that segment beginning at 2:50 of the first, complete, video below (abridged video at end). At 5:10, CBS correspondent Bill Simmons asks her "how are you going to get this through Congress?"  After fifteen seconds of empty words by the guest, Simmons states/asks (at 5:29) "Congress has shown no inclination to move in your direction." Harris responds

I disagree with you. There are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts blew up our federal deficit. None of us- and certainly I- cannot afford to be myopic in terms of how I think about strengthening America's economy. Let me tell you something. I am a devout public servant. You know that. I am also a capitalist and I know the limitations of government.

("I have my principles but don't expect me to do anything with them.")

   

Congress passed President Trump's tax bill (promptly signed by the President) in November, 2017 with opposition from every Democrat, yet with a mere twelve Republicans. Every Republican member of the Senate voted for the bill. No Democrats did.  Like size, the partisan breakdown of Congress matters.

Nonetheless, the Democratic nominee says "there are plenty of leaders in Congress who understand and know that the Trump tax cuts" harmed Americans. She might have stated "there are plenty of leaders in Congress, including a few Republicans..." or :"there are plenty of leaders in Congress, especially Democrats...."

But, no, of course she didn't. Inform Kamala Harris: like size, partisan breakdown of Congress matters.

She would know that, obviously, but doesn't want to be associated with the Democratic Party as she continues her courtship with Republicans. And that is why the tweet above is accurate only up to a point. Democrats, and especially Harris, are very good at calling out Donald Trump for what he is. However, the party's presidential nominee is negligent, even grossly averse to, criticizing Republicans. That may work for her while down-ballot Democrats pay the price for a self-centered candidate.

 

Share |

Whatever This Was, It Was Not a Plea for Genocide

As a supporter of the one democratic state in the Middle East, I wish I could say that this former advisor to presidential candidate Bernie Sanders understands what Kamala Harris is saying. But I cannot.

In response to a straight forward question about whether America has any influence to prevent Netanyahu’s crimes, Harris just keeps repeating that America is committed to helping Israel “defend itself.” This is a genocidal ideology that should be resisted. https://t.co/HmuLm3Of2c

— Briahna Joy Gray (@briebriejoy) October 6, 2024

In this interview, the Vice President states 

When we think about the threat that Hamas, Hezbollah present, Iran, I think it is without any question our imperative to do allow Israel to defend itself against these kinds of attacks.

There is no need for Gray to fear, or even quarrel with, this remark. Harris seems to have no problem with Israel defending itself against attacks, as occurred following October 7, 2023. However, she did not say how Israel should "defend itself" against attacks nor whether Israel should launch any pre-emptive action. 

Moreover, the Vice President cited "the need for humanitarian aid, the need for this war to end, the need for a deal to be done which would release the hostages and create a ceasefire." That is not support for a "genocidal ideology." In fact, Harris did not advocate demilitarization of Gaza or the elimination of Hamas, the terrorist organization which set out one year ago today to kill as many Jews as possible. That, oddly enough, is not the "genocide" which Gray claims is occurring in the Middle East.

Kamala Harris and Tim Walz have told us more than once that Israel has a right to "defend itself." That concession to our only reliable ally in the region is no concession at all. Every nation has a right to defend itself. The questions what constitutes a "defense" and how the defense it carried out.

We cannot know for sure how Harris would answer those questions. I interpret her comments in a manner to mean something quite different than does Brianha Joy Gray. It's very difficult to read the tea leaves, which is probably the Vice President's intention in striving to become President, in the absence of which those views won't matter

In what shouldn't have to be explained but evidently does, Israel has by far the most powerful military in the region, believes its very existence is threatened, and would have wiped out the Muslims of Gaza and of the West Bank if it chose the way of genocide. It has not, and repeatedly putting "Israel" or "Zionists" in the same sentence with "genocide" won't change that reality.

Share |