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 ...
Transparently evasive? What the Hell does that mean? I am truly amazed and the wordsmithing and word salad these days.
So when will we hear/see GW Bush’s public Kamala endorsement?