Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/30/2024 7:34:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I hate to use the Democratic Party’s favorite word against them, but the Harris-Walz tag-team interview on CNN was… well, weird. The two grinning progressives sat side by side and tried their best to handle Dana Bash’s steady stream of softballs.
CLICK THIS LINK For Kamala's plans for her first day in office.
Unfortunately, the starlets’ most recent experience answering questions is when they are asking them of each other for schmaltzy social media videos, so to say they were rusty is an understatement.
Bash first asked Kamala what she would do on day one if elected. Harris, never one to divulge any concrete courses of action, instead waxed poetic about optimism, hope and a “new way forward.”
Back it up. A new way forward? To steal a line from Jake Tapper, how can Harris talk about a new chapter when Democrats are the ones writing the book?
Kamala Harris, whether Politico likes it or not, is tethered to Joe Biden. Besides the fact that she puts the Harris in the Biden-Harris administration, her stances on everything from the economy to climate change are the same — if not more progressive — than those of her president.
If you thought Bidenomics was a disaster, just wait until Kamala tries to implement price fixing. Then you’re in for a real treat. Build Back Breadlines is just an election away.
CLICK THIS LINK For Kamala's take on the Israel-Hamas war.
Speaking of the perpetually-vacationing commander-in-chief, Kamala showed no remorse over misleading the American people about her boss’s cognitive decline over the last four years. “He is so smart and — and loyal to the American people,” she explained. “And I have spent hours upon hours with him, be it in the Oval Office or the Situation Room.”
If what Kamala Harris is saying is true, then why isn’t Joe still running for president?
Click THIS LINK for her recollection of her conversation with Joe Biden on his dropping out.
But this was not an appropriate setting for real questions. This was an interview on CNN. Because Harris’s ever-evolving stances and non-existent policies have been the focus of her critics (the seizers and pouncers), you might assume that the VP would have been prepared to knock said topic out of the park. You would be wrong.
When confronted with two quotes from 2019 in which she explicitly said that there was no question that she supported banning fracking, Kamala made no effort to explain her “evolution.” Instead she told Dana how she had made her stance “clear” that she would not ban fracking.
And when pressed for the reasoning behind this reversal, the clarity continued. “Well, let’s be clear,” she insisted. “My values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.”
We can do what we have accomplished thus far. That quote is less “let me be clear,” more “something you would find on an inspirational sign in the clearance section of Home Goods.”
After watching Harris for a few of these pre-packaged segments, it is obvious that the weeks of bubble-wrap treatment insisted on by her team and supported by the mainstream media have not served her well.
One thing that is becoming clearer? Why Kamala’s team has been so disagreeable to the terms of the September 10 debate on ABC. I don’t think the live microphones or notes or podiums are the issue. The root cause of Team Harris’s hesitancy is something else entirely.
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
It is difficult to speak clearly if you:
(a) don’t know what you think in the first place,
or
(b) know what you think but don’t want to say so out loud.
Harris might actually be both of these :-)
A Vague, Vacuous TV Interview Didn’t Help Kamala Harris
New York Times ^ | 29th August 2024 | Bret Stephens
Posted on 8/30/2024, 9:22:49 AM by Cronos
...She’s vague to the point of vacuous. She struggled to give straight answers to her shifting positions on fracking and border security other than to say, “my values have not changed.” Fine, but she evaded the question of why it took the Biden administration more than three years to gain better control of the border, which it ultimately did through an executive order that could have been in place years earlier. It also doesn’t answer the question of why she reversed her former policy positions — or whether she has higher values other than political expediency.
Harris also relied on a few talking points that may not serve her well in the next two months. She mentioned price gouging, but Americans won’t likely believe that grocery chains with razor-thin profit margins are the real culprit when it comes to their rising food bills. Her $100 billion plan to give first-time home buyers $25,000 in down-payment support is mainly an incentive for ever-higher home prices.
A bigger weakness in the interview was the presence of Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz. Though the Minnesota governor delivered a fine speech at the Democratic National Convention (brightly enhanced by his cheering son Gus), he was transparently evasive in answering Bash’s questions about his misstatement about his military service, false claims about a D.U.I. arrest and misleading statements about his family’s fertility treatments. If there are other lies or untruths in Walz’s record, the campaign ought to get ahead of them now.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
About fracking, EVs, and other policies upon which she has radically shifted positions, she should be asked “Were you lying then, or are you lying now?”
In fact, that should be a Trump ad...show her stating her old position, then her new position followed by “Was she lying then, or is she lying now? Can we afford to find out?”
A CBN interview?
Clarity?
Bwahahahahahahah.
We do have a creditable answer as to where folks who failed even their studies classes went to work.
Mark Levin compared CNN interviewing Comrade and Coach, to Pravda interviewing Putin. Joy and hope!
In other words she BOMBED! The liberal rag news outlets are just trying to cover her @$$!
I would say it showed no “clarity” on Kamala and the issues. Just word salad coming out of her mouth.
An interview it was not.
Kamala Harris shopped for months for a “moderator” that would make her look and sound competent and capable in an interview, and eventually she found what she was looking for. However, even though CNN's Dana Bash did her best imitation of a real journalist conducting a hard-hitting interview, Kamala Harris failed.
Unsurprisingly, Bash got no coherent answers from Harris who has had weeks to prepare for this event, so Bash retreated to fluff questions: about the phone call from Biden telling her he was ending his campaign! Boring, irrelevant pancake talk and with her teary-eyed claim about just caring for Joe first, probably untrue.
Then there was the clip about Tim Walz’s son crying at the DNC. CNN ran the tears-for-dad shot, but failed to include the clip of Walz angrily yanking the poor young man’s hand as his family joined together on the DNC stage.
Then there was the equally boring clip about the allegedly viral, “iconic” photo of Harris’ grandniece watching Kamala’s speech.
In short, the interview was a colossal waste of time.
Its clear there is no clarity.
It’s “difficult to speak clearly” of what you “think” if you “don’t know what you think in the first place”, especially if your “thinking” is incapable of producing intelligent THOUGHTS!
Whatever Komrade Kammy lacks which is pretty much every quality that defines leadership,
Tampon Timmy has less of.
They say don’t pick a running mate that will outshine you, which Juan McCain did when he picked Sarah Palin.
Well, Kammy at least found someone less appealing than her, which was no small order.
WEAK sauce doesn’t get any weaker than these two.
My take on what she said.
Wink wink, I have not changed my values I am just lying to you to get elected so don’t worry about where I stand.
Transparently evasive? What the Hell does that mean? I am truly amazed and the wordsmithing and word salad these days.
A bigger weakness in the interview was Harris’s running mate, Tim Walz.
<><>he was transparently evasive in answering Bash’s questions
<><>made misstatements about his military service,
<><>false claims about a D.U.I. arrest
<><>and misleading statements about his family’s fertility treatments.
I think “transparently evasive” means “lying his ass off”. :-)
His ad should be: “Democrats, how much longer are you going to put up with your politicians saying one thing to get elected only to do the opposite once they win?”
So when will we hear/see GW Bush’s public Kamala endorsement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.