The transcript is here, and we already talked about what she said about the need for the government to break up Facebook. There's other substance — the "constitutional crisis," foreign trade deals, the idea of a federal gun license, Medicare for all (including those in the country illegally), prosecuting parents for their kids' truancy, Biden's treatment of Anita Hill, "Why should you be the nominee?" — and you can talk about any of that — but I'm interested in the overall impression she makes on camera for 10 minutes.
I really don't understand why she doesn't have people helping her make a better impression.
First, why did she (they?) accept a set up with Jake Tapper sitting much higher than her so that it looks like he's intimidating her and she's pleading with him. It looks like he's on a platform, but I can see that he is 11 inches taller than her (6'1" versus 5'2"), but their eye level should have been equalized. The many camera shots from behind his back look absurd.
Second, she looks anxious and insecure. She seems as if she's seeking approval from Jake, and he is absolutely not giving it. I ended up thinking, jeez, he hates her, but on reflection, I think he was maintaining a professional demeanor and she was using a technique that might work on underlings — nodding and shaking her head almost continually — and he had to maintain a steely demeanor. She never adapted, but kept lamely trying to extract approval from him. Sometimes she breaks out into a big smile and laughs, and that could be appealing, but with the head-nodding and approval-seeking, it seems subordinate and not presidential.
Third, she stumbles through her answers and is not prepared with strong material to handle predictable questions. For example:
TAPPER: Cory Booker has called for creating federal gun licenses, which would require fingerprints, an interview and a gun safety course. Opponents of this say it would essentially create a way for the government to -- to track gun owners. Would you support a federal gun license?She needed a yes or no answer about federal gun licenses, with an explanation why. It's insane to think you can get by — on the presidential level — just saying "I like the idea" and immediately pivoting to generic material about "courage" and how sad it is when a child dies! And that's just the transcript. The impression in the video is much worse. Here, I've clipped that section out. Note the evasive language and the continual head nodding. Also I've got a bit more than what's quoted above (and you'll see she's very eager to impose gun control — something, anything, including by executive order):
HARRIS: I like the idea. But, you know Jake, I'm going to tell you, on this issue of the need for gun safety laws, we're not at any loss for good ideas. People have been having good ideas for decades on this issue. What we're at a loss is for people in Congress to have the courage to do something. We -- and, you know, I'm going to tell you, on this subject, we're not waiting for the worst tragedy, because we've seen the worst of tragedies, including what just happened this week, and and and seeing the heroism of a child, who we now mourn his loss, his parents' only child.
ADDED: The pivot — "But, you know Jake, I'm going to tell you, on this issue of the need for gun safety laws" — is infuriating. Booker's proposal raises privacy interests, and Tapper pointed her right at the problem — it's "a way for the government to track gun owners" — and she swapped in "gun safety." Yes, we all care about gun safety, but we're concerned about privacy, and you just showed yourself to be someone who doesn't even notice privacy (or pretends not to notice).
पोस्ट्स
१३५ टिप्पण्या:
People have been having good ideas for decades on this issue.
But they really haven't. In fact, we've been lucky that's its taken the gun grabbers nearly a decade to learn the difference between semi-automatic and automatic, that a rifle sling keeper is NOT "that thing that pops up to launch a missile".
It would be like a pro-lifer confusing the uterus with the cervix and not understanding why no one is taking them seriously.
My favorite is the assertion of "common sense" gun laws, as I'm certain No True Scotsman would disagree with the need for them. The fact that the gun-grabbers must resort to such a cheap ploy indicates they don't have an argument and they know it.
Let’s interview everyone for drivers licenses. With an ICE agent standing by.
Liar Has Karma
Malaria Shark
5'2" is awfully short. A lot of early campaigning is done face to face. I wonder how being so small affects perception?
I think the going ons outside the windows were very distracting. Bad interview set up.
Boy, I see the staging you mention above. How did her people allow that ?
On her smiling and vague answers, she has had an advisor tell her she was too harsh and nasty in those Senate hearings.
She is trying to look feminine to counter the impression from the hearings.
People have been having good ideas for decades on this issue.
"People" came up with the best idea about 24 decades ago.
She needed a yes or no answer about federal gun licenses, with an explanation why
Not if you're relying on your handlers and political strategy experts which are telling you right now not to be pinned down on any particular issue. If you do your opponents will eat you up. Now is the time to run in front of the cameras with the sympathetic agitprop network, introduce yourself to voters, smile, let them see you, smile, and don't get pinned down on any issues.
Smile.
Cory Booker creeps me out and he wasn't even there.
Kamala is just not likable........enough.
"Universal background checks"
Again. Does anyone, anywhere, have any evidence that private transfers are a problem? When was the last mass shooting perpetrated by someone who didn't pass a background check to obtain their weapon?
This is not a good idea. This is lazy pablum. It would accomplish nothing, other than giving people a feeling of having done something. This is why we don't take you seriously. Because you are not serious.
Visualize the hand shake prior to the debate between Trump at 6' 14 1/2" and Kamel O'Harris at 3'1". He would just pet her as though she was a Shih Tzu.
I wonder if she is posing as The Oppressed to appeal to the Hillary voters. She can make it appear "there goes the Teh Patriarchy again!" and invoke victim status. Women will gravitate to her and not her positions on the issues. It's a hook to get their attention away from the other 42 candidates.
no
Open borders, killing off all private heath care, giving illegal entrants free health care and free everything else, forced democratic voter ID cards and forced voter registration and ballot harvesting for power and killing off the electoral college that gives all states an equal voice.
Comparing the Immigration and customs officers to the KKK. Note - Jake no asky. What's not to like?
Agree about the terrible staging. She looks like she is down in a pit with Tapper glowering down at her.
Universal! *drink*
Is she even Veep material at this point?
Oh come on. She photogenic and telegenic, but she's not SMART. End of story.
"she stumbles through her answers and is not prepared with strong material to handle predictable questions."
Wait until she gets a question from me!
Kamala is just not likable........enough.
It's the Disney Theory on why Harris is doomed.
Disney had a choice to cast the Captain Marvel as the orignal MCU heroine known as Monica Rambeau, the first black female to lead the Avengers. They chose instead to bet their future on a white chick. They know their audience, and they came to the conclusion that, for whatever reason, audiences would pass on a 2nd generation of Avengers movies if the leader was portrayed by a black actress.
Jake Tapper. Not softball enough?
Come on democratic operatives. Softballs only!
When it comes to gun control, like many other issues, people like Kamala simply do not think. They have no interest in thinking. No one ever taught them to think. So they go through life, feeling.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this."
Trump does this too -- but at least he seems to be decent at hiring people who can think for him. For the most part.
On many issues I see/hear clarity, not vague answers: She opposes NAFTA; she believes in much stronger gun regulations and believes that the President has the authority to impose those regulations unilaterally. Where Tapper pushed her into an unpleasant corner was on health care: she supports (vague bumper sticker) Medicare for all; she supports Bernie Sanders bill that would eliminate all private insurance (except for non-essential things like plastic surgery); but if her labor union supporters raise a big enough fuss, she does not support the Sanders bill that would eliminate all private insurance. And, she sees the need for swift decisive action to confront China on trade, but believes that the swift decisive action should only occur after lengthy negotiations to get all our allies to join us in a common anti-China action.
I disagree with her on the policies she supports, but I think the interview does present her views clearly (except for the union health care inconsistency).
FInally, I think we need to start referring to "Medicare for all" as "End Medicare as we Know It."
She’s horrible. Her responses just go round and round with no answer.
I know politicians typically don’t answer directly, but she’s really bad at it.
We need to “have a conversation” about reparations. We need to “talk about” breaking up Facebook. People “have issues and concerns” ...
Good grief...
And everyone on the left is trying to “outleft” the others. Reparations, gun control, lgbtqiabbq, green this, climate change that.
Arghhhhh. You all suck!
Corey Booker wants people to have “interviews” with federal agents before they can own a firearm. Can’t anyone just say “that’s going to far. Clearly unconstitutional?”
How about this... you can have a system that requires a government hack interview me and decide if I can exercise my constitutional right to keep and bear arms if I can have a system that requires a government hack interview you and decide if you can exercise your (made up) constitutional right to have an abortion.
I am betting women see her as the kind of woman you can’t trust around your husband. Kind of like I see Richard Gere, well, the younger one, as a man.
Its not a privacy issue.
We are in the middle of an ongoing coup against the voters by criminals who have convinced themselves they are entitled to rule.
What do you think these people would have tried if they didn't fear sparking an armed insurrection? Would Trump even have been inaugurated? Is there another check on them at this point? Certainly not the press.
Is Tapper running for president, or her?
She has an attractive yet troubled face apropos an Anacin commercial.
Democrats talk about guns but never face up to the reality that (a) private possession of firearms is a constitutional right and (b) there are already hundreds of millions of guns in private hands in the U.S. Reality "(a)" means that the best the Dems can ever hope to achieve legislatively is some nibbling around the edges to make it slightly harder for some people to buy a gun (legally). Reality "(b)" means that none of that nibbling, if accomplished, stands a chance of reducing gun violence to any significant extent. If the Dems are serious about saving lives, they should redirect their energies to other areas where mortality rates could possibly be improved, like combating drug addiction, medical error, or depression. All the focus on guns is a waste of time and so much virtue-signaling.
They are using the camera angles they used in LOTR to make the hobbits look tiny.
I don't see any clarity in her answers on trade. First, she went with the Obama consensus answer. Then, when Tapper pointed out that Trump's trade policies aren't very conventional, she tried to say he was right without saying it, because Orange Man Bad.
She's awful. She has been a terrible politician for the start. She does play the woman/minority thing well, which is why she rose above the other mediocre candidates to become my senator. I'm glad the nation is more sane than California and will not put her in the White House.
"I'm interested in the overall impression she makes"
Why?
The topic of her having sex with people is not relevant to this post. It's been discussed elsewhere on this blog. It's distracting here. Please keep to the many issues raised in the post. I'm going to delete this material. Don't discuss the moderation in this post. That's inherently distracting and off-topic.
In the court of public opinion polls, people prefer Biden. But 3rd or 4th is a good position to be his VP choice.
"What we're at a loss is for people in Congress to have the courage to do something."
She provides a good reason for her to stay in Congress and demonstrate courage a leadership, which to date she has not done.
EDH said...
She has an attractive yet troubled face apropos an Anacin commercial.
That's the nicest way I've ever seen someone accused of RBF.
It’s not “the topic of her having sex with people”
Comments and concerns about trump with stormy Daniels and others is “the topic of him having sex with people” (and trying to keep it secret).
With Harris it’s about her using sex with Willie Brown to get kushy government appointments and an inside tract to state (and now federal) office.
I have many reason to dislike Harris from her years as a prosecutor. But what really has struck me over the last few months is that she's all hat, no cattle. She talks a lot and tries to appear to be impressive. But in the end, there's no there there.
Let me give you an example: during the Kavanaugh hearings, she questioned him very aggressively about any association with the Kasowitz Benson Torres law firm. Kavanaugh, not being an idiot, asked her if she has any specific lawyers in mind but she kept pressing him. Progressive Twitter lit up with "Oh, wow, that was a professional prosecutor GRILLING a subject. They only ask questions when they KNOW the answer! She's got him!" It wasn't clear exactly what she had him on, but it was SOMETHING they were sure.
Then the next day, Kavanaugh said they reviewed the hundreds of lawyers at the law firm and he could now answer the question truthfully. And she just moved on. Ultimately, it was all show. She was pretending to be this amazing prosecutor with a completely empty pointless line of questioning.
We have seen this pattern repeat with Harris over and over. She makes bold statements but doesn't really understand the issues. She struggles with basic facts and details. She's good at pretending to be brilliant, but not good at the actual being brilliant part.
Maybe if she agreed to have sex with the voters she would move up in the polls. I suppose there are limits to how far she can sleep her way to the top.
She could easily say "The existing laws aren't being consistently enforced;" (and provide specific examples from the mass shootings of the past 10 years) "let's start with enforcing those laws strictly before we try to implement drastic new ones, that criminals won't follow anyway." (and provide specific examples of what would need to be done to increase the enforcing)
That would satisfy both the Demos (who don't want to be critical of her because of her race and gender) and some of the moderates, who are looking for a reason to not vote for Trump.
"But, you know Jake, I'm going to tell you, on this issue of the need for gun safety laws, we're not at any loss for good ideas. People have been having good ideas for decades on this issue. "
Goodness, what lame gobbledygook. Her transitions into her canned responses are childish. If you can't handle Jake Tapper how will you handle Trump?
I'd submit that going on jack tapper at this stage is a mistake no matter what. Who is the audience? Certainly not the D voters who won't remember this 6 months from now. Maybe, its directed at the Donors which accounts for the tap-dancing. Or maybe she's really running for VP.
I'm beginning to think Biden might run away with this. Neither Harris nor anyone else seems POTUS material.
As stated above, Harris was terrible in the Kavanaugh hearings. She was someone who thought she was brilliant, but wasn't. Kavanaugh easily avoided all her "traps" and "Gotchas". And shouting at someone to just say "Yes" or "No" - doesn't impress me either.
When you do not have a solid philosophical base from which to do your thinking, you do not have the ability to answer questions on the fly. Questions that were not sent in previously for you to prepare for are questions just waiting to leave you confused as to what to say aloud. So, in this case, she jammers and fumbles about in her thinking. Obama did this all the time, but everyone loved Him so they did not mind his minute-long 'er, ah, er, ah' moments. They are out there on video. You can view them for yourselves. He was no better than she was, but he WAS....here it comes...Likable. She's just not. Can't cover that over.
Next.
I'm a short person, and I often found myself teaching young adults who towered over me. If you want to be an authority figure, you have to act like you're in charge. She only acts like that when she's in hectoring mode. It is possible to be an authority figure, earn the respect of people who are bigger and stronger than you are, and still have them like you, but she doesn't seem to have found the combination. A woman who has succeeded in the past by using her sexuality puts off other women, and men don't give her the kind of respect a leader needs. She doesn't have to go to the extreme of sleeping with the boss. Just being flirty and dressing in a provocative way can be enough. Harris always wears a dark business suit, but she compensates for it by her overtly feminine mannerisms. Men who want to be women make the same mistakes.
“She’s horrible. Her responses just go round and round with no answer.”
And Trump was sharp, concise and to the point, huh?
Hahahahaha.
Only Trumpish gobbledygook will do for you folks, eh?
There are some inside Democratic politics driving what happened with this interview.
Kamala Harris has obviously been told she needs to act nicer and friendlier, and stay away from details that can be used against her. She seems to be using her Race and Sex as her major selling point on why she should be President. Obama showed a successful path that used race to become President, and he was handled with kids gives by the Press. Kamala Harris polling in the second tier of Democratic nominees.
Jake Tapper is liberal, Jewish, and his wife worked for planned parenthood. He has established a reputation for hard hitting questions, now works for cnn, but seems to ask gop harder questions than Democrats.
Kammy has the credentials, has the looks, has the woman/minority status, checks all the leftwing boxes, but sadly lacks the gravitas.
A major problem for these California leftwingers is that they have never faced honest political scrutiny of their issues. They live in a leftwing bubble.
Inga...Allie Oop said...
“She’s horrible. Her responses just go round and round with no answer.”
And Trump was sharp, concise and to the point, huh?
You indicate she's as bad as Trump, whom you despise. So your position is Kamala is awful?
Our favorite troll has sadly declined. I blame the Mueller Report.
What's really funny? That anyone believes anything a D says. When if comes to the 2A for example we'll get all the platitudes about protecting rights, gun safety, blah blah blah. But what they want to Total Government and one of the best ways of assuring that, as Stalin, Hitler, Mao, the EU, today's PRC, and others all knew/know, is full disarmament of the people.
The only ones so far who have shown me any kind of intellectual heft are Mayor Pete, Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie (his solutions suck, but he is asking the right questions). The rest of the field strikes me as contestants desperately trying to get on a reality TV show.
Because it would never occur to aDemocrat to say “Well, Jake, the whole point of having a right to do something is that you don’t have to ask the state for permission first. How would you like a plan requiring a federal license to have an abortion?”
She hasn't the personality or the experience for democratic politics.
She has been upraised by the California machine, and has never faced serious electoral opposition. She has had to make the sale, so to speak, only in private, and not just with Willie Brown, and not just in that way. She was always a racial token.
Now her deficiencies are evident. Trump and others, including Biden, have had long careers in public presentation, regardless of the talent they brought into it. And this shows.
Booker is also much better at this, with much more experience.
"I'm going to tell you" is the same verbal tic as "To be honest with you". Unnecessary and annoying.
Does anyone really think she's attractive? Sheesh.
Inga is in need of an intervention,. She sounds like the cat lady sister of the other thread.
Trump is clumsy, sure, but everything he stands for revolves around the US citizen an all the ordinary folks. you know - Hillary's hated deplorables.
The democratics speak of their adoration of illegal entrants, and all the thousands of ways to punish average Americans while Google doesn't pay their fair share of taxes.
KKKamala. The left will be coy with policy going forward. It's all cult of personality, identity politics and firsties.
The Pivot is generally the issue. If it comes too late in response, it annoys the listener. There's probably a "sweet spot" - like music. Of course, it's better if there isn't a pivot to any canned talking point, and you can address the specific question asked succinctly and move on. But the political isn't really there to answer. They are there to differentiate, which requires established talking points.
I would like Garage Mahal to come back for the Democratic primaries. Where is he? I miss him!
On that Booker-proposed mandatory federal gun owners license, she was wise to be vague.
To reject it would be to alienate the hyper-liberal Democrat base - and she needs them.
To embrace it would be the utter kiss of death in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and probably Minnesota. Never mind Ohio and Florida. Plus as a lawyer and former state AG she should be expected to know that the proposal is utterly unconstitutional.
Booker can say this stuff, because he’s not a serious candidate, at all. Harris would like to remain viable.
Harris has delusions of adequacy. But she checks all the boxes, and were she to be nominated, dems would vote for her in droves, confident that she would hand out the goodies appropriately as President. Hey, its her turn!
Bay Area Guy - excellent point on Left Wing Bubble!
Kamala has never had a hard fight to get elected.
She started politics with the help of Willie Brown, a legendary Ca shot caller. The SF DA, a position she got through identity politics. Then CA state Attorney General, and now Senator.
The recent PR pieces on her seem to be trying to make her seem friendlier. My guess is internal polling shows a lot of people don’t like her due to hectoring during Senate Hearings. Plus she has the baggage of threatening jailing of parents for truancy. Which is why she is polling poorly with the Democratic electorate. Plus Mayor Pete, is getting more of the Identity politics money/attention/energy. And you have Cory “Spartacus” Booker splitting the Black vote. And for being the ultimate Trump hater candidate, somebody else has that position among the Contenders - Warren? So Kamala is trying to brand herself in a niche not occupied. Women of Color is the only clear part of her branding, everything else is muddled. Or other candidates are doing a better job at. I think she is desperate for msm support, but right now nobody is the anointed one yet...
Comments on the subject of blow jobs, etc. are getting deleted.
she believes in much stronger gun regulations and believes that the President has the authority to impose those regulations unilaterally
If President Harris issued an executive order to confiscate guns, who in the press would make a big deal about it?
The one very short woman I recall as a leader, the Donna, worked a room in a way that you never realized she was short. Shalala is even shorter than Harris.
The Donna should give Harris a few pointers.
Mike is right.
And I don't think it's going to be Biden. It's going to be Bernie because people want authenticity.
Bernie who honeymooned in the Soviet Union and whose wife is under a fraud investigation? Sounds authentic to me - authentically looney
I really don't understand why she doesn't have people helping her make a better impression.
@Althouse, one of the key criteria for winning an election is assembling a good team of advisors. It took Trump a while to come up with the winning team, but it's very much in his favor that he doesn't mind sacking people who don't measure up, not to mention that he knows what it takes to measure up.
I agree with TJM, if Bernie's wife is actually guilty of bank fraud -- and from the information available to a person living far outside Vermont it appears that she certainly is guilty -- then Trump is going to have a field day with him.
I can picture a debate where an imperturbable Trump is standing on a stage with a red-faced, wild haired, Bernie screaming all sorts of nonsense on national TV, and the election will be over.
Short at 5 foot 2. Not that smart--flunked the bar exam the first time around. On personal force for a short person, she's no Golda Meir. If your breath can fog a mirror, the Democrat machine in California can (and will) make you a Senator if it wants to.
She's an improvement over Baghdad Barbara "Call Me Senator" Boxer, but that's a fairly low bar.
Would she do better if she were white, male and 6 foot 2? Probably, although in that case she'd be Joe Biden. And she is at least as bright as Slow Joe. Life is unfair on height advantage, but if you are 5 foot 2, you'd better be able to blind people with your brilliance. Instead she's trying to baffle us with BS.
Total lightweight. Personality appeal on par with a cavity filling.
Has zero chance. Trump would slaughter her.
Most of the democrats vying for the nomination seem to be saying two things:
I hate Trump (universal), and
I'm swell because I'm gender/gay/race (In a couple of cases, I'm swell even though I'm white)
Most of them are trying NOT to be specific on issues. For example the Green New Deal bit some of them on the ass even though it is "aspirational" (Riiiiiight). I suppose the plan is the Obama empty suit/blank slate that you can fill with/scribble you fondest hope.
The ones that do propose specifics are trying to out left the field and are highlighted as dangerous to the vast middle.
She needs to take on more challenging venues. Sitting with Jake Tapper on CNN isn't one of them. These were basically all softball questions, and she did poorly on them anyway. You will only get better at this if you are put through a wringer. Harris hasn't challenged herself nearly enough.
A trial by press, where Tapper is judge and Harris is the defendant. She needs a defense counsel to avoid self-incrimination.
Harris hasn't challenged herself nearly enough.
I agree. The reason is that she is clearly not up to the challenge.
She is not running for POTUS. She is running for VP with either Bernie or Joe.
She would be a sympathetic figure in a debate with Mike Pence. If Trump chooses Nikki Haley as his VP, things could get really interesting.
Leaders must start with where the people are and move them to a better place. She has never done that. And it is clear she relies on Authority That Must Be Obeyed. That is. Hindu caste system presumption. She had no intention of learning anything else.
The Donna should give Harris a few pointers.
Shalala and Robert Reich should mate. They could start a new generation of hobbits.
I've seen a decent amount of Kamala Harris's performances, from this to the various Senate hearings. The consistent impression I get is that she prepares poorly and so is thrown off by any discussion or questions that are off her prepared script. It could be that her prior path to office was so easy that she is unfamiliar with adversarial engagements. But she was a prosecutor, so how could that be?
If she understood the issues and policy proposals - such as federal licensing of guns - then she could ad lib better answers to the questions and dialogue. Either she isn't taking the time to prepare adequately or she is being given very poor preparation and advice. Neither is a positive for her chances as a candidate for the nomination. She ends up coming across as pandering rather than thoughtfully serious.
And of course no questions about Adachi, didn't watch the whole thing but I don't feel I need to though I'd love to be wrong.
Nothing about the issues during her time as a prosecutor he uncovered, his recent suspicious death, the police assault on journalism seeking for who leaked an internal report about it which raises more questions than it answers so far?
Anyone tell me if you find somewhere she is lobbed actual questions about it and fields them.
If someone care about "gun safety" they should love the NRA, which sponsors programs in firearms training and safe storage and use.
Another lefty euphemism to fool the rubes.
TAPPER: Do you agree? Are we in a constitutional crisis?
HARRIS: I think we probably are.
I mean, listen, a constitutional crisis is defined as generally when the system that we set up with checks and balances, when each of the independent co-equal branches of the government fails to perform its duties.
--
No recognition the materials are viewable in scif, that they are asking Barr to break the law.
Nice work there candidate of Law and Order.
--
TAPPER: As a more broad manner, President Trump, on the campaign trail 2015-'16 and as president, says, trade deals in this country, by Democrat presidents and by Republican presidents, have been too tilted towards helping corporations and helping Wall Street and too tilted against the middle class and the manufacturing sector.
Do you disagree with that premise?
HARRIS: I believe that there is no question that, over many decades, the rules have been written in a way that have been to the exclusion of lifting up the middle class and working people in America and working families in America.
And, in fact, that's why I'm proposing that one of the things that we do to address that is that we reform the tax code in a way that we'll give middle-class working families that are making less than $100,000 a year a $6,000 tax credit that they can receive it up to $500 a month.
TAPPER: But on the subject of trade, it doesn't sound like you disagree with the president on his premise, on his general argument that the middle class keeps getting screwed by these trade deals, and he's trying to renegotiate better deals.
HARRIS: I believe that we have got to have policy that better protects American workers and American industries.
I believe very strongly that we have to have policies that understand that, as it relates to the issue of trade, as it relates to the issue of various countries, including China, which we just talked about, that we have to supply and equip the American worker with the skills and the resources that they need to thrive, not only survive, but thrive.
--
She wants to "have the discussion" so long as it funnels back to her unrelated talking points.
Now that is interesting. There appears to be some scuttlebutt that Mike Pence's office was part of the resistance. Paving the way to Nikki Haley as VP to counteract Harris being VP?
HARRIS: I would not have voted for NAFTA, and because I believe that we can do a better job to protect American workers.
I also believe that we need to do a better job in terms of thinking about the priorities that should be more apparent now perhaps than they were there, which are issues like climate, the climate crisis, and what we need to do to build into these trade agreements.
--
Ah....
The reason she can't explain her position is because she has no core values to start from.
"How do you get there by exercising an enumerated power of the federal government?"
I loved Fred Thompson when he ran for President. Some dim bulb reporter would ask him a gottchya question while Fred was walking back to his bus. Fred would think for a bit, quote from the Constitution, maybe the Federalist papers, add in a court case and then explain his position. The reporter had no idea what Fred told him. The reporter would ask his planned follow up question, that was way off the mark from his response and Fred would Just smile and say something about disagree with my position, fine, take it up with the Constitution.
Lots of politicians to have no core values to start from to formulate a position. They are tied into polling and what the voters think about something. Not what core values direct them to advocate for. That's where the the shift from "should we register guns?" to "we all agree the children (born and survived abortion) need safety"
I saw a clip of this yesterday that didn't include a two shot and assumed they were in different locations; it's not just the angles, the lighting is different. Still I was puzzled by the camera angle on Harris. I now wonder if Harris decided to change where she sat. What's really weird is that Tapper's eyes don't reflect the angle.
The question is why anyone would expect her to be anything but a blathering idiot?
What is the basis for thinking or presuming that she might be half-way intelligent and/or competent? Because she has held elective office? Because she's now in the Senate? Because she's running for candidate?
The error is in presuming that she is not like every other schmuck on the street.
There is ZERO correlation between eliteness and quality.
stevew said...
The consistent impression I get is that she prepares poorly and so is thrown off by any discussion or questions that are off her prepared script. It could be that her prior path to office was so easy that she is unfamiliar with adversarial engagements. But she was a prosecutor, so how could that be?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
A lot of those who head large prosecutorial offices never step foot inside a courtroom. It's a political job.
#MeToo #SheKnew #SheProgressed
Of course, if Tapper was an honest broker, he would address the (il)legality of the Dems request re redactions.
But he isn't.
TAPPER: But the bill gets rid of insurance.
HARRIS: But -- no, no, no, no, it does not get rid of insurance. It does not get rid of insurance.
And, listen -- and let me just tell you where I am. Let's tell you where I am.
TAPPER: OK. All right.
HARRIS: I support Medicare for all. It is my preferred policy.
TAPPER: As a principle, you mean, not Bernie Sanders' bill?
HARRIS: I support the bill.
TAPPER: OK.
HARRIS: I support the bill. I...
TAPPER: Well, because the bill gets rid of private insurance for everything that...
HARRIS: It doesn't get rid of supplemental insurance for...
TAPPER: Right, for cosmetic surgery, but for all...
HARRIS: So, it doesn't get rid of all insurance.
--
Painful
That video starting playing with sound when i opened your page. Annoying!
I bet she DOES have handlers to make her look better. The odds are that this IS the better performance.
Althouse proceeds from the assumption that Harris must be basically able and impressive, or why would she be the establishment pick. But she doesn’t have to be either, if she is intersectional enough.
A lot of those who head large prosecutorial offices never step foot inside a courtroom. It's a political job.
Like Mueller you mean ? He had Weissmann top do it. Weissmann is distinguished by having his Arthur Anderson conviction reversed 9-0 by the USSC.
“Comments on the subject of blow jobs, etc. are getting deleted.”
On the Gwyneth Paltrow thread too?
Her sister is running the campaign.
You can't run for president on your back the way she ran for office in CA. Neither can she hope to seduce everyone who interviews her which also probably worked in CA.
@Michael K
Both Skilling and Conrad Black (Enron) had their "honest services fraud" convictions overturned. Was that also Weissmann's handiwork?
@ Michael K
I haven't read Licensed to Lie but I saw the author interviewed and from what she said and what we know from Enron it is criminal that Mueller chose Weissmannn as his chief assistant. He should have been sent back to the minors long ago.
Blogger Bay Area Guy said...
A major problem for these California leftwingers is that they have never faced honest political scrutiny of their issues. They live in a leftwing bubble.
Unfortunately (for the Dems) this tendency of the press to “pounce” on Republican candidates and give Democrat candidates a pass hurts them in the long run. A successful Republican politician has spent his career running the gauntlet of probing questions, and is better able to perform under pressure.
Dems can’t handle the pressure.
Nobody said : I am betting women see her as the kind of woman you can’t trust around your husband. Kind of like I see Richard Gere, well, the younger one, as a man. You mean, the kind of man you can't trust around your gerbil?
Comments on the subject of blow jobs, etc. are getting deleted.
Oh, come on!
She's a word salad. Buzzword bingo, but really no coherence.
She's the junior intern reading aloud the PowerPoint presentation from the screen.
....and always smug with the truth-to-power attitude.
There's no job below her.
Is she pushing "the constitutional crisis" party line, too? As I said sbout Pelosi, that's shocking--shocking they even know there's a constitution.
When she gets in a tight spot, she should quote some Tupac:
“I’m done talking since you’re not listening, continue to hang out with them nothing ass bitches, then!”
"Fred would Just smile and say something about disagree with my position, fine, take it up with the Constitution."
I think he used that exact line on Law and Order when he played the impossible Republican District Attorney for Manhattan.
In reviews of the conrad black reversal on honest services (which oddly doesn't appear in fitzs wiki) its left unclear who prosecuted that case.
Why would you elect someone president from a state that does not respect federal law? We should cause Kalifornia to be severed from the Union and let them survive on its own.
Wilbur said...
A lot of those who head large prosecutorial offices never step foot inside a courtroom. It's a political job.
Good point and would explain the inability to read and react.
Unless she gets better advice, bones up on the issues, develops an ability to succinctly state why she's running, and develops a style that is natural and engaging she ain't goin' nowhere in this election cycle.
Guns are clearly very dangerous. You might decide to go turkey hunting, only to fall before leaving and break your hip.
Very disappointed by her performance and her thought process. Her answers prove that she is wholly a partisan politician. Even when she clearly agreed with Trump she was incapable of stating it. Heaven forbid our politicians present a united front when dealing with a common threat. Better to undercut the US than let Trump win a point.
I don't care how she is/was staged, she has no chance of becoming the chief executive because she has no executive experience, didn't offer one single creative or profound idea. Kamala Harris is not up for the challenge.
Everything she proposed was guided by a PC ideology. That works for CA but fortunately not for the rest of the country. Democrats and liberals appear to just want someone who promises a progressive world and looks intersectional. No thanks.
She suggested the US should partner with our allies to leverage China. Doesn't even make sense. Seriously, did the hassles and time delays involved with that strategy make a significant difference? Or would that strategy just push the can down the road? See Trans Pacific Partnership
China’s Top Trading Partners:
United States: US$479.7 billion (19.2% of total Chinese exports)
Hong Kong: $303 billion (12.1%)
Japan: $147.2 billion (5.9%)
South Korea: $109 billion (4.4%)
Vietnam: $84 billion (3.4%)
Germany: $77.9 billion (3.1%)
India: $76.9 billion (3.1%)
Netherlands: $73.1 billion (2.9%)
United Kingdom: $57 billion (2.3%)
Singapore: $49.8 billion (2%)
Taiwan: $48.7 billion (2%)
Russia: $48 billion (1.9%)
Australia: $47.5 billion (1.9%)
Malaysia: $45.8 billion (1.8%)
Mexico: $44.1 billion (1.8%)
Almost the entire trade surplus that China has is with the US
China global exports…$2,294 Billion
China global imports…$1,935 Billion
China global surplus……$359 Billion
China surplus with US…$324 Billion
China surplus with RoW…$35 Billion (Rest of World)
90% of China’s global trade surplus comes from the US.
Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
In the court of public opinion polls, people prefer Biden. But 3rd or 4th is a good position to be his VP choice.
--
CBC likes Biden/Harris ticket
(If they can keep Joe from getting too handsy/sniffy)
Kamala Harris will be the Vice President of the U.S.
No matter who wins (Biden, Sanders or Warren), they will pick Harris as their running mate.
I am the political consensus here. Remember folks.
Cheers!
the Chinese feel they've bought biden or at least have him on a long term lease, Sanders probably reminds me of one of the Long March veterans, Warren they would have sent to the laogai on general principles,
once the pretense was over:
https://saraacarter.com/swedish-prosecutors-reopen-rape-case-against-julian-assange/
why I say this:
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/bidens-china-syndrome.php
Madison Man owes me for a ruined shirt. I snorted coffee through my nose when I read him saying Donna Shalala is a real leader.
Good grief, she’s a mediocrity we never should have heard of but for Hilary. Robert Reich? Another Democrat Cabinet mediocrity. In his case also a loon.
Althouse: Comments on the subject of blow jobs, etc. are getting deleted.
Yay Streisand Effect. This is going to be embarrassing for you when the DC scuttlebutt breaks and everyone is asking if a women who traded sex for promotions qualified to be President, much less the position she currently occupies.
Like when HuffPo refused to cover the Trump candidacy.
No worries, I can cut-n-paste Heels Up Harris all day all week all month all year.
Get your eraser ready, little miss censor.
Kamala Harris will be the Vice President of the U.S.
Is that because Heels Up Harris will be every nominees affirmative action hire, or because Heels Up Harris is expected to "audition" for all the current front-runners?
HARRIS: I would not have voted for NAFTA, and because I believe that we can do a better job to protect American workers.
PANELIST 1: But how do you respond to those who claim you are just giving lip service-
PANELIST 2: -ohhhhh. Bob? Cut to commericial
PANELIST 3: Awk-ward...
PANELIST 2: (blushes)
PANELIST 1: - and now a word from our sponsors...
"Feel like you can't get ahead in the world? Do you have good oral skills and a thirst to drink from the fountain of success? The Clinton Foundation is looking for you! Our staff of - "
click.
But it's refreshing to know you could have deleted Chuck and Inga whenever you wanted.
I always reminded people that, for all your complaining about trolls, those two would not remain here if you really didn't want them to.
Thanks for underscoring that you DO have the power to decide what is inflicted on your guests and you are willing to exercise that power.
She's just so used to being a prosecutor and a lawyer that she can't explain a position she holds - allegedly holds. She's trying to set up her positions based on legal fine points in such a way that the defense, i.e. newspapers, Republicans, other candidates, will have difficulty attacking them. But the consequence of this legal fine tuning is that voters have difficulty finding out her positions - not because she's being ambiguous and being all things to all men, but because as she states her position, she is squirting a cloud of legal ambiguities around what she is saying, like a retreating octopus.
And another thing, I don't see how she thinks she can replace the legislature - "if they don't pass legislation, I'll do executive orders." Well, aren't executive orders directives on how to execute legislation? A plan to be unconstitutional.
Okay, you asked for substance on the Federal gun license idea...
What is missing from ALL this obfuscatory talk is the right of every human being to self-preservation.
Democrats want to define Second Amendment RIGHTS by the conduct of criminals. This has always been at the core of this contentious issue. Regardless of “facts.”
Yet people like Harris and other “mainstream” politicians conflate legal gun ownership with criminal gun crimes.
By that standard, all kinds of Constitutional rights should be under scrutiny! Yet they are not. Some rights are okay, some are unacceptable.
You cannot lead a country that way. Where are the “common sense” First Amendment restrictions on Black Lives Matter?
That is what makes all of this so absurd, whether her head nods or shakes. Does she believe in the Constitution or not??? She wants to lead the country as President if the United States. Well... what’s it gonna be?
Why does Jake Tapper still have a top job anywhere in journalism? His interviews of professional politicians are worse than Joe Buck’s play-by-play in professional sports. And that’s sayin’ something!
Remember when Althouse used to make what we assumed were principled arguments that women who willingly used sex to curry favor with the boss were somewhat problematic in the workplace? Now it’s all about how women who are highly sexually attractive to men, hey, I won’t deny it, I have thing for black chicks (is that racist? I think there was a Seinfeld on that subject and Elaine said yes, Jerry said no.), are more qualified for promotion, or at least that’s the effect of banning conversations on Harris’s past.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा