"... as she campaigns on a compressed timeline.... [M]any leaders are scrambling to meet with all three of America’s current or would-be leaders — Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris and Mr. Trump — during, or after, their visit to New York for the General Assembly this week. The vice president had a
closed-door meeting with Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the president of the United Arab Emirates, at the White House on Monday afternoon, just hours after a similar meeting between the Emirati leader and Mr. Biden. Officials said Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris each was expected to raise the deepening violence in Israel and the Emirates’ involvement in the conflict in Sudan. President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine is set to meet with Mr. Biden in the Oval Office on Thursday, one day after he addresses the United Nations. Later on Thursday, Mr. Zelensky will meet separately at the White House with Ms. Harris — an indication that he is eager to bolster his own one-on-one relationship with her in case she wins the presidency in November. After that meeting, aides say the White House has no plans for further engagement between Ms. Harris and foreign leaders or travel by the vice president outside the United States before Election Day, as she focuses all of her energies on the campaign trail."
From
"At U.N. Conference, Global Crises Collide With Fraught American Politics/President Biden will speak at a time of deep uncertainty about the future of America’s role in the world" (NYT).
Is Harris displaying an intention to maintain continuity with Biden's foreign policy? We're told she's "coming into focus," but is she? It seems that after today, the plan is to "focus[] all of her energies on the campaign trail." But the campaign has what seems to be a deliberate strategy of remaining out of focus. It's a focus on being out of focus. The NYT asserts,
without evidence, that Harris's "specific policy views are still coming into focus."
ADDED: To avoid my criticism of the phrase "her specific policy views are still coming into focus," the NYT could write "her specific policy views have yet to come into focus." That little change would replace coddling with gentle criticism.
BUT: I still have a problem with "her specific policy views have yet to come into focus" — a big problem! It assumes, without evidence, that Harris has specific policy views.
Posts
69 comments:
Her policies will perfectly match the policies of the people actually running the Executive…
I wonder if Joe will hazard a guess as to why there is so much uncertainty in the world. Someone needs to provide a mirror...
Did Prosecutor Harris, someone who know his type, greet MbZ?
It's cute watching the NYT still pretending it's a legitimate and serious newspaper. Ann, do you sigh wistfully now when you read them?
I guess when you use the US military to fly around a foreign leader to campaign for you that it is not foreign election interference because it is taxpayer funded?
Puppet #2 is the same as Puppet #1. No shocker there...
How do they know her views?
I hope she decides what she wants to do before WW3 begins in earnest.
The U.S. currently has about 40,000 troops in the region. “In light of increased tension in the Middle East and out of an abundance of caution, we are sending a small number of additional U.S. military personnel forward to augment our forces that are already in the region.
Would it be beneath her role as the Democratic candidate to answer questions on this topic? No, I am sorr to even bring it up; I forgot my place for a moment.
the plan is to "focus all of her energies on the campaign trail.
yes! BUT;
no press conferences
no debates
no meet and greets
no campaigning
JUST WINNING THE VOTE COUNT!
My favorite part of the story was this: Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder would provide no details on how many additional forces or what they would be tasked to do.
It's none of our business, but can't Dr Jill get Bibi on the horn and tell him to hold off on his war until after the election?
it's Not foreign election interference, Because it is being done by Democrats.
Please READ THE LAW. The law states: "Laws are FOR Democrats, not Against Democrats"
When I was younger, so much younger than today
I never needed anybody's help in any way
But now these days are gone and I'm not so self assured
Now I find I've changed my mind, I've opened up the doors
Help!
The Beatles, 1965
(Wikipedia)
Unfortunately the decrepit NYT employs words with the specific goal of obfuscation and like the Harris campaign, misdirection.
Wake up, Puppet Girl!
Did the article happen to mention Zelenskyy was flown here by the US Air Force using taxpayer dollars to then explicitly campaign for Harris in the Battleground state of Pennsylvania? Or is that another detail requiring elision and out of focus “coverage”?
The NYT can’t even slightly criticize Harris.
Beautiful.
She largely endorses Biden's policies because the same faceless handlers run both of them like the puppets they are.
So to keep the list up to date, the Iranians hacked the Trump campaign and turned over the material to the Harris campaign, Putin stated baldly that he prefers Harris win the election, the leader of Ukraine is on our soil campaigning for Harris. That’s quite the roster pimping the Impostor.
"Harris largely embraces Mr. Biden's view of the importance of strategic alliances."
This comment means less than nothing. It states nothing. It reveals nothing. The NY Times has no idea what Kamala Harris believes because she won't tell the NY Times what she believes. Or anyone else.
What is the alternative? Is Kamala Harris going to maybe come out and tell Americans that strategic alliances aren't important. That we don't need strategic alliances? Does the NY Times really believe that's possible, and so they need to reassure Americans that she largely (not totally??) believes in strategic alliances?
It's a stupid comment.
Every idiot knows the importance of strategic alliances. Even some whore you dragged in off the street knows the importance of having a pimp (strategic alliance).
And Kamala Harris is precisely that: some whore they drug in off the street.
The media have not adjusted their coverage of Harris to her gender. She’s a woman, so she wants us to guess what she’s thinking.
Officials said Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris each was expected to raise the deepening violence in Israel
I don't think the NYT means what it has written here. The extra verb is left off intentionally to remain vague.
That little change would replace coddling with gentle criticism.
I'm pretty sure anybody at the NYT who criticizes Kamala gets fired.
If Biden is going to talk at the UN, I hope someone will tell him who's next before he starts speaking.
They have attacked zayed and embraced iran and qatar
I can understand that she may not have yet captured all the nuances of every issue percolating in international affairs these days, our dispute over lobster fishing rights with Canada may not currently be on her radar, for example, but perhaps she could share a general philosophical overview with us.
They went as far as being a warangler in a divorce proceedinf involving the emir
Is there an english to malarkey translator
I love it when Ann throws the “without evidence” catchphrase back at the NYT.
Hasn’t she been VP for almost four years now? She must be a slow learner.
Sitting Vice Presidents running for the top job are not required to have foreign-policy views already formed. We reserve that for sitting governors of Alaska who are running for Vice President.
They're shapelessly ever-changing. Like Steve McQueen's "The Blob."
Funny how she warned about putin and ukraine and was ignored hmm
the NYT could write "her specific policy views have yet to come into focus." That little change would replace coddling with gentle criticism.
Or they could treat her as if she is campaigning to be elected the Leader of the Free World (some ironic capitalization there, but it's still true, heaven help us) and not be gentle about it.
Inga assures us that Putin was just trolling. He actually prefers Trump. She should know...
The thought of a President Harris should scare the crap out of everyone. Not just in the United States, but the world. We've seen the results of our world leadership with Biden as a puppet, and it hasn't been pretty to say the least. Now imagine Harris as the puppet. Deep down, the Times knows this as well, but I doubt they're willing to admit it to themselves.
Oh, I'm sure she's on top of the lobster issue. And she's been pretty clear that her philosophy is to embrace joy. What's not to like?
Josh Shapiro was there with Harris and Zelenskyy, autographing ordnance made here in PA to be used against Russia.
Does anyone really think that Kamala-lala-ding-dong has the brainpower to develop "policies"?
Most people know that she is an empty pantsuit. Perhaps a joyful one, but still an empty one.
"ADDED: To avoid my criticism of the phrase "her specific policy views are still coming into focus," the NYT could write "her specific policy views have yet to come into focus." That little change would replace coddling with gentle criticism."
Mollycoddling Kamala would make a good portmanteau: 'MollyKamaling.'
Can you imagine this crew managing affairs during WW2?
Admiral Nimitz ,would be advised to only damage the Japanese carriers at Midway, not destroy them, because it might send the wrong message.
Can you imagine this crew managing affairs during WW2?
Admiral Nimitz ,would be advised to only damage the Japanese carriers at Midway, not destroy them, because it might send the wrong message.
"Vice President Kamala Harris largely embraces Mr. Biden’s view of the importance of strategic alliances..."
Let's see, coddling Middle-East tyrants, refusing to meet with Netanyahu - yup, seems like she really has embraced Biden's views!
Latest addition to The Not Ready For Prime Time Players.
Obama's ethnic Springs were sustained by Biden with "benefits" and Karma-la has a history of favoring the same wicked solutions favored by the UN, NYT et al.
Harris doesn't have "her own" policy views. She is told what her policy views will be. Guaranteed. She's the perfect ding-bat for the job.
That is certainly her strategy if she has one and knows what it is.
The more she "meets" with foreign leaders, the sooner they realize there is nobody home in the White House.
"though her specific policy views are still coming into focus...". Ha Ha Ha, said with a straight face, after 4 years in office and less than 2 months from the election. How's the border coming along?
I would edit it to “still coming into focus groups”
Growing up in a middle class neighborhood - we were proud of our lawns - you know? - I learned that strategic alliances are strategic. And alliances. And strategically allying ourselves with other strategic allies helps us ally ourselves strategically. You know?
"It assumes, without evidence, that Harris has specific policy views." Good catch. But she does have specific attitudes. Prog attitudes. Unburdened by anything, certainly not by arguments of an kind. All of which she prevents from coming into focus. It's almost as if Dems know that if they run on what they are, they lose. But there's Trump and abortion and vacuous vapid Kamala, so their strategy is rational.
"President Biden will speak at a time of deep uncertainty about the future of America’s role in the world". 'Deep uncertainty' indeed. Staff runs the White House and an empty pantsuit waits in the wings.
...still coming into focus. If she wins, it'll still be coming into focus in 2028. As long as no one asks, it doesn't have to be anything.
"My focus is on staying focused" is something Biden, Harris, or KJP could say -- and probably has said. We have this from 60 Minutes:
Q: "How would you say your mental focus is?" BIDEN: “Oh, it's focused. I'd say it's, I think it's, I haven't, look.
We were at war in 1942, and it was total war. We aren't ourselves at war now.
Ambiguity about specific policies is working well for her. Both Putin and Zelenskyy have endorsed her and one of them is actively campaigning for her in a battleground state. One (or both?!?) have to be wrong.
"President Biden will speak at a time of deep uncertainty about the future of America’s role in the world". 'Deep uncertainty' indeed. Staff runs the White House and an empty pantsuit waits in the wings.
But of course that phrase - "a time of deep uncertainty" - is presented, deliberately in my view, to imply that the deep uncertainty just kinda happened - just the breaks of the game, nothing to do with the fact that now the entire world knows (if they were not paying attention since 2020) that the President of the United States is not running diddly, that there appears to be a constant tug of war among "advisors" for whose opinion gets to become policy this week, that "Dr. Jill" is keeping Biden upright and rewards him like a dog or a toddler for his shockingly small achievements, that the VP doesn't even figure in any policy discussion - she's obviously completely superfluous and they're not even pretending otherwise any more. Oh, and she, and all those advisors, knew this was all happening, and lied through their toothy grins about it - for years. But "Trust us!" they say. "Vote us back in - the other guy is the danger!"
They created this bleepshow. It didn't just happen. And for heaven's sake, Biden's speaking is utterly irrelevant to fixing it - worse, it just exacerbates the "deep uncertainty" because even if he's having one of his good days, everyone still knows that he's not in charge and nothing he says has any weight.
What's a lesser head of state to do? How about a governor? How about an enemy? Is this a time of special interest to diplomats because they've never operated in such a vacuum before, or is it as scary as it seems it should be?
Puts me in mind of one of those cheerleader movies I think it was, in which the captain of one squad says, "Bring it on!" And the captain of the other says, "Oh, it's been brought!"
Kamala Harris will be a reliable, well-paid servant of American Empire, period, end of sentence.
Kamala Harris will be a reliable, well-paid servant of globalism, socialism, authoritarianism, period, end of sentence.
As Biden speaks to the UN General Assembly for the last time, recall how the diplomats literally laughed at Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z4y8OJxlK8
None of what is happening around the world today was happening under Trumps watch. All of this misery, both foreign and domestic, is a direct result of you installing Biden as president.
It's all on you.
We have 40,000 troops in the Middle East? What the hell for? The only US service members that should be in the middle east are sailors defending the sea lanes.
Post a Comment