A Real Interview

Snowflakes.

If the Vice President is asked a question and does not answer that question, is it okay to keep asking him that question? Is that "rude" now? pic.twitter.com/Ql08DzcnTF

— Jane Coaston 🏔️ (@janecoaston) October 12, 2025

Here is another pro-Trump (much more so, actually) individual whose feelings were hurt because a reporter asked Donald's vice-president a couple of follow-up questions:

 

Stephanopoulos responds by defaming Homan again and then cutting Vance off completely.

ABC News needs to fire Stephanopoulos.pic.twitter.com/a7Gl1C2iFw

— Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸 (@Bubblebathgirl) October 12, 2025

On This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the host began the Homan segment (host's question in italics; Vice President's words in bold)  by asking the Vice President "The White House border czar, Tom Homan, was recorded on an FBI surveillance tape in September, 2024 accepting $50,000 in cash. Did he keep that money or give it back?" 

Vance said "Tom Homan did not take a bribe. It's a ridiculous smear." but didn't answer the question, whereupon the host responded "But wait, you said he didn't take a bribe. but I'm not sure you answered the question. Are you saying that he did not accept the $50,000?" Vance replied

George, this story has been covered ad nauseam. He did not take a bribe. Did he accept $50,000? I am sure that in the course of Tom Homan's life he has bee paid more than $50,000 for services. the question is, did he do something illegal, and there is absolutely no evidence that Tom Homan has ever taken a bribe or done anything illegal.

No, that is not the question. The question is what happened to the money. Vance goes to the matter of legality because the Department of Justice dropped the case, which it may have done simply because Homan- then a private citizen- was at the time unable to provide service. And as of now, the video has not been released by Kash Patel's FBI or Donald Trump's personal Department of Justice, though refusal may run afoul of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). 

Dissatisfied with Vance's bobbing and weaving, Stephanopoulos notes "No, I'm asking- I'm asking a different question, I'm asking you did he accept-" and a moment later, "I'm asking you, did he accept the $50,000 that was caught on the surveillance tape? Did he accept that $50,000 or not?" Vance asked

Accepting $50,000 for doing what, George? I am not even sure I understand the question. Is it illegal to take a payment for doing services? The FBI has not prosecuted him. I have never seen any evidence that he's engaged in criminal wrongdoing. Nobody has accused Tom of violating a crime, even the far-left media like yourself. So I'm actually not sure what the precise question is. Did he accept $50,000? Honestly, George, I don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that he didn't violate a crime.

Ever persistent, Stephanopoulos asked "So you don't- what was caught on the tape, you're saying right now, you don't know whether or  not he kept that money?" Vance maintained

I don't know what tape you're referring to, George. I saw media reports that Tom Homan accepted a bribe. There is no evidence of that. And here's, George, why fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility, because you're talking for now five minutes with the vice president of the United States about this story regarding Tom Homan, a story that I have read about, but I don't even know the video that you're talking about.

The Vice President comments "and here's, George, why fewer and fewer people watch your program and why you're losing credibility."  Meghan McCain doesn't find that rude. Vance continues

Meanwhile, low-income women can't get food because the Democrats and Chuck Schumer have shut down the government. Right now, we're trying to figure out how to pay our troops because Chuck Schumer has shut down the government. You're focused on a bogus story, you're insinuating criminal wrongdoing against a guy who has done nothing wrong, instead of focusing on the fact that our country is struggling because our government shut down.

The GOP controls the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives but it's the Democrats who are powerful enough to shut down the government. If so, that would be one heck of a weak President. 

Stephanopoulos was insinuating nothing. He merely was stating a fact. By obvious contrast, Vance was characterizing Homan as "a guy who has done nothing wrong." However, he never answered whether Homan had kept the money- or even whether he had taken the cash, only giving his opinion that Homan had done nothing wrong. Continuing to duck the question, the Vice President remarks

Let's talk about the real issues, George. I think the American people would benefit much more from that than from you going down some weird left-wing rabbit hole where the facts clearly show that Tom Homan didn't engage in any criminal wrongdoing.

It's possible that Homan, who at the time was in no position to do anything for the money, did not break a federal law. However, we still don't know whatever became of the payoff- uh, er, gift.

Shockingly- because this sort of thing is rarely done on network news or cable news- Stephanopoulos proceeded to defend himself, and facts. The interview ended with:

STEPHANOPOULOS: It's not a weird left-wing rabbit hole. I didn't insinuate anything. I asked you whether Tom Homan accepted $50,000 as was heard on an audiotape recorded by the FBI in September 2024, and you did not answer the question.

Thank you for your time this morning.

VANCE: No, George, I said that I don't --

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: -- is up next.

We'll be right back.

It's not a weird left-wing rabbit hole, Stephanopoulos didn't insinuate anything, Homan does appear to have accepted a $50,000 bribe (legally or otherwise), and J.D. Vance did not answer the question. The host ended the interview as it emerged that the only rabbit hole was plumbing for J.D. Vance's honesty or integrity.

This is how journalism is supposed to be done.  The interviewer asked a plain, simple question three times, each time the interviewee was given a chance to answer that question. He did not. George Stephanopoulos himself committed what is evidently a crime nowadays: he asked more than one follow-up question and when it didn't get answered, pointed out that it wasn't. 

Along with everything else loathsome, conservatives have turned so utterly sensitive during the Trump era. Their feelings are hurt, even when no accusation is actually made beyond what is in the public record. George Stephanopoulos did not call antagonists "vermin" and "enemies from within,"  suggested they be prosecuted, or call for a prominent General to be executed.. Worse: he has accused an interviewee of not answering a question. Lock him up!

Share |

The Dreadful Mike Johnson

Mike Johnson is at it again, this time with George Stephanopoulos. Two short guys, one big argument, one good interviewer, and one lying sack of human manure:

 

Stephanopoulos: “Do you believe it's appropriate to use American cities as training for the U.S. military calling those people in the American city as the enemy within?”

Johnson: “I'm not going to comment on your characterization of what the President said.” pic.twitter.com/5pPFmaRZBi

— The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) October 1, 2025

(Stephanopoulos) The President also said at the Pentagon yesterday that he wants cities to be used as training grounds for the American military. Is this the highest and best use of the US military? Is this the right way to train them?

(Johnson) I don't serve at the Pentagon. I run the House of Representatives. And what we need to be talking about today is the harm the American people are going to feel because of what Chuck Schumer is doing. Let me tell you...

(Stephanopoulos) Well, hold on a second. No, answer the question. As Speaker of the House, do you believe it is appropriate to use American cities as training grounds, calling those people in American cities "the army within." I'm asking you, as Speaker of the House, do you think that's appropriate?

(Johnson) I'm not going to comment on your characterization of what the President said.

(Crosstalk)

(Johnson) Well, you can take his quote out of context, as you often do. I don't thin that's fair to the President. I'll tell you what he's done, though. He's put National Guard troops here in D.C. and cleaned up the crime problem. People can walk.....

In his speech to military generals he summoned to the Marine base at Quantico, Virginia, President Trump, with his characteristic mixture of belligerence and child-like behavior, spewed lies and other disinformation. Speaker Johnson claimed Stephanopoulos had taken Donald's "quote out of context." Stephanopoulos noted that Trump had said that he "wants cities to be used as training grounds for the American military" and asked Johnson if he believed it "appropriate to use American cities as training grounds, calling those people in American cities 'the army within'."      

Here, in context- comments before and after the pertinent remark included- is what the President stated beginning at 37:21 and afterward, at 41:58 (applicable phrases in italics):

It's -- they're just -- they don't understand. They've destroyed the -- the image of media now is at the lowest point it's ever been. It's lower than Congress. Can you believe that? It's something. But together, with many of you in the room, we've brought back the fundamental principle that defending the homeland is the military's first and most important priority.

That's what it is. Only in recent decades did politicians somehow come to believe that our job is to police the far reaches of Kenya and Somalia, while America is under invasion from within. We're under invasion from within, no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don't wear uniforms.

At least when they're wearing a uniform, you can take them out. These people don't have uniforms. But we are under invasion from within. We're stopping it very quickly. After spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign countries, with your help, we're defending the borders of our country from now on. We're not going to let this happen.

Biden let people come in from prisons, mental institutions, drug dealers, murderers....

****

You know, we had millions coming in, pouring in. 25 million all told and of those 25 million, many of them should never be in our country. They would take their worst people and their people from prisons and jail and they put them in a caravan and they'd walk up. CNN was interviewing one person. Oh, why are you coming?

I want freedom. Good. Were you in jail? Yes. For what? Murder. I said, you're in for -- you had to see this anchor, a young woman. She's like I couldn't believe. She'll probably lose her job, but -- because the left doesn't want to hear that. But we're running it based on common sense and based on love of our country.

But I want to salute every service member who has helped us carry out this critical mission. It's really a very important mission. And I told Pete, we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military National Guard, but military, because we're going into Chicago very soon. That's a big city, with an incompetent governor, stupid governor, stupid.

They threw him out of his family business....

Stephanopoulos wisely ended the segment with "Mr. Speaker, thank you . Nothing I said about the President was out of context. Those were direct quotes from the President. Thank you for your time." 

Johnson then slipped in "cherry picked, out of a long speech."  "Cherry picked means "select the best or most desirable;" in this case, only those items the interviewer wanted to mention.  The GOP has as its leader- with no evident dissatisfaction- in the House of Representatives a guy who evidently believes that calling major American cities training grounds for the US military, and the people therein, is trivial. That underscores the importance of unmasking Republican toadies and in this case, doing so skillfully.

Share |

Muddled

One of Kamala Harris' parents- her mother- hailed from India but became immersed in the civil rights struggle for black Americans. The vice president has fairly consistently identified as black, and no doubt throughout most of her personal life and professional career, she has been perceived as black by nearly every individual and organization.

At the end of July, Donald Trump clumsily stated at the convention of the National Association of Black Journalists "I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black and now she wants to be known as black. So, I don't know, is she Indian or is she black?"

Although Trump continually lies, he may here have been either misguided or confused about a widely misunderstood subject.  In April of 2023, the vice-president had traveled to Africa and

was welcomed as a “daughter of our own country” when she sat down with Zambia’s leader.

The visit, President Hakainde Hichilema said, was “like a homecoming.”

It was a reference to a childhood trip to Zambia when Harris’ grandfather worked here, but she heard similar refrains throughout her weeklong trip to Africa that ended Saturday.

In Ghana, President Nana Akufo-Addo told Harris “you’re welcome home.” In Tanzania, a sign in Swahili told Harris to “feel at home.”

The greetings were a reflection of the enduring connections between the African diaspora in the United States and Africans themselves, something that America’s first Black vice president fostered during her trip. Although her historic status has led to extreme scrutiny and extraordinary expectations in Washington, it was a source of excitement over the past week.

But Kamala Harris never lived in Ghana or in Zambia and is not part of the African diaspora. And in the spirit of allowing the candidate herself- rather than her opponent, Donald Trump- identify herself, as she did in February of 2019 when the former state attorney general said that

she has smoked marijuana and supports the legalization of the drug.

In the interview, given to the New York-based radio show “The Breakfast Club,” co-host Charlamagne Tha God asks Harris if she has ever smoked.

“I have. And I inhaled – I did inhale. It was a long time ago. But, yes,” the California Democrat replies, invoking former President Bill Clinton’s famous “didn’t inhale” remark he made during his 1992 presidential run.

Harris, laughing as she realized the attention that her admission might draw, said that she tried pot in college and noted that it was in the form of a joint.

“I just broke news,” she said.

The 2020 presidential contender dodged Charlamagne Tha God’s question about whether or not she would try it again if it were legalized “all throughout the country,” but said that she thinks “that it gives a lot of people joy and we need more joy.”

As for marijuana legalization, Harris told Charlamagne Tha God that she supports it.

They say you oppose legalizing weed,” he said.

“That’s not true. And look I joke about it, half joking – half my family’s from Jamaica, are you kidding me,” Harris replies, laughing.

In a moment of candor fairly unusual for a politician, Harris pleaded "half my family's from Jamaica, are you kidding me?" Nearly humorous, it was accurate because half of Harris' family is from Jamaica, as she claimed. She is not generational African-American, as she indirectly conceded, instead having a parent from Jamaica which, before the political rise of Kamala Harris, always was recognized as an island country in the Caribbean sea, far from the continent of Africa.

Descendants of someone from Jamaica may originate from Africa- and from other continents. So, too, do white Americans, proud of their descendants from Italy, Ireland, or Poland, have descendants generations ago from continents other than Europe.

Kamala Harris identifies as black which is common and logical as a citizen of the USA who has at least one black parent.  Evidently, this is difficult to understand for some people, including ABC's George Stephanopoulos, who claims to believe hat Harris is bi-racial and yet simultaneously ethnically black. 

Within reason, the vice-president has, as we all do, the right to identify herself. With Kamala Harris, that is black and Jamaican-American, whatever Donald Trump, a famous broadcast journalist, or others may maintain.

Share |

Journalist Confused, Or Worse, About Race

When he appeared at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Chicago on Wednesday, former President Donald J. Trump infamously remarked "I didn't know she was black until a number of years ago when she happened to turn black and now she wants to be known as black. So I don't know- is she Indian? Or is she black?"

Therefore, on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, the host asked Representative Byron Donalds of Florida, "why is former President Trump questioning the vice president's racial identity?" Once on the presidential nominee's very long vice presidential list, he replied

Well, first, George, in Chicago he was responding to a question from, I believe, Rachel Scott. Like, this is really a phony controversy. I don't really care. Most people don't. But if we're going to be accurate, when Kamala Harris went into the United States Senate, it was AP that said she was the first Indian American United States senator. It was actually played up a lot when she came into the Senate. Now she's running nationally. Obviously, the campaign has shifted. They're talking much more about - about her father's heritage and her black identity.

 It doesn't really matter. The president mentioned it. What he also talks about far more frequently is the fact that Kamala Harris is the person who created this massive inflation...

Stephanopoulos responded

And you - and you just repeated the slur again. If it doesn't matter, why do you all keep questioning her identity? She's always identified as a black woman. She is biracial. She has a Jamaican father and an Indian mother. She's always identified as both. Why are you questioning that?

"....she's always identified as a black woman. She is biracial." It's very likely that neither host nor guest noticed that Stephanopoulos had stated that Ms. Harris is "biracial" while she herself has "always identified as a black woman." When he says Ms. Harris is biracial and (simultaneously) "consistently identified as a black woman,"  Stephanopoulos is precisely the one who is questioning the candidate's identity.  

Nonetheless, Donalds responded

Well, George, first of all, this is something that's actually a conversation throughout social media right now. There were a lot of people who were trying to figure this out. But again, that's a side issue, not the main issue. The main issue that's (INAUDIBLE0- Kamala Harris is the vice president of the United States.

Donalds obviously wanted to move on to other matters. Nevertheless, Stephanopoulos persisted, remarkin "Sir, one second. So you just did it- you just did it again." 

No, he didn't. The congressman merely noted that it is a subject on social media, then began to move on to "Kamala Harris is the vice president of the United States..."  Stephanopoulos would have none of it, maintaining "Sir, one second. So, you just did it- you just did it again.... Why-why do you- why do you insist on questioning her racial identity?

Stephanopoulos chose to be confrontational- which is good television- but when someone asks "why are you questioning that," a reference to social media is, well, the obvious answer. When the congressman conceded that Trump had spoken about the subject for two minutes- only two minutes, in Donalds' estimation- Stephanopoulos charged "so questioning somebody's racial identity for a couple of minutes is OK?" Donalds responded

George, I'm going to tell you again, he brought it up. AP is the one that wrote the headline when she first came into the United States Senate. Didn't talk about her being black. Talked about her being the first Indian American senator. AP brought that up.

 I mean, George, we could have this conversation for the entire segment, but none of this matters to the American people. What matters to the American people is, are we going to have the same policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

This is easily refuted or verified and, as someone should tell George Stephanopoulos, it has been the latter:

AP is the one that wrote the headline when she first came into the United States Senate. Didn't talk about her being black. Talked about her being the first Indian-American senator. AP brought it up. That is what, in a different context, would be acknowledged as an inconvenient truth.

Remarkably, Stephanopoulos persisted, claiming "I don't understand why you keep on repeating it, why the president keeps on repeating it, why those introducing the president yesterday keep on repeating it."

And so Donalds points out "George, actually, I'm not the one who keeps repeating it. George, you're the one that's bringing it up now." You'd think that the host would have a little self-awareness, but he stated "you've done- sir, you've done it- you've done it three times, every single answer you gave me."

Well, of course Donalds did so- because Stephanopoulos asked him about it, repeatedly. Reporters should be pleased when a politician answers one of their questions, but not in this case. Thus, Donalds noted "but, George, now you're saying that 'AP' is the one that slurred Kamala Harris? Because those are the facts."

It was silly to think that facts matter to a news host who, obviously, is all in on Kamala Harris' candidacy to the extent that he berates a guest for actually answering his question  So Stephanopoulos then claims "'AP' did not say that Kamala Harris is not Black. She is biracial. She is Indian. She is Black."

What part of "Kamala Harris becomes first Indian American US Senator" does Stephanopoulos not understand? The headline did not say "Kamala Harris becomes first Black US Senator." It did not say "Kamala Harris becomes first biracial Senator." It said "Kamala Harris becomes first Indian American US Senator." \

In most relevant ways, Kamala Harris is black. However, that was not the issue in this discussion or for the AP headline. It is that she is Indian-American. It is the fault of neither Byron Donalds or Donald Trump that the Associated Press represented Harris as Indian-American when she has typically represented herself, legitimately, as black.

But, alas, the media must have its firsts.  She would not have been the first black US Senator but was the first Indian-American US Senator, even though she identifies as "black" and Stephanopoulos (correctly) insists "she is black." Yet, George Stephanopoulos denied that the AP referred to Ms. Harris- who is black- as Indian. However, she would not have been the first black US Senator but was the first Indian-American US Senator. When color is the paramount factor in assessing an individual's qualifications (as was the case prior to the civil rights movement), truth suffers.

There are far too few broadcast journalists willing to do as Stephanopoulos did,  to ask repeated follow-up questions of interviewees. Stephanopoulos crossed the line, though not in being fixated on one topic. He accused Byron Donalds of continually bringing up a subject the latter wanted to avoid. He alleged that the AP did not say that Kamala Harris is not black, when in fact the news outlet wrote )and emphasized) that she is Indian-American. He said that Harris is black and that she is bi-racial, notwithstanding the obvious contradiction.

The news business is not 23 and Me or Ancestry.com. If it were, it probably would discover that Kamala Harris has some ancestry dating to the West Indies, some to Africa and Asia, and possibly elsewhere. It works similarly for Americans understandably proud (or not) of their European descent while their racial heritage may be far more complicated.

The complete racial background of Kamala Harris is unknown to the public and is largely irrelevant, whatever it is. She appears black and has been considered black.  As she was growing up, Kamala's Jamaican heritage was emphasized by her (Indian-American) mother and she has generally identified as black.  The AP's headline was a business decision, and a grossly misleading one. Whatever motivated George Stephanopoulos to conduct this bizarre (might I say "weird"?) interview, it constitued demonstrable journalistic malpractice.

 

Share |

Widely Misunderstood

It's not only George Stephanopoulos who believes this widely-held myth. Superficially, it makes sense, but it is very, very wrong.

Deborah Ramirez, who attended Yale University with Brett Kavanaugh during the 1983-84 academic year, has claimed that Kavanaugh thrust an exposed penis at her during a party of heavy drinking at Yale University.during the 1983-84 academic year.

Kavanaugh's roommate in that fall semester, James Roche, was not at the party but often talked to Kavanaugh when the latter returned at night after being out with friends.  He argues "it is from this experience that I concluded that although Brett was normally reserved, he was a notably heavy drinker, even by the standards of the time, and that he became aggressive and belligerent when he was very drunk." He concludes "I cannot imagine (Ramirez) making this up."

Except in the case of federal judges and (perhaps) other high-ranking federal officials, this is what is commonly referred to as an "angry drunk." On ABC's Good Morning America (video below) Monday, Ronan Farrow, one of the two investigative journalists who broke the Ramirez story, stated

And I think the fact that she took several days to consider and really carefully consider that she had an evidentiary basis for this and that other people were backing her account who had heard a the time and been told, speaks well of her level of caution. This is not the behavior of someone who is fabricating.

A legitimately skeptical Stephanopoulos, reflecting a common misunderstanding, responded

Let me press you on that because that sentence really did jump out at me when I read the article. You say at first she wasn't sure this was Kavanaugh when you first came to her last week and then you

 write "after six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting her attorney, she did become confident that it was him. You know a lot of people would say...

Explaining a plain truth about cases of sexual assault and attempted sexual assault (and other offenses), Ronan stated

And because I would say that it's extremely typical of those stories when you're dealing with trauma, alcohol, many years in between. I think that the more cautious witnesses I've dealt with in cases like this very frequently say "I want to take time to decide, I want to talk to other people involved, I want to search myself, I want to make sure that I affirmatively stand by these claims" in the face of what she knew would be a crucible of partisan push back, which is what she's receiving now.

As Farrow noted, this is especially common in cases involving trauma. It is even more so in matters involving sexual misbehavior because in most societies, ours included, women are virtually trained to believe they're at least partially at fault.

I want to search myself. In real time, a victim often believes that he or she should not speak up, maybe make a fuss, because it might greatly inconvenience himself or cause unneeded harm to the perpetrator. The victim may not want to cause distress to the guilty party because the incident might not have been very serious, or he may just want to get on with his life.

People, men and women, lie. They lie especially when the incident occurs because they're bitter, have an ax to grind, or want to gain advantage by making an accusation. By contrast, if the victim speaks out months or years later, emotions usually have faded and there rarely is an advantage to the individual who is aggrieved, nor to the offender.

When women such as Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez reveal months afterward that they have been victimized by incidents of a sexual nature, they are performing a service little noticed or understood by the public, including most journalists, Stephanopoulos in this incident.  "When you're dealing with trauma," Farrow understands, but it's typical even in cases where trauma is not experienced.

As more women speak out, the voices of those who take time, talk to other people involved, and search themselves will not be summarily dismissed. Theirs may be the voice of conscience or of perspective, or of the wisdom that "hindsight is 20/20."

Share |

Oooh.  He's Quite The Guy


But, gee whiz, guys and gals, wouldn’t it just be totally and awesomely cool to have a real Jersey guy become president? Think of all “hits” the dying, increasingly digitized newspapers in the state would receive writing about him? Might rival the Kardashians as a trender.

Bob Braun wrote that on Wednesday when even he wouldn't have known that George Stephanopoulos would go out and prove on Sunday that he is one of those media guys who find Chris Christie totally and awesomely cool. On This  Week, the ABC News host "asked" the Democratic establishment's favorite governor, favorite Republican, and favorite manly man

There's also been a lot of questions about the president's health care plan. You called on him to apologize this week. He seemed to take your advice, a couple of days later he did apologize for people who were getting their health plans canceled.

President Obama did call to congratulate the fellow the media inevitably has designated the leading GOP presidential contender.  The day after the landslide victory for the guy whose abiding passion is berating teachers publicly, presidential press secretary Jay Carney stated “Obviously [the president] and the governor have spent a lot of time together … The president was glad to congratulate him on his victory." That was about as far as he could go without blurting out, "How obvious did  the President have to make it he was hoping the governor would be re-elected?"  Still, a media firestorm had rapidly evolved, and suggesting that the President of the United States apologized because of the influence of one of the many Repubs who criticized him is an extraordinary stretch.

Stephanopoulos was eager to contribute to a narrative among many professional Democrats (a group that once included Stephanopoulos) that beneath the rough and abusive exterior, Christie, a Koch brothers favorite, is really a moderate who speaks truth to the power of the far-right.   "You got a majority of the Latino vote" (i.e., approximately 51%)," he stroked, "and you're for a path to citizenship," itself a pre-requisite for the approval of the Democratic establishment. Continuing in that vein, Stephanopoulos assured his viewers Christie "also said that undocumented students in New Jersey should get in-state tuition rates."    He neglected to mention the significant increase in tuition rates at state universities which resulted in part when the governor slashed aid to public colleges.

It isn't only George, of course. Adam Nagourney and Jonathan Martin, at the "liberal" New York Times, gush

At a time when Mr. Obama and members of Congress are mired in partisanship and gridlock, many governors — including Chris Christie of New Jersey, a Republican who was re-elected by an overwhelming margin on Tuesday, and the chief executives of such states as Arkansas, California, Nevada, New Mexico, New York and Ohio — are showing that it is possible to be successful in elected office, even in this era.

These governors are, at least by comparison to lawmakers in Washington, capable and popular leaders, pushing through major legislation and trying to figure out ways, with mixed success, to avoid the partisan wrangling that has come to symbolize Washington.

With unavoidable sarcasm, Steve M. observes

Chris Christie is dreamy! Chris Christie's elevator pitch for himself ("Washington sucks! Governors like me rule!") is so excellently pithy that we're going to write about it as if it's a news story and not a campaign slogan! After all, that's our job, isn't it? To recast politicians' self-promoting spin as objective news?

Christie did, as Stephanopoulos pointed out, agree to accept an expansion of Medicare, a wise decision while running for re-election in a liberal, Democratic state.  But George ignored, as virtually the entire media has, that

Right after taking office, Gov. Christie decided to cut funding for fundamental reproductive health-care programs. Six Planned Parenthood clinics in New Jersey were shut down, and thousands of women have been deprived of the counseling and care they need. That means that thousands of women in New Jersey cannot get gynecological care, counseling on reproductive choices, diagnosis and treatment of sexually transmitted disease, because they cannot afford it. The governor has deliberately underfunded these programs...

But primary blame does not lie with the mainstream media, which cannot be expected to do its job in the absence of criticism of Governor Christie from those who should know better, do know better, and yet kept quiet.  Braun notes

If Chris Christie, someone who couldn’t be re-elected freeholder, whose brother bought him the US Attorney’s office,  who used the machinery of federal prosecutions to eliminate his rivals, who incited hatred against teachers and other public employees, who presided over unemployment and property tax  increases, who made the poor poorer and the rich richer, who made publicly abusing women a new professional sport in New Jersey—becomes president of the United States, we have one group to blame:

The leadership of New Jersey’s Democrats.

And Christie’s bosom Sandy pal, Barack Obama.

And even now, after his guy pal has been re-elected, President Obama remains supportive of a presidential aspirant, who for New Jersey politics, has been an unprecedented opponent of women's health, transportation infrastructure improvements, unions, public employees, poor people, public school students, same-sex marriage, and an increase in the minimum wage. Heck of a job, Obamie.











Share |

A Win For Bachmann


If today's interview on ABC's Good Morning America is any indication, Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-MN), who is considering a presidential bid, is ready for prime time.

George Stephanopoulos had a legitimate excuse to bring up the "birther" issue (video and relevant portion of transcript, here, from ABC News) because one of the congresswoman's supporters in Iowa has introduced in Des Moines a bill which reportedly would require presidential (and vice-presidential) candidates to produce a birth certificate. Bachmann neatly switched the issue to a similar bill, vetoed yesterday by Governor Brewer, in Arizona. Implying- without stating- that she agreed with the governor of her own party, Bachmann commented "I have no problem giving my birth certificate, it wouldn’t bother me at all. I’ve got one, its authenticated, take it." Bachmann had casually and effectively inferred that President Obama could also offer a birth certificate, but did so without explicitly calling on him to do so or doubting his American origin. Nor did she definitively state that Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.- not a good idea to tell your most avid supporters they are stupid, ill-informed, or simply wrong.

After Bachmann pirouetted from (the discomfort of) Iowa to (the comfort of) Arizona, Stephanopoulos, understandably anxious to get a straight answer out of the the Minnesotan, explained "According to the bill ‘a candidate for president or vice president shall attach to and file with the affidavit a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate certified by the appropriate official in the candidate’s state of birth.'" Bachmann stated "right" and Stephanopoulos continued

Well I have the president’s certificate right here. It’s certified, it’s got a certification number. It’s got the registrar of the state signed. It’s got a seal on it. And it says 'this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of birth in any court proceeding.'

Alert the press! After a couple of years of controversy (legitimate or otherwise) over Barack Obama's birth, George Stephanopoulos has uncovered the birth certificate of the son of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama!

Except that he hasn't. Stephanopoulos unveiled Obama's Certificate of Live Birth, which does in fact include the assurance "this copy serves as prima facie evidence of the fact of any birth in any court proceeding." (On his blog, Stephanopoulos referred to it as the Certificate of Live Birth though while linking to factcheck.org, which inaccurately labeled it "the original birth certificate.") It is possible that the original birth certificate, recently sought unsuccessfully by the Governor of Hawaii (an early supporter of Senator Obama), does not exist- and may never have existed. But after he commented about a bill requiring "a birth certificate," Stephanopolous intended to misinform the audience when he contended "Well I have the president’s certificate right here." Not surprising, then, that Stephanopoulos hesitated (ever so slightly) between the words "president's" and "certificate," casually omitting "birth."

Wisely, Bachmann let it go and, summoning her inner machismo, asserted "I take the president at his word and I think– again I would have no problem and apparently the president wouldn’t either. Introduce that, we’re done. Move on." Stephanopoulos had set out to get his guest on the record as being revealed as a "birther"- or opposing the action of a supporter in the critical, early state of Iowa- and had accomplished neither, in effect agreeing with Bachmann's conclusion "I guess it's over."

It was a good, and failed, effort by a veteran journalist.... and a seasoned performance by a veteran politician.

Share|

The Republican Media- No. 16

Thanks go out to Republican strategist Alex Castellanos and Andrea Mitchell, Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent of NBC News.

Two days after I reprinted the 1999 article in slate.com by Timothy Noah which described the Republican effort to tar Al Gore with responsibility for the Willie Horton hit job in the 2000 election, along comes Castellanos practically bragging how the GOP is going to replay this tactic in 2008, immediately followed by McCain enthusiast Andrea Mitchell reminding us how routine bias toward the Republican Party is.

Here are the two comments from the April 27, 2008 edition of NBC's Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: Alex Castellanos, the Republican strategist, was on TV the other night and said this: "Clinton's running the ads Republicans would love to be running so--now, so we don't have to because Hillary Clinton is doing it. Yes, it could--would be hard for a Republican to run an ad with Osama bin Laden in it. Not so much now because Hillary has already done it against Obama.

"It would be difficult for a Republican to run an ad questioning does Barack Obama have the strength of character to lead the country. Well, not so much now because Hillary has already done it."

Is that a Republican sort of protecting his flank, getting ready for a rollout, or has Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama paved the way for McCain if Obama becomes the nominee?

MS. MITCHELL: She's written the playbook for John McCain. They've done all the opposition research. I think that Obama has also had some self-inflicted wounds, notably in San Francisco, the bitter comment, which just didn't play right, and I--you know, obviously I don't think he's handled Jeremiah Wright, we can talk about that. I don't think he anticipated the impact of that and the way it would be perceived out of context or in context. But Hillary Clinton has laid out a road map for the Republicans, and that is one of the Obama arguments. The Obama supporters are arguing that she is destroying him, even if he is the nominee, and he is the presumptive nominee and the front-runner, certainly

Note Castellanos claiming "It would be difficult for a Republican to run an ad questioning does Barack Obama have the strength of character to lead the country. Well, not so much now because Hillary has already done it."

Not true. Hillary Clinton's 3:00 a.m. foreign policy ad (courtesy of The Huffington Post) and her more recent buy with images of Franklin Roosevelt, Pearl Harbor, Castro, gas prices, and, yes, bin Laden emphasize her credentials for handling a crisis. They do not criticize or demean Barack Obama in any way, but merely suggest that she is the candidate best able (and I use "best" rather than "better" because it is not a direct comparison with her current rival) to handle an emergency. Disagree with her on that point if you choose, but paranoia about either ad is neither attractive nor flattering to the frontrunner, merely indicating a naivete that it the spot is somehow beyond the pale. However, it is not surprising that a Repub consultant has spilled the beans, revealing that the GOP this autumn intends to do a "Willie Horton"- run a venomous campaign and blame it on Democrats.

Similarly, Andrea Mitchell, wife of one of the most important Republicans, Allan Greenspan, of the last 20 years. She now has said of Hillary Clinton "she's written the playbook for John McCain. They've done all the opposition research." Fortunately, we have a Weekly Standard blogger ("fortunately" the Weekly Standard- something I'm not used to typing) quoting John McCain on a conference call as claiming

All I can tell you, Jennifer, is that I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States. So apparently has Danny Ortega and several others. I think that people should understand that I will be Hamas's worst nightmare....If senator Obama is favored by Hamas I think people can make judgments accordingly.

Did Mrs. Clinton run an ad I missed about Danie Ortega and Hamas, linking them to Barack Obama? No, but that doesn't stop Mitchell from claiming "she's written the playbook for John McCain."

And "they've done all the opposition research?" Did Senator Clinton force Senator Obama to refer on the first of his two interviews with WIP Radio in Philadelphia to his maternal grandmother as "a typical white person?" Did Senator Clinton infiltrate that meeting with campaign donors and insinuate Senator Obama into contending that small town Americans "cling" to their guns and religion? Has Senator Clinton been asking the silly question about why Senator Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin? Was it Senator Clinton or George Stephanopoulos who asked Senator Obama about William Ayers- or whether Obama's former pastor "love(s) America as much as you do"? And was it Senator Clinton who dug up video of Reverend Wright- which would be a huge surprise to conservative Repub talk show host Sean Hannity who claims to have uncovered the Wright story first?

No, Andrea, Hillary Clinton isn't laying out the road map for the Grand Old Party. But you seem to be trying to.

A Debate, Or Whatever

Stupid, offensive, or biased questions from the Democratic presidential debate, hosted by Charlies Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, on April 17, 2008:

(1) (from Gibson, of both candidates) Governor Cuomo, on elder statesman in your party, has come forward with a suggestion. He has said, "Look, fight it to the end. Let every vote be counted. You can test every delegate. Go at each other right till the end. Don't give an inch to one another. But pledge now that
whichever one of you wins this contest, you'll take the other as your running mate, and that the other one will agree, if they lose, to take second place on the ticket."
So I put the question to both of you: Why not? (LAUGHTER)
Don't all speak at once.

No, Charlie, neither candidate is going to take a pledge- binding himself/herself months ahead of the convention- which you would never asked the Repub candidate to take.

(2)(follow-up to Clinton) If it was good enough in colonial times, why not in these times?

You already asked this question, Charlie; what part of Obama's response- "I think it's premature at this point for us to talk about who vice presidential candidates will be, because we're still trying to determine who the nominee will be" didn't you understand?

(3)(from Gibson, of Obama, regarding his controversial remarks to a fund-raiser) Do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing and think that you said actually what you meant?

There is a legitimate question or two still to be asked about Obama's comments about small-town America, but "do you understand that some people in this state find that patronizing?" is not one of them, but rather suggests a conclusion it is not Gibson's to make- perhaps his own conclusion couched in the cowardly "some people" phrase. It is itself a patronizing question, when he might have actually asked about the issues raised in the remark.

(4) (to Clinton about allegedly talking to Bill Richardson about Obama's electability) I'm not going to ask you about that conversation; I know you don't want to talk about it.

This was not a question but a comment from Stephanopoulos. Still, why should George set out to avoid asking a candidate a question because it would make her uncomfortable?

(5) (Stephanopoulos, of Obama) Senator, two questions. Number one, do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do? And, number two, if you get the nomination, what will you do when those sermons are played on television again and again and again?

Which question is worse? The hot-button issue, not about the content of Reverend Wright's remarks or Obama's response to them, but about the feelings toward his country of someone not running for office and whom very few of us have ever met or ever will; or a hypothetical question which is meant to suggest that he can't win ("played on television again and again and again")? And is the reference to playing the remarks repeatedly after the convention lay the groundwork for the GOP rationalizing this line of attack once they launch it?

(6)(follow-up to Obama) But you do believe he's as patriotic as you are?

Do you still think, George, that the candidate is going to say that his former pastor is unpatriotic?

(7) (an individual identified as a Tom Rooney of Pittsburgh, Pa.) Senator Clinton, how do you reconcile the campaign credibility that you have when you made those comments about what happened getting off the plane in Bosnia, which totally misrepresented what really happened on that day? You really lost
my vote. And what can you tell me to get that vote back?

If you've already decided that the senator lied, what purpose is served asking her what she can do "to get that vote back?" If you've decided that she lied and it's important enough to ask her about it, why would you vote for her? (Hiding behind the "man in the street" technique does not justify placing such a question on the air.) Is this ABC's backhanded way of saying what it's too cowardly to charge "Senator, you lied about Bosnia?"

(8) (from an individual identified as a Nash McCabe) Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your
patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I
want to know why you don't.

Probably the worst question of the debate, but with much competition, this is not a question which would be asked of Senator McCain- who does not wear it and whose patriotism no one would doubt- and thus raises the question: are we to suspect that Barack Obama is less patriotic than the other candidates? Sorry, but Obama is not going to make you happy and say that he is unpatriotic, about which there is no evidence.

(9) (from Stephanopoulos, of Obama about William Ayers, "part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s) Can you explain that relationship for the voters and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

And can you, Mr. Stephanopoulos, tell us why you take your questions from GOP TV talk show host and Repub enthusiast Sean Hannity?

At dailykos, DHinMI noted that all these topics were ignored:

The financial crisis
The collapse of housing values in the US and around the world
Afghanistan
Health care
Torture
The declining value of the US Dollar
Education
Trade
Pakistan
Energy
Immigration
The decline of American manufacturing
The Supreme Court
The burgeoning world food crisis.
Global warming
China
The attacks on organized labor and the working class
Terrorism and al Qaeda
Civil liberties and constraints on government surveillance

Merely calling the guys who hosted the debate "biased" may be giving them too much credit.