In a recent LA Times piece ('Kamala Harris' Achilles Heel'), we learned Kamala Harris:
"has had a strong start to her presidential campaign, but the remaining weeks leading up to the Nov. 5 election will be closely contested and Harris faces real obstacles.
She must articulate her own positions to separate her candidacy from some of the less popular policies and outcomes seen during the Biden-Harris administration. And as she fills in the details, her plans will be picked apart, diminishing her chances to sway voters in the swing states that will decide the 2024 election."
WHY must she do all that?
Indeed, why does the LA Times' columnist believe that will "sway" swing state voters? Do they really care that much about policy? Indeed, they - along with the other political pundits (like David Brooks in the NY Times who reeled off 5 ways Kamala can "blow it" - no talk of Trump) need a clue. That is, there is a growing body of scholarship showing that people don’t tend to vote rationally (processing policies), but rather use voting to express themselves in emotional, ideological and moral ways. Kamala has delivered this with her energy and enunciating her values - in contrast to Trump's criminal, treacherous and predatory values.
And recall here even when Kamala has delivered policies they have been quickly targeted by media know nothings who didn't even get them right in the first iteration. For example, the WSJ's top clown Holman Jenkins Jr. three weeks ago bawling about Harris being "avoidant" and not giving interviews or pressers. To show how pathetic this twit is, consider just his malarkey about "adopting Trump's plan to stop taxing tips."
But he's too damned dense to grasp she didn't copy it. Rather, she created her own REAL version to benefit working people, e.g. waitresses, busboys, casino assistants etc. Trump's version, as former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Reich pointed out, would in reality benefit Hedge Fund operators, investment bankers and private equity honchos who'd use his version to justify "tips" for their assorted machinations, selloffs, buyouts, what not.
Then there was the WSJ facsimile of a pundit, Kim Strassel, going nuts in a column (WSJ, ‘Choose Your Own Kamala’, p. A13, Aug. 17-18) because Kamala Harris refused to buttonhole herself in interviews, or pressers (“like Trump”). As Kim belched in her most frustrated (hack) op-ed columnist voice:
“Are voters really being asked to elect a woman who in her third decade in the political arena has yet to decide about the most pressing policy questions of the day?”
This shows poor Kim - like her fellow troll Jenkins Jr. - hasn’t the foggiest notion of what drives modern American politics, at least its success stories. Clue one: it isn’t detailed policy elaborations, it's emotions. Feeling good about a candidate. After all, where did all the trotting out of dozens of policy papers - a hallmark of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign- get her? Well, nowhere because too many voters couldn’t connect. Too abstract. Too cold blooded. All they got were drab lectures but no joy, no real hope vs Trump’s bombast and lies.
Meanwhile the LA Times writer-pundit was correct when writing:
"On important policy areas, Kamala Harris has undergone an almost complete transformation, switching from unabashed progressive to careful centrist. Some voters will question the authenticity of her revised views. But for others, inconsistency won’t be the problem. "
Nor should it be when Trump hasn't delivered a single consistent, coherent policy, only unhinged rants and poppycock. Even entertaining (at one interview) voting against Florida's 6 week abortion ban, getting all the Fundies in an uproar - before dialing it gone. Oh and the WSJ Editors, e.g. "Trump is merely using this to try to blunt a GOP liability with women voters."
Well, yeah, uh duh!
Then, we have the spectacle of Trump in a more sober moment offering to pay for IVF for affected couples and having to pull back on that when the WSJ and other conservatives railed against it as overspending "socialism". WSJ editorial, 'Donald Trump's IVF Entitlement', p. A12, Aug.31- Sept. 1) writing:
"... a new federal fertility entitlement is a fiscal and cultural thicket Republicans don't want to enter....He didn't offer details but his announcement proves again that elections are dangerous for voters."
Well, yeah for voters dumb enough to believe the unhinged rants and flip flops of a consummate liar! Oh and a convicted felon who'll say anything to get back into power - but denies even Project 2025 - the only semi-coherent platform and agenda he has - but which is nutso fascist to the core. See e.g.
Spreading the Truth About the 2024 Election (Video #1: Trump’s Project 2025)
No folks, you cannot make this shit up. You absolutely can't!
The Times pundit meanwhile waxes on:
"It’s the policies themselves — appealing at
first but ineffective, challenging to implement or more progressive than most
Americans are comfortable with. It’s policy, therefore, that could prove to be
the Achilles' heel in Harris’ efforts to keep Trump from a second term."
To which I say, bull shit! I refuse to believe that many millions of my fellow citizens would give license to govern to a rapist, traitor and 34- times convicted felon. And let's be absolutely clear even when Kamala goes on record in an interview, as she sat down with CNN's Dana Bash a week ago, the media mavens still won't accept it. We saw that with the WSJ editorial (Kamala Harris Soars Above CNN) the next day, writing:
"Kamala Harris's campaign handlers were no doubt giving each other high- fives watching their candidate's interview on CNN. The Vice President got away for the most part with repeating her campaign's platitudes about the "middle class" and was never seriously challenged on anything... That's a shame because the voters still haven't received a straight answer about whether and how she has changed her views from her positions espoused in 2019."
Hey, what about Trump's changing his views? And moreover lying through his teeth about everything, including the latest that "her friends at ABC gave her the debate questions already." I mean, Jeez, this fucker lies like he breathes and the delirious media spends as much time whining about Kamala not giving specific policy positions! Which one is the greater threat, you imbecilic, nattering nabobs of negativity?
This is why harping about Kamala's previous positions, compared to her current ones, only gets a burp and a 'meh' from me. Not when the news pundits give Trump so much leeway to lie and twist his nonsense around to snare dummies - but the media treats him as a normal candidate. And as former Sen. Claire McKaskill stated a week ago (on Deadline Whitehouse) the media can't whine now about Harris's interview on CNN when Bash & Co. devised the 'softball' questions they asked, including refusing to ask Kamala if she believed a 34 -times convicted felon should even be in the race.
The LA Times columnist meanwhile gives his take:
"In her first extensive media interview since becoming the Democrats’ 2024 standard-bearer, Harris argued that voters should be comfortable with her reversals because her “values” have not changed. Maybe so, but voters will wonder what her values could cause her to do once elected."
No, they will not. As I wrote previously (Aug. 30th post):
"it is indeed values which are the currency and oxygen behind policy. Policy positions will always change in adapting to a world and society that evolves (or devolves) but it is the values which maintain the essential stability of policy – any policy. Whether that be on dealing with climate change, or illegal immigration, or inflation. In any case all policies uttered by any candidate are only aspirations in the end. Most can't see the light of day unless passed by congress, and with the evenly split lot we have, that ain't happening soon.
So obsessing over policies is basically a case of mental masturbation for the media and press."
Oh, and yapping over Harris's position changes from 2019 while giving Trump a pass on his lying and changed positions means the media is purblind and tone deaf about the extreme peril he poses to our system. And for that, they get nothing but verbal brickbats from me. Especially if they ignore Trump's demented ways or treat his pronouncements as normal. The most recent claiming that his incoherent babble is actually meaningful and really a "weave'". Which only a fellow psychotic would buy.
By comparison to the orange pestilence, Kamala has run a remarkably focused and disciplined campaign, that’s deliberately light on substance and high on feelings. And while she has not yet done news conferences or town halls which would detail her positions on specific issues, she has introduced herself to the American people in entirely human terms, presenting herself as a dynamic, warm, funny and optimistic person.
This is what counts in determining the superior candidate. As opposed to a traitor who shouldn't be allowed to run at all under Section 3 of the 14th amendment. The provision - meant to keep those who sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War from serving in office - specifically states:
“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
The 6 conservo Supremes shot this down of course, given they're all in for the Traitor. Meaning they are traitors too. Especially after granting him immunity for all "official" acts. E.g.
Trumpers On Supreme Court Crown Trump As "King" In Wildly Reckless 'Premature Immunity' Ruling.
But Trump's malignant threats, lies, demented rants and cackles - as well as calls for retribution if he doesn't win- also disqualifies him, apart from being a raving madman. I.e.
Yeppers, Trump Is As Crazy As A "Shit House Rat"
Until the media's focus changes and they process he is not a normal candidate they will be guilty of the same mental masturbation that originally brough forth an anomalous Trump win in 2016. But which should have less of a chance succeeding now given so many have seen how Trump "governs" - which is to say he doesn't. He only played golf at Mar-a-Lago:
Trump Vacay Tracker:Fifth Mar-A-Lago Getaway in 8 Weeks
&
And had love fests with dictators like Kim Jong Un and Putin. Oh and had his thugs put kids in cages while he let a pandemic get out of control and kill over a quarter million in 2020. Did I get Trump amnesia? No I did not, and I hope to hell the millions of undecideds and in the swing states didn't either.
Meanwhile, Lance Morrow in his WSJ piece today ('The Pros and Cons Of Trump and Harris', p. A15) makes it seem like deciding between the two is like a problem in differential geometry, writing this hare-brained twaddle:
"The undecided voter has sat for a long time now with a yellow legal pad in front of him toting up the positives and negatives trying to decide."
Trying to decide? With an IQ of at least 100 this is a piece of cake, comparing the two:
Trump: 34 felony convictions
1 rape charge
1 incitement to insurrection
2 impeachments
----------------------------
= 38 major violations
Harris: 0 violations - criminal or otherwise, no impeachments
The choice ought to be as clear as knowing the difference between a bowl of orange shit and real pudding. Or between a madman and a sane person. Like it or not, especially now with the endorsements of both Liz and Dick Cheney, Kamala Harris carries the banner for the only pro-democracy candidate. If one therefore doesn't vote for her- even in terms of leaving the president space blank or voting 3rd party- they are de facto enabling the rise of a criminal, fascist, wannabe dictator. There is no other choice, you are either pro-democracy or pro-Trump.
See Also:
by Robert Becker | September 10, 2024 - 5:51am | permalink
Doubling down on ignorant rants plus flip-flopping and old age has cut Trump’s appeal, shrinking his support and reducing his disruptive impacts.
Losing for Trump is undeniably different than for any other known politician – everything comes down to his ego, prison options, and financial self-interests. Rampant narcissism is like that. More voters are seeing through the transparent hustle to deflect criminal penalties, spurred of late by having a far younger, livelier and more moderate Democratic alternative. Though democracy-battering GOP types will again defy a losing outcome, odds of reversing whoever loses is no greater than the 2020 fiasco. Losing again, without White House insurrectionist clout, the Felon-in-chief is running out of escape hatches. Election fraud by a convicted felon (in or out of jail) tests any would-be genius.
Yet, we are wise to project how severe will be the consequences of Trump again getting his clock cleaned. After the immediate, gaseous bellowing, how many professionals on the right will be shaken that Trumpism won’t secure the White House, nor Congressional dominance? Three strikes against Trump, battered by one more popular vote loss, marks the final innings, if not also for Trumpist leverage. Gambling on a wing or prayer for salvation from a long-shot Electoral College split cannot sustain any national party.
And:
by Heather Digby Parton | September 7, 2024 - 6:47am | permalink
It seems like only yesterday that the elite media were extremely concerned that President Joe Biden had mistakenly referred to the president of Egypt as the president of Mexico. In the course of an otherwise cogent discussion of foreign affairs, he'd made that mistake in passing but it caused a huge uproar and spawned yet another round of critical reporting about his age and mental capacities. No one in the press blew off the gaffe and the substance of his comments went virtually unreported.
That press conference came in the shadow of the Hur report, in which the special counsel made a gratuitous comment about Biden being an elderly man with a bad memory. From that moment on almost every story about Joe Biden was framed in terms of his advanced age and the question of whether he was up to the job. The drumbeat continued for months until Biden's disastrous debate performance validated the narrative and it continued until the day he withdrew from the race. No one in the media cut Joe Biden any slack for his performance.
» article continues...
It seems like only yesterday that the elite media were extremely concerned that President Joe Biden had mistakenly referred to the president of Egypt as the president of Mexico. In the course of an otherwise cogent discussion of foreign affairs, he'd made that mistake in passing but it caused a huge uproar and spawned yet another round of critical reporting about his age and mental capacities. No one in the press blew off the gaffe and the substance of his comments went virtually unreported.
That press conference came in the shadow of the Hur report, in which the special counsel made a gratuitous comment about Biden being an elderly man with a bad memory. From that moment on almost every story about Joe Biden was framed in terms of his advanced age and the question of whether he was up to the job. The drumbeat continued for months until Biden's disastrous debate performance validated the narrative and it continued until the day he withdrew from the race. No one in the media cut Joe Biden any slack for his performance.
And:
The first thing to say about the hate and scorn currently directed at the mainstream US media is that they worked hard to earn it. They’ve done so by failing, repeatedly, determinedly, spectacularly to do their job, which is to maintain their independence, inform the electorate, and speak truth to power. While the left has long had reasons to dismiss centrist media, and the right has loathed it most when it did do its job well, the moderates who are furious at it now seem to be something new – and a host of former editors, media experts and independent journalists have been going after them hard this summer.
Longtime journalist James Fallows declares that three institutions – the Republican party, the supreme court, and the mainstream political press – “have catastrophically failed to ‘meet the moment’ under pressure of [the] Trump era”. Centrist political reformer and columnist Norm Ornstein states that these news institutions “have had no reflection, no willingness to think through how irresponsible and reckless so much of our mainstream press and so many of our journalists have been and continue to be”.
Trump turns to outlandish promises to offset $7 trillion in tax cuts
And:
Wagner: Where is the avalanche of coverage of Trump's cognitive decline?
And:
by Heather Digby Parton | September 5, 2024 - 6:43am | permalink
One of the articles of faith about the 2020 election among the MAGA crowd is that Joe Biden couldn't possibly have won the election because he "campaigned from his basement" and never spoke before the big crowds, as Donald Trump did. Biden didn't campaign from his basement, of course, but he did run a very non-traditional campaign because the whole country was under a modified lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Large indoor gatherings that did take place, such as the one Trump held in Tulsa during that summer, were super-spreader events that ended up with many people getting sick and some dying. That fall, Donald Trump himself showed up at a presidential debate knowingly infected. He soon ended up in the hospital and came close to dying himself.
Unlike Trump, Biden followed the advice of the scientists and found ways to campaign without unnecessary exposure to the virus. Despite all that, Trump and the right-wing media insisted that Biden must have cheated because he didn't barnstorm all over the country.
So what are we to make of the fact that in this campaign Trump can barely rouse himself to leave his cushy surroundings at Mar-a-Lago and is more likely to be found on the golf course than giving a speech or holding a rally?
Note: see below if you missed this epic event on breakthrough “weave” advances.
A vampire felon needs no candor,
When virulent brews ooze rancor;
Nothing impedes his latest excess:
Rehashing bunk with comic BS.
No logic fits this fool’s rambling,
A brainiac’s imbecile sham-bling;
This fraudster plunges in, without peers,
Want blatant proof? Listen to your ears.
The jokester’s scam act is faking it,
A classic word salad counterfeit.
“I never ramble, I only ‘weave,’”
Thus doubling down ways to deceive.
Ah, the lazy, crazy days of August during a presidential election year are upon us. That's traditionally when the political press decides that the Democratic candidate has not been accessible enough to them, so they spend weeks badgering them for interviews and demanding press conferences while insinuating that the candidate must be hiding something.
Recall the 2016 cycle when, during the month of August, the press had a collective tantrum because Hillary Clinton's staffers roped her off as she walked in a parade in order to keep reporters and photographers from turning the event into a paparazzi-style scrum. I wrote at the time:
Aaron Blake recounted the event in all its chilling detail and then rather sheepishly admitted that nobody in America really gives a damn about how Hillary Clinton treats the press. (A point I made a month ago.) After all, the press is held in only slightly higher esteem by the public than loan sharks and puppy mill operators. The thinly veiled threat underneath all this outrage is that the media will react to being treated badly by giving the candidate bad press, but it's pretty clear that train left the station a long time ago when it comes to Clinton, so the cost-benefit analysis probably doesn't argue in favor of the campaign giving a damn either.
And:
by Maya Boddie | August 30, 2024 - 6:16am | permalink
Since Donald Trump's Monday visit to Arlington National Cemetery, several aspects of the former president's visit to the historic of over 400,000 of US service members have been widely condemned.
The Washington Post reported, "Pentagon officials were deeply concerned about the former president turning the visit into a campaign stop, but they also didn’t want to block him from coming, according to Defense Department officials and internal messages reviewed by The Washington Post."
In an op-ed published by MSNBC Thursday, former US Army officer Brandon Friedman submits that, "to combat veterans, Arlington National Cemetery has the same power that all holy places have. And that is why Donald Trump’s recent behavior is so repulsive."
And:
by Thom Hartmann | September 5, 2024 - 6:32am | permalink
On his eponymous TV show, Joe Scarborough pointed out this week how angry and toxic Xitter has become recently. I’ve seen the same thing, as have many others; quitting Xitter has become a thing, largely as a result of the venomous culture that’s taken hold there.
This seems to be more closely connected to it being taken over by a morbidly rich South African immigrant who seems to delight in bullying his own child (and others) than to the political season; previous election cycles didn’t see similar reports of such widespread hostility and bullying behavior that was driving people to quit particular social media sites altogether.
That’s probably because one of the first rules of social organization is that culture flows from the top down.
When dad is violent, the family tends to be violent (or damaged by that violence). When corporate CEOs are bullies, middle management generally emulate that bullying style. When teachers or professors delight in picking on vulnerable students, the entire class often joins in.
