"When I first came to Washington, I was surprised at how few Democrats had taken their argument for the merit of paid leave to their colleagues across the aisle."

"So it really was starting from the beginning and talking about this policy and framing it in different terms.... We proposed the first ever bipartisan, bicameral plan.... [T]he president has made very clear he thinks that this is critical policy. And now we are working with members on both sides of the aisle to see who has the right policy to move forward and to be able to garner the votes to pass this into law....  I think the option that has been put out there by the Democrats without even opining on the policy of it, it has sat there since 2012, has never been scored, has never received the endorsement of a president, including President Obama, and has never received bipartisan support from colleagues in the Senate. So the way I look at it is that the debate had grown stale...."

Said Ivanka Trump on "Face the Nation."



The interviewer, Margaret Brennan, tries to bring a little edge.

First, she brings up the fact that Ivanka, in her own private business, did not initially have a paid family leave policy in place. Ivanka's answer is that the first pregnant person in her company was the fourth person hired, indeed, she was pregnant at the time of hiring, and they put a policy in place at the point.

Second, Brennan introduces the topic of family separation and immigration, which she is kindly enough to observe that Ivanka was "vocal" in opposing and called "a low point." Brennan asks if Ivanka is still "engaged" on the subject of family separation. Ivanka answers and quickly turns the subject to human trafficking:

Well, immigration is not part of my portfolio, obviously. I think everyone should be engaged. And the full force of the U.S. government is committed to this effort to border security, to protecting the most vulnerable. That includes those being trafficked across our border, which this president has committed to countering and combating human trafficking in an incredibly comprehensive, aggressive way. So the full United States government has been focused on this issue, starting with the president.

There's no additional challenge. That's the end of the interview.

The line "immigration is not part of my portfolio" was seized on by Trump critics: "Twitter Critics Go Bonkers When Ivanka Trump Says Family Separations Aren’t In ‘My Portfolio’/Ivanka’s portfolio only covers photobombing and lots of vacations,” said one wag" (HuffPo), "President Donald Trump's daughter and senior adviser Ivanka Trump skirted questions on her father's immigration record in an interview this month, saying his notorious 'family separation' policy was not part of her 'portfolio'" (Newsweek); "'Immigration is not part of my portfolio,' replied Trump. Oh well, so much for some compassion" (WaPo).

And, yes, I see that she said "garner." She has a slow, deliberate, anesthetized manner of speech, so I'm not surprised to see "garner" living there. She doesn't talk like her father. Her speech is much more like what we used to hear from Jeb Bush back when we listened to Jeb Bush. By the way, my focus on the word "garner" began with a "Face the Nation" interview (in December 2015):

Those who want a more moderate Republican candidate should be pressuring Bush to withdraw and back Rubio.... I've watched [Bush] on a couple of shows recently and am just dismayed at the weak impression he gives. Is he oblivious? He simpers and nods to the point where Meade and I just laugh at him. It's an in-joke for us that he keeps saying the word "garner." Three times in one short "Face the Nation" interview last Sunday. On ISIS:

[B]ut we need to lead in this regard to garner the support of the Persian Gulf countries, other Arab nations and Europe....  [W]e need to garner the support of the support of the Arab world.... 

And on Trump:

He's -- he knows what he is saying. He's smart. He's playing you guys like a fiddle, the press, by saying outrageous things, and garnering attention. 

If Trump heard that, I'm sure he laughed. I'd like to see his Jeb imitation.

Look at how awful Jeb was on Bret Baier's show last night (sitting with the pundits, including George Will). Don't miss when he says "garner." 

AND: The only reason to say "garner" is if you think there's something wrong with a very common word that normal people just go ahead and say all the time without thinking they need to rise above it. The word is: "get."

I wonder what Trump thinks of Ivanka's speech. I imagine he only ever thinks everything about her is wonderful.

ADDED: In the September before the 2016 election, I had a long post about a Cosmopolitan interview with Ivanka that was about Donald Trump's proposal to require paid family leave. Did you remember that Trump campaigned on that issue? From my old post:

[The interviewer said]:

In 2004, Donald Trump said that pregnancy is an inconvenient thing for a business. It's surprising to see this policy from him today. Can you talk a little bit about those comments, and perhaps what has changed?

Ivanka doesn't seem to know what her father said 12 years ago, and she goes meta:

So I think that you have a lot of negativity in these questions, and I think my father has put forth a very comprehensive and really revolutionary plan to deal with a lot of issues. So I don't know how useful it is to spend too much time with you on this if you're going to make a comment like that....

She goes on about how good her father has been as an employer of women, and [the interviewer] nonapologizes — she's sorry Ivanka finds the questions negative — and assures her that Trump really did say that pregnancy is "certainly an inconvenience for a business." He did. Ivanka says she doesn't know that he said that, and she's right to refuse to accept [the interviewer's] presentation of what he said, which might be wrong (though it isn't) and might be out of context.

But Ivanka could have said: Her father was being admirably straightforward. Of course, it's an inconvenience when anything physical takes away from the employee's time and attention at work. But that has nothing to do with the woman's need to deal with recovery from childbirth. She must take some time to recover, and Trump's plan is to ensure that she has some paid leave.

And, if Ivanka had said that, Gupta should have said: But by making it even easier for the woman to take time off — 6 weeks off — aren't you going to intensify the inconvenience that employers see in women? Even your father — who, you say, has been so good with hiring and promoting women in his business — thought of their childbearing function as a problem. Aren't you proposing to spend government money to make that problem even worse, as it becomes more likely that female employees will take even more time away from work?

One more question.... Won't this government spending draw women away from the workplace and the leaning-in style of careerism that feminism has promoted? As they have weeks of time alone with the baby, isn't government easing women into the comfort and happiness of the noncommercial life of the home and perhaps even a spiritual awareness that the best life is grounded in love and family and not a career at all?

Note that the proposal at the time was for maternity leave only. There's a complicated legal problem attached to that limitation, but I won't bug you with that now. Read the old post if you care.