Passionately Wrong

With only 140 or so shopping days to go before Christmas, there is something Lawrence O'Donnell could be given as a holiday gift. That would be  a dictionary (or would be, if there was no online dictionary). Incensed that the media telecast Donald Trump's entire liefest, then ignored Kamala Harris' rally afterward, O'Donnell remarked (at 3:07 of the video posted by this journalist)

It's 2016 all over again. The same mistakes are being made3 all over again. I've never seen an industry slower at learning from their own stupid mistakes than the American news business and you cannot expect them in the next 89 days to figure out what they haven't been able to figure out in nine years- how to cover a Trump for President campaign...

On October 28, 2016 we learned "Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton's Campaign." Three days later, we were treated to the New York Times headline "Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia." That article included the now literally incredible report

Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.

There is no telling whose those "intelligence officials" were because a few days before Trump became President, an Intelligence Community Assessment acknowledged

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the U.S. presidential election. Russia's goas were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary (Hillary) Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.

The irony is startling, given that on nine occasions in the closing days of the 2016 campaign, Trump stated a variation of, as he said in Michigan, "if Hillary is elected, she will be under protracted criminal investigation followed by the trial of a sitting president."

These statements were rarely questioned by the media, which Lawrence O'Donnell correctly points out failed in 2016.  "All over again" does not, however, adequately characterize a media which paved the way for a Trump victory then and is fawning over his opponent eight years later.

O'Donnell continued

Donald Trump gets credit from the people he lied to today for lying to them. They appreciate it. Reporters understandably and incorrectly believe that the most important thing a candidate can do is to answer their questions. But they don't know what an answer actually is. Words spoken after their question marks are not necessarily answers and are never answers when they come from Donald Trump.

Trump isn't getting credit from individuals in the media for lying to them. He's getting credit- understandably and correctly- for appearing before them and answering questions, which his opponent, Kamala Harris, is noticeably avoiding doing.

It's no small thing to answer questions, even if most of the answers are dishonest, which is typical for Trump (which makes the dishonesty no more acceptable). And notwithstanding O'Donnell's claim that "they don't know what an answer is," Merriam-Webster defines "answer" as "something spoken or written in reply to a question."

The news show host added

There are rumblings in the news media now that Kamala Harris as a presidential candidate not doing what Donald Trump did today- stand up in front of reporters and take their questions and some of their timid minds in the news media can't wait to give credit to Donald Trump for standing up and lying in response to every question they ask. A lie is not an answer. Donald Trump never answers reporters' questions. Never.

Again: A lie, if in response to a question, is an answer. Donald Trump is very generous with his answers, viewing each as an opportunity to twist a tale. If he periodically told the truth, Donald Trump would not be Donald Trump and never would have been elected President. Lying is an art which many successful politicians including Presidents such as Reagan and Clinton, successfully practiced but never perfected. (Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden were not good at it; a pattern, perhaps?)

Still wrong, O'Donnell followed with

Anyone in the news world who tells you Donald Trump has answered reporters' questions and Kamala Harris hasn't is lying to you and they're too stupid to know that they're lying to you because they don't know what an answer is.

Lying and stupid, a twofer. By contrast, as Collins Dictionary notes, "a lie is something that someone says or writes which they know is untrue." Therefore, if someone is "too stupid to know they're lying to you," he or she is not lying. The individual is not fully aware the statement is untrue. 

The only rationalization for claiming that Kamala Harris hasn't "answered reporters' questions" is that Kamala Harris has been asked very few questions by the media. That is not by accident, in part because the vice president has proven to be very bad at that. And in the alternative, broadcast media will show adoring and rapturous crowds at packed rallies. Harris remembers that  Hillary Clinton answered reporters' questions and never became President Hillary Clinton,  That is not coincidental and the current nominee does not want history to repeat.

The problem with covering Donald Trump's campaign is not that it is covered. It is insufficient fact-checking. When the former President- or his opponent, when she does- hold a news conference, it should be broadcast. In general, candidates should answer, honestly, questions which the news media poses, or wishes to pose, to them.

Lawrence O'Donnell does not agree. He also doesn't know the meaning of simple English. What do they teach at Harvard, anyway?

 

"It was 2016 all over again today ... the same mistakes are being made" -- @lawrence 🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/CxfddzLjuX

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 9, 2024

Share |

False, Though

We hear from and individual on Donald Trump's short list for vice presidential nominee before the dog days of May.

Tim Walz locked down his people and took their Freedoms away.

He said that we should have canceled the Sturgis Motorcycle Rally (even though he let violent rioters crowd his own streets).

Thousands and thousands of Minnesotans have moved to South Dakota to flee his radical… pic.twitter.com/rExMkTmGyW

— Kristi Noem (@KristiNoem) August 7, 2024

 

Putting aside Noem's specific claims, the primary the implication of the South Carolina governor is that as Covid-19 raged, Governor Walz tolerated dangerous riots (also known as the George Floyd protests) while the motorcycle rally in Sturgis posed little threat.

Yet, on July 1, 2020 we learned

There is little evidence that the protests that erupted after George Floyd’s death caused a significant increase in U.S. coronavirus infections, according to public health experts.

If the protests had driven an explosion in cases, experts say, the jumps would have started to become apparent within two weeks — and perhaps as early as five days. But that didn’t happen in many cities with the largest protests, including New York, Chicago, Minneapolis, and Washington, D.C.

In what’s considered the first systematic look at the question, a team of economists determined that only one of 13 cities involved in the earliest wave of protests after Memorial Day had an increase that would fit the pattern.

It was Phoenix, where experts say cases and hospitalizations surged after a decision by Gov. Doug Ducey to end Arizona’s stay-at-home order on May 15 and eased restrictions on businesses. Arizona residents who were cooped up for six weeks flooded Phoenix-area bar districts, ignoring social distancing guidelines.

In many cities, the protests actually seemed to lead to a net increase in social distancing, as more people who did not protest decided to stay off the streets, said that study’s lead author, Dhaval Dave of Bentley University.

And in Minneapolis: seventeen days earlier, the conservative Daily Mail (notwithstanding its misleading headline) had reported

The health department set up four testing sites last week specifically for those who had participated in the protests with more than 3,300 people undergoing tests.

 Results from about 1,300 of the tests - or 40 percent - carried out at those sites on June 9 and 10 have already come back and show that 1.4 percent of protesters who were tested have been infected with COVID-19.

The seven-day average of positive tests across Minnesota is 3.7 percent. It is higher because it is based on people who have been tested because they are displaying symptoms.

By contrast, in Sturgis, South Dakota, the annual summertime motorcycle rally significantly increased Covid-19 infections, cases of hospitalization, and deaths. After the following years rally, in late August of 2021 the CDC explained

Eighty-six Minnesota COVID-19 cases were associated with the South Dakota motorcycle rally; approximately one third of counties in Minnesota reported at least one case epidemiologically linked to this event. These findings highlight the far-reaching effects that gatherings in one area might have on another area. The motorcycle rally was held in a neighboring state that did not have policies regarding event size and mask use, underscoring the implications of policies within and across jurisdictions. The findings suggest that this rally not only had a direct impact on the health of attendees, but also led to subsequent SARS-CoV-2 transmission among household, social, and workplace contacts of rally attendees upon their return to Minnesota. Whole genome sequencing results supported the finding of secondary and tertiary transmission associated with this rally.

It shouldn't be surprising that the motorcycle rallies had a far greater impact upon Covid-19 transmission than did the black lives matter protests. Vox listed several reasons there were relatively few infections caused by the protests, a few of which contrast sharply with the South Dakota motorcycle rallies. 

The George Floyd demonstrations were attended disproportionately by young people, likely younger than the Sturgis gathering. There was also more social distancing, mask-wearing, and hand washing among the racial justice people, who generally were more accepting of measures intended to slow spread of he coronavirus. 

Moreover, the black lives matte protests were outdoors and most attendees marched, then returned home. But individuals going to Sturgis came from far and wide and did not show up and leave. They go to restaurants and bars and generally partake of the party-like atmosphere before returning home.

The governor of South Dakota criticizes the governor of Minnesota for his approach, which saved lives, to the once-in-a-hundred years outbreak. The irony is that, though dishonest, it is great politics. Under attack, 

The irony is great: people came to Sturgis, some went back to Minneapolis and infected people and the governor of South Dakota down the governor Minnesota for his approach, which saved lives, to the once-in-a-hundred outbreak. Dr. Deborah Birx, Dr. Anthony Fauci, and others associated with the federal government's response to Covid-19 have done little to defend themselves against charges from the right-wing. Democratic politicians, many of whom have been criticized by Republicans for their relatively aggressive approach to contain the effects of the coronavirus, have remained nearly completely silent.

Combine condemnation of a cautionary approach in the pandemic with an appeal to "freedoms" and there is the germ of a clever campaign against the Democratic presidential ticket. Fortunately, the Republican presidential ticket hasn't figured that out.

 

Share |

What He Didn't Say

The proper answer is "I didn't say that."

Reporter: You have repeatedly suggested that the only reason Kamala Harris didn't pick Josh Shapiro is because of his Jewish faith. Do you have any evidence to support that assertion that a person who is married to a Jewish man is somehow anti-semitic.. pic.twitter.com/EZD2GqXJ1a

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 7, 2024

The New York Post has reported

GOP veep nominee Sen. JD Vance on Tuesday accused VP Kamala Harris of bending to the Democrats’ “far left’’ to choose Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz as her running mate over Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

Walz is one of the “most far-left radicals in the entire United States,” said Vance (R-Ohio), arguing that Harris chose him to “fit the needs of the far left of the party.”

“She selected Tim Walz — a guy who wants to ship more manufacturing jobs to China, who wants to get an illegal aliens driver’s license and who wants to make the financial crisis … so much worse because he refuses to do his job and actually make it easier for American citizens and non-illegal aliens to live a good life,” Vance said.

The Republican vice-presidential hopeful’s remarks came after far-left groups dubbed Shapiro “Genocide Josh” over his support for Israel in the Gaza war, as Harris was deliberating over a potential running mate….

Vance also said Harris’ selection of Walz proved that the current veep “is running as a San Francisco liberal,” accusing the Minnesota governor and native Nebraskan of being California-minded….

Vance also answered a question from The Post about how he feels about his opponent being Walz — whom the Republican accused of having a “joke record” — over the far more well-known Shapiro, who was reportedly Harris’ second choice.

“I genuinely feel bad that for days, maybe weeks, [Shapiro] actually had to run away from his Jewish heritage because of what the Democrats are saying about [him],” Vance told The Post. “I think that’s scandalous, disgraceful — [regardless of] whatever you believe or whatever disagreements on policy you have about somebody.”

“The fact that that race — the vice presidential race on the Democratic side — became so focused on his ethnicity, I think it’s absolutely disgraceful, and it’s insulting to Americans, whatever background you’re from,” Vance added.

Shapiro was reported as a top candidate under Harris’ consideration and the final decision is reported to have been between the battleground governor and Walz, who was not one of the top contenders whom voters expected to get the nomination given his geography.

Vance didn't say that Kamala Harris didn't pick Josh Shapiro because of the latter's faith. He said Shapiro

actually had to run away from his Jewish heritage because of what the Democrats were saying about (him). The vice presidential race on the Democratic side became so focused on his ethnicity, I think it's absolutely disgraceful, and it's insulting to Americans, whatever background you're from.

There is a lot to unpack here, even aside from Vance starting one sentence with "the fact that that race" before he corrected himself. Hopefully, he was thinking "vice presidential race," which obviously exists, rather than "Jewish race," which doesn't.

There is no indication that Shapiro "ran (run) away from his Jewish heritage"- or even that if he had, he would have been selected by Harris. No doubt Shapiro's views on Israel played a role in the vice-president's selection, given concern about losing votes from anti-Israel Muslims and others and likely protests at the upcoming Democratic convention in Chicago. It was not primarily the governor's religion which was a factor, but rather his opinion of the Israeli war effort, however informed that is by his own religious faith or affiliation.

There were other factors involved in the choice of Walz. His superior (compared to Shapiro and the presidential candidate) likability, his relatability. Additionally, the vibe he creates and the personal style he reflects are far different than which characterize Ms. Harris.

Additionally, the NY Post cites "sources" who indicate one of the reasons the presidential candidate bypassed Mr. Shapiro is "her fear that he would steal the 'spotlight.'" The latter appears to value personal ambition over principle and personal integrity, and in that regard would not balance the ticket.

The evidence that Kamala Harris does not dislike Jews is that there is no evidence that she does, rather than a very secular (Protestant) marrying a very secular Jew. Although evidently unbeknownst to the reporter who confronted Vance, one person may marry another for any number of reasons. The stronger evidence that Kamala Harris does not dislike Jews is that there is no evidence that she does, rather than a very secular (Protestant) marrying a very secular Jew.

Nonetheless, as a politician, J.D. Vance cannot go there because it is a little complicated and serves no strategic purpose. The better response would have been "I didn't ay that" and put it back into the reporter's court. It also would have revealed a little hostility toward the media, which is always a winning pose to strike.

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 |

"Black" is Alright

I didn't remember. However, it is nice of this tweeter to bring us a video in which Don Lemon takes April Ryan to the cleaners.

Remember that time that Don Lemon argued Kamala isn't African American? pic.twitter.com/JfMDBeeJGf

— Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) August 2, 2024

Whenever it was that this discussion took place-  Lemon parted ways with CNN over 15 months ago- it has taken on added significance as Kamala Harris' ascension to the presidential nomination of a major political party is celebrated as the first African-American woman, first Asian-American woman, or first black woman. (Rarely is she identified as the "first biracial woman....."  I don't make the political rules.).

The vice-president's father, divorced for decades from his wife, was a somewhat prominent economics professor at Stanford University. He was raised in Jamaica- not Africa- where he became an "economic consultant" to the government. He came to the USA and attended UC-Berkeley where, according to Kamala's older sister, he and his girlfriend from India "fell in love... while participating in the civil rights movement." They got married, had two children, and divorced.

April Ryan stated "many Africans landed in Jamaica and these other Caribbean islands," to which Lemon Lemon correctly noted "Jamaica is not America."  It is not in the USA and not in Africa, but instead is located in the West Indies..

 

Scratch someone whose parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents came from Italy, and she will tell you that she is "Italian" or "Italian-American." Someone whose ancestors hail from Poland will tell you that he is "Polish" or "Polish-American" and someone who is Irish will.... well, you get the point. The descendants of these individuals may at one time have hailed from Asia or another continent but they are, for almost all relevant purposes, of Italian, Polish, or Irish descent. Ryan must know this.

And the same principle applies to persons whose immediate ancestors hail from the West Indies. Thus exists the Harvard Generational African-American Students Association, which does not posit a distinction without a difference. While the US Supreme Court was considering Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, an editor at the Harvard Crimson wrote

I wish I had the statistics to describe the feeling of otherness that stems from being a minority within a minority. Therefore, the first step to improving representation among Generational African American students is to offer a more specific breakdown of Black identities. Then, the schools can quantify the disparity and potentially understand the drivers and as a Generational African American at Harvard myself, I wish I had the statistics to describe the feeling of otherness that stems from being a minority within a minority. Therefore, the first step to improving representation among Generational African American students is to offer a more specific breakdown of Black identities. Then, the schools can quantify the disparity and potentially understand the drivers and its connection to the legacy of slavery. its connection to the legacy of slavery. "best practice."

As she understood, not all blacks are identical. Descendants of Africans brought to the shores of what became the USA possess a different heritage, and occupy a somewhat different space, than the sons and daughters of immigrants from Nigeria (or elsewhere in Africa) or the offspring of parents from Jamaica.

The latter includes the two Harris daughters, Maya and Kamala. As Lemon told Ryan, "all she had to say is 'I'm black. I'm not African-American.' That's it." Instead, in the wake of the vice-president's impending nomination for President, there has been a concerted attempt at creating a Kamala Harris who does not exist. Bi-racial, she is commonly and legitimately characterized and identified as black. However, the attempt to convert her to "African-American," whether for inter-sectional or other purposes, is not compatible with the facts and trivializes the legacy, often misery, of descendants of people brought to the American shore by European slave traders. 

Share |

Being Yourself Not All It's Cracked Up to Be

Is it weird to be inauthentic? Is being obviously inauthentic bad political strategy? Is  pandering counter-productive?

Kamala faking an “urban” accent.

Her mother is from India. Her father is from Jamaica.

Faking an accent to sound more “black” is… weird.

pic.twitter.com/QF1PmAEbLx

— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) July 31, 2024

Actually, not weird. Momentarily adopting the accent of one's audience is not uncommon. And as it turns out, it's not uncommon for our (soon to be) Democratic nominee for President. In November of 2021, Vice President Harris was

mocked online for appearing to mimic the accent of her host country during a charm offensive aimed at shoring up relations with America’s oldest ally.

Harris affected what many described as a French accent while on a visit to a COVID-19 lab at the Pasteur Institute in Paris on Tuesday, Fox News reported.

“One of the things people in politics and government should really take from the approach of scientists — scientists operate with a hypothesis. I love that,” the veep said

“A hypothesis. It’s well-thought-out, it’s well-planned, they start out with a hypothesis and then they test it out knowing invariably, you’re trying something for the first time, there will be glitches, there will be mistakes,” she continued.

“Then everyone gets together, no one gets beat up about it, you analyze it — what went wrong, re-evaluate, update the hypothesis and start again,” Harris added before mocking how pols always stick to “The Plan.”

At that point, she seemed to switch to a French accent while using the phase.

“In government, we campaign with ‘The Plan,’” she said. “Uppercase T, uppercase P, ‘The Plan’! And then the environment is such we’re expected to defend ‘The Plan’ even when the first time we roll it out there may be some glitches and it’s time to re-evaluate and then do it again.”

Is she using a FRENCH ACCENT?! I love this episode of Veep. https://t.co/HC0eaq0nsY

— Abigail Jackson 🇺🇸 (@abigailmarone) November 10, 2021

Kamala Harris realizes that being inauthentic does not lose elections. Appearing to be inauthentic does- but that has no relationship, except possibly an inverse one  (the latter a complicated argument for a later date). And pandering is usually actually effective.

In 1991, after President George Herbert Walker Bush raised income taxes, I asked a friend who was a big fan of the President whether he was let down when the guy who had pledged "Read my lips, no new taxes" reneged on his promise. He assured me he was not disappointed because he believed that candidate Bush made that vow because he was determined to appeal to individuals such as himself.

Pander works, as does inauthenticity. So my advice to Ms. Harris would be not to worry about being sincere. Continue to be someone other than yourself, even the "chameleon" which a chameleon labels you. It is her most likely path to the presidency.

Share |

Israel, Hostages, and Hamas

On Monday, I linked to a tweet by Mehdi Hasan, which had linked to a tweet by Aaron Rupar, who had posted a clip of ABC's Martha Raddatz. The correspondent had asked New Hampshire governor Chris Sununu about Donald Trump's remark that if enough of his supporters voted in the upcoming presidential election, they wouldn't have to vote again.

Sununu made light of the question, Raddatz responding "O.K." and immediately changed the subject. Hasan remarked "if you want to understand the failure of U.S. journalism, especially the complete inadequacy of political interviews in this country," the exchange provided a great example. I remarked "as Hasan observed, that is how it's done all too often on broadcast news."

It was an excellent catch by Hasan (and Rupar) and this tweet of his is also very helpful. That is not because Hasan is insightful but because it brings to light excellent commentary provided by NewsNation's Chris Cuomo on Monday night, which Hasan should take to heart but obviously won't. The entire piece is very valuable, this portion beginning at 4:28:

The most frustrating thing for me is that you can have it both ways. Israel's attacks have gone on much too long. There's too much death, especially to non-Hamas women and children. Hamas must return the hostages. Over 300 days, including the Americans, that this country barely pays lip service to- a little bit at the RNC, maybe you get a little bit at the DNC. Maybe not.

The eight American hostages- whether still alive or deceased- are reportedly not able to dribble a basketball. Cuomo emphasized their plight. There is no indication that Hasan ever has referred to them. The NewsNation anchor continued

And all those other people- military, non-military, male, female, where are they? When do they get given back? Then you negotiate a ceasefire with Hamas being replaced by a regional consortium of protection and facilitated elections of non-terror actors who don't campaign on eradicating the Jews.

When are the hostages to be returned? Most of us in the west thought that they should have been returned oh, 10 or 11 months ago. At present, it appears that Benjamin Netanyahu has little or no plan for the day after- for what would become of Gaza if and when Hamas is destroyed, which obviously is his goal. 

Were Hamas to agree, Israel could now sign a temporary ceasefire in return for Hamas releasing the hostages, though surely some of them have died in captivity.  Moreover, probably not all would be returned, lest Hamas lose its primary bargaining chip. (That's the way terrorists do it, Mehdi.) Israel would be setting its war aim- destruction of Hamas- back but the world, which loves (only) dead Jews and has seemingly lost interest in having Hamas eliminated, would rejoice. (The exception would be many Islamist extremists because an insufficient number of Jews would have been killed.)

The ceasefire would serve the cause of justice and stability only if, as Cuomo suggests, there is a regional consortium of powers which would facilitate elections which would not yield a victory for terrorists, as it did for Hamas in Gaza in 2005. He adds

If this happened, God forbid, if we got hit like that in America the way they got hit in the Golan Heights on Saturday, we would level Lebanon. You know it and I know it.

It is shocking that he have been so passive about our hostages. Don't we care about our own anymore?

No, we do not. We cared enough about Britney Griner to consummate an agreement after which 

Former White House national security advisor John Bolton condemned the deal as a not a swap but a surrender by the Biden administration.

"Terrorists and rogue states all around the world will take note of this and it endangers other Americans in the future," he said.

The deal was also criticised by Robert Zachariasiewicz, a former agent with the US Drug Enforcement Administration, who helped lead the team that arrested Viktor Bout.

"Today's actions just placed a target on back of every United States citizen travelling throughout the world and they just became a commodity," he told the BBC's World Tonight.

"I think we just sent the message that it's really good business to illegally detain and if not kidnap American citizens, and it's really great to have one in your back pocket if you need them for a trade at some point."

That's what Hamas has- not only many Israelis but also several Americans in their back pocket. Imagine the USA attacked attacked, whether with the ferocity Israel was on 10/7/23 or even as it was on 7/27/24. As Cuomo repeatedly has noted, the response by our nation would be fierce and  overwhelming, and heaven help Code Pink when it would stand as the lone objector. 

The Biden Administration has been pushing the ceasefire which has been on the table for many weeks now. Both the President and his understudy and would-be successor realize that continuation, and especially escalation, of the war would be vey harmful to heading off the extraordinary danger posed by Donald Trump's candidacy.  Regrettably an outlier, Chris Cuomo understands clearly what is going on in Gaza.

Sorry Chris, those of us who want a ceasefire condemn the killing of kids anywhere and by anyone and want a ceasefire to protect all kids, on all sides.

Those who oppose a ceasefire are the ones who don’t care about 14,000 plus Palestinian kids murdered by Israel. https://t.co/15pJotB6PZ

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) July 30, 2024

Share |