A Quick Comparison
One of these things is not like the other.
Ok, as James Joyner noted, a decent amount of the coverage about Harris’s interview last night is about some changes in positions over time, specifically fracking. Now, on the one hand, I get it: journalists do love a “gotcha!” and as James notes, American journalists seem to love a flip-flop-based gotcha. Moreover, the issue of fracking is of political salience to the increasingly central state of Pennsylvania.
But, all I could think about last night was the comparison between a shift on a specific mining procedure and the kind of things Trump constantly says (not to mention I keep thinking about “thumbs up” photos at a military cemetery (indeed, the military cemetery).
And then things like this (which, I would note, are things he has been repeatedly saying on the campaign trail, so this is not just a cherry-pick).
I have no profound political science observation to make at the moment, but simple a human observation that one of these two candidates is not like the other in terms of intellect, seriousness, and concern for governing.
A bonus clip:
(And without any doubt, the “weird” descriptor has gotten under his skin).
Yet, this guy might win the election and his supporters place him either slightly below (or slightly above) their chosen savior, Jesus Christ. When the guy who is this coocoo for cocoa puffs has such a high level of commitment the only rational explanation is that it’s a cult (of personality).
Steve
With all the hoopla surrounding Trump getting cut off to go to Gutfeld, I have not heard anyone talk about how he claimed (without any evidence, of course) that 70% of the country living in poverty. 7o%!!!! Wow I didn’t know that! And there wasn’t even a blink from the “news anchors”.
He also made a few other outlandish claims, but this is why I can’t take this talking point about Harris not sitting down with Journos seriously. Harris could never get away with any of this. The media would hang her from the highest tree (metaphorically speaking of course). It’s crazy and it’s not just FOX. No one wants to fact check Trump because they would have to fact check everything thing that comes out of his mouth. No one want’s to make bad television.
He says it at about the :05 second mark
They’re looking for a gaffe from Harris on energy and immigration, because they know that there’s something pathetic about being proud of fracking or how much oil America’s exporting in 2024. Same goes with the border–the racist hysteria is pathetic, and they want her to screw up and say something about Deplorables.
They would ask the same stuff about Gaza. It’s pathetic that America won’t do anything to a regime which is torturing and murdering whomever it feels like. They would ask about that and how that connects Israel defending itself, except that they’re not allowed to talk about Israeli torture camps.
I remember a whole lot of posts and commentary here at OTB early in Trump’s first term that discussed how we, as political activists of a sort, just couldn’t afford to allow The Donald’s aberrant behavior and verbal vomit to be normalized. We described that there was danger were we to become numb to weirdness and provocation, so we would need to hold those elected and the press accountable to not turn a blind eye.
Well, that didn’t work.
BTW, I think there is a more pertinent comparison that ought to be made.
One of our two major political parties is not like the other. One of our parties confronted the possibility that their presumptive nominee wasn’t up for the job. Then, senior leaders in the party applied pressure to get their candidate to pass the torch. Luckily, but not accidentally, that party had elected as POTUS someone with the unique moral character to relinquish power to a VP who was appropriately skilled to be his successor.
Our other major political party not so much.
Trump’s decompensation isn’t new. Imagine if the GOP had responded to Trump’s unfitness with any kind of spine whatsoever three or six months ago. Or through the second impeachment.
Yes, yes, I understand that our political party establishments are weak due to the design of our system. But, one of our parties is not like the other when it comes to mitigating that weakness.
@Scott F.:
“Yes, yes, I understand that our political party establishments are weak due to the design of our system. But, one of our parties is not like the other when it comes to mitigating that weakness.”
I would go even farther than that, and say that since one of the parties is able to avoid the weaknesses, then there is something other than the design of the system which makes the other party weak.
I would have really liked Harris to say:
I would not order or condone a mass deportation as Trump has proposed.
The buried lede in all of the reporting on Harris is that it really doesn’t matter exactly what policies she will put forward or where exactly she stands on specific topics, relative to other possible Democratic nominees. The elephant in the room is Trump and Trumpism, and in that context all Democratic candidates are equivalent. She could be 1972 Humphrey or 1980 Carter (or 1996 Bob Dole for that matter), and the overwhelming reasons to vote for her would be the same. No mere policy preference differences matter when the opposition party is going all in on fascism.
The problem with Biden was health, not policy. Frankly, replacing him with a non-incumbent can only help, in that it sheds the built-in grounds for opposition among the disaffected. But all traditional sane alternative candidates are functionally equivalent as Trump opponents — they all represent American values, norms, and institutions, in stark contrast to the current GOP nominee. Any “analysis” that pretends this is not the case is either incompetent or deliberately disinforming.
@DrDaveT:
Trump aside, all Dem candidates are very nearly equivalent. I’m irritated by all the pundit talk about not knowing where Harris stands. They’ve been highly paid political knowers for years and they don’t know where the parties stand?
@Bobert: She can’t. Saying that could alienate some of the moderates she’ll need to reach out to in order to win.
@gVOR10:
There’s always the chance that she will shed her skin during an interview and proclaim that the dawn of a new age of cephalopods is upon us. And that would be news.
Or that she will adjust her views on fracking from aspirational to what can actually be done, and back away from Medicare4All. (The cephalopods would like a warmer, wetter environment, and a less fit human population to make the golden age more achievable)
And, she might be a Chinese spy. How will we know unless reporters ask mundane questions about her Donald Trump questioning her Blackness and she slips up and answers in flawless Cantonese?
@Bobert: The problem with that is that it lets Trump define the terms of the debate. It gives him more attention. The strategy is to asphyxiate him with no attention. In a sense, it treats his proposal as a serious proposal, which it is not.
So it often seems. Yet to this day I’ve never heard of one challenging Trump over his proposal for a wealth tax which he announced during his first presidential run in 1999. I bet 99% of voters have never heard about it.
https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.html