10mo ago

Harris / Walz Interview Megathread!

As much as I'd like to not advertise any single media source, CNN scored the sit down interview so it is what it is.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/harris-walz-trump-election-08-29-24/index.html

It's live right now, will be interesting to see what people think!

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/kamala-harris-tim-walz-cnntv/index.html

98 comments

How is healthcare policy just not an election issue anymore?
- I mean, technically it is. Harris is status quo, Trump is burn it down.
  
  He just needs another week or two to release his perfect health care plan.
  
  Oh god it's a repeat of 2016
- People act like polling actually reflects reality instead of the people who decide answering polls is a good use of their time
- Polling. Politicians and pollsters often survey the public to see which issues they should prioritize.
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
  The current top issues are the economy, cost of living, poor government leadership, and immigration.
  
  Why is immigration so high? Am I in the wrong region where I don't see a problem?
  
  2 of those relate to Healthcare

Will not ban fracking. Consistent stand since the debate in 2020.

Three commercial breaks in and so far they're both doing very well.
- Yep. So far they've been well-spoken, clear, and in a couple instances pretty funny.

Would appoint a Republican, nobody in particular in mind.
- Appoint a sitting congressperson to flip their seat lololol
  
  Then fire them.
- It's normal.
  JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, GHWB, Clinton, GWB, and Obama all appointed to their cabinet at least one person from the opposite party.
  And Harris didn't say she would appoint a Republican politician. When Obama chose Bob McDonald for Veterans Affairs, people barely noticed he was registered as a Republican. And one of Donald Trump's senior advisors was Ivanka Trump - who at the time was a registered Democrat.
  
  And one of Donald Trump’s senior advisors was Ivanka Trump - who at the time was a registered Democrat.
  I'm literally shocked you thought this was a good thing to write to support your point.
- Why would you do this? Did sorkin get to them?
  
  My guess is posing an alternative to Trump who has said the first thing he'd do is purge anyone not loyal.
  https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2022/07/trump-endorsed-plan-purge-civil-service-rogue-bureaucrats/375028/
- Raskin or Liz Cheney
  
  Raskin is a Democrat.
  
  Liz Cheney
  Christ, imagine living through the '00s and thinking Dick's daughter should be anywhere near a position of power. Ffs, she threw her own sister under the bus for being a lesbian.
- Would appoint a Republican to Attorney general, most likely. Don't want a democrat going after the "wrong crooks"

Couple of softballs at the end, asking Walz about the Gus "that's my dad!" moment and Harris about "the photograph".

Still 10 minutes left in the hour, not sure why they stopped short.
CNN has asked Trump and Vance for a sit down as well.
- All in all, a mediocre performance by the interviewer, while Harris and Walz were charming and good together. I got the impression they genuinely like each other.
  
  Get somebody who looks at you the way Harris looks at Walz for the "that's my dad!" question.

I think a town hall would have been better than this interview.
- I'm sure there's time for that? At least one?

A few questions in and the CNN interviewer seems overtly hostile.
- On issues that are pretty salient to the electorate, I'd say.
- It was a puff piece. Hostile would be following up "Will you appoint a republican to your cabinet" with "Will you appoint a Palestinian". How can you ask 250,000 Muslims in Michigan to vote for you while you bomb people just like them, some of whom are their family members?
  "Do you realize every time you promote border security and migrant crime, you're campaigning for republicans?"
  Just neutral would be following up her agenda with practical questions:
  How will you carry out your agenda? Do you plan to do it all in reconciliation? Will you tell the senate to abolish the filibuster? Executive orders? Will you increase the number of SCOTUS judges, ignore the SCOTUS's orders, or throw your hands up if they block your agenda?

"Why did it take 3 1/2 years to do anything on immigration?"
LOL.

yet to see the 2 on the other side show up in the same place at the same time
- I was thinking about that earlier when someone mentioned they probably have never spoken to each other. Have they literally not been in the same place?
  Edit: They did campaign together

Really hammering Walz on mis-statements. "Carried weapons in war, didn't have IVF, lied about DUI..."

Still no daylight between her and Biden on Gaza.
- Nope, and there won't be as long as AIPAC has a $100 million to throw at the election.
  
  Such corruption is anathema to democracy.

Anyone who comes away from this interview thinking that Harris is running a progressive campaign has their head in the sand. Just in the first 20 minutes:
affirms she does not support banning fracking
when pressed about why she previously supported a fracking ban, she deflects
when asked if she's seen any scientific evidence to support a policy in favor of fracking, she deflects and says 'we can do 'it' without banning fracking'
when asked about how supporting fracking squares with the rest of her climate policy she says "I believe we can do it without banning fracking"

affirms and reinforces xenophobic immigration stereotypes and reiterates her intent to enforce our border with mexico
says that strengthening the border would help reduce fentanyl smuggling, even though nearly all fentanyl is trafficked through legal entry
repeatedly alludes to illegal crossings involving drugs, guns, and human trafficking
does not mention asylum seekers or dreamers, or make any acknowledgement of the horrors and violence these migrants are fleeing from
fails to make any mention of the inhumanity of mass deportations and dragnet operations by ICE, or even any mention of the authoritarian mass deportation positions her opponent has been taking
fails to indicate any support for immigration reform to make it easier to immigrate or seek asylum, and actually says she supports the immigration bill that makes asylum more difficult

repeatedly insists on the importance of working with conservatives on conservative interests, including a willingness to place republicans on her cabinet, while simultaneously distancing herself with progressive issues, interests, or perspectives
When asked "would you consider withholding any arms shipments to Israel [to end the war in Gaza]?" she deflects by saying she "unequivocally supports Israel's right to exist and defend itself"
in an rant on Israel, she repeats the unsubstantiated claim of mass-rape on Oct-7 and frames the event as a tragedy, but uses passive language and euphemisms while speaking of Israel's response - "far too many palestinans have been killed". Makes no mention of Israeli war crimes, genocide, West Bank occupation and settlement, ect
in discussing a ceasefire deal she only speaks to the Israeli conditions (hostages) but makes no mention or acknowledgement of the Palestinian conditions (assurances that the ceasefire will not end as soon as the hostages are released, a removal of Israeli occupation from Palestinian territory, the allowing of free movement in and out of Gaza, ect)
makes not even the slightest indication that Israel has done anything wrong, let alone any acknowledgement of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza still being caused by Israel

This interview could have just as easily been one for a republican candidate. The good news is that if your only concern is beating trump then this interview was fine, bordering on good. The bad news is if you care at all about the overton window shifting even further right, this looks like a leap to the right, not just a step. Harris is running on strengthening our border/military and prosecuting undocumented immigration criminally, soft-touch climate legislation, palestinian genocide denial (expected) and unconditional lethal aid to Israel. The only positive positions she's come out with thus far are are child tax credits and reproductive rights, and maybe an under-formed plan to produce more houses (but no mention of action to prevent those homes being commercially owned as investments)
She's affirmed a number of fascist concerns and positions while distancing or outright rejecting progressive/leftist interests. She's given credence to the xenophobic notion that immigrants are a national security risk, that we need to increase military spending and presence abroad, and indicated that private industry is a priority over existential concerns over climate change/pollution (being unwilling to acknowledge the problems caused by fracking because it might damage PA industry indicates (to me) that she's unwilling to take action that may threaten private interests). This is a return to Clinton-era "tough on crime" neo-liberalism. Not only do these positions actively make things worse, they also make it extremely difficult for anyone next cycle to run on reduced military spending, more aggressive climate action, international cooperation on human rights and climate, or a reduction of hostilities in foreign affairs. If you're of the opinion that climate change is accelerating toward the worst-case scenario for the planet, then any indication that there are other interests (especially interests in protecting a specific industry) that are more important than averting climate catastrophe is beyond stupid. It is the same political calculation as deregulation and presents the same obstacle to meaningful climate policy.
Doubling-down on the most aggressive and xenophobic fears while the working class continues to decline is historically what tends to precede a slide into fascism. Even if she beats trump in November, all signs point to an even more active fascist movement for the next four years.
Now is absolutely not the time to be calm or complacent.
- On immigration if you look at the polling, we just straight lost. The only part that Americans still have sympathy for is DACA. Other than that, support for walls, deportation, and not accepting asylum are all up.
  Because of FPTP we don't get to have presidential candidates lead the way. They follow the votes.
  
  This is how moderates end up on the wrong side of fascism.
- Save your ire for a few months. No sane politician is going to spout exacting policy this close to an election. Why give your enemy so much as a single bullet?
  We get her in, then we go into analyses like yours, feet to the fire. ATM, I'm going to STFU, not say a word against her until she's soundly whipped Trump, idealism comes later.
  
  We get her in, then we go into analyses like yours, feet to the fire.
  Except that will never happen. Because we saw it not happen with Biden.
  I’m going to STFU, not say a word against her until she’s soundly whipped Trump, idealism comes later.
  The date at which it will become acceptable to do anything other than STFU will keep getting pushed back. Later means never.
  
  Politicians exist to get elected. How do you expect to hold their feet to the fire after you elect them? Give them four years to do a bunch of nothing then switch back to saying "now isn't the time to ask for change, we have to defeat the Toupee 2.0!"?
  I'll save you some time and respond for you: "yOu MuSt WaNt ToUpEe To WiN!!1!"
  
  I MUST make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection
- Oh, there's no question she's not a progressive... but when the alternative is Trump, Reagan and Nixon look progressive.
  
  Well it's a good thing that Reagan and Nixon didn't cause any lasting damage, then.
  
  There was the same feeling here in fhe UK with Starmer, although he's not the leader everyone wants, he at least is driving the bus in fhe right direction.

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

98 comments