FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2024
But also, a child of vast privilege: In our view, talk show host Dana Loesch is good at what she does.
The problem lies with what she does. In yesterday's report, we offered an example.
On Wednesday evening, Loesch spoke with the Fox News Channel's Jesse Watters. At the start of the interview, she offered this assessment of Candidate Harris's interview with Stephanie Ruhle:
WATTERS (9/25/24): Nationally syndicated radio host Dana Loesch is here. Dana, did Kamala Harris just go on television and say the American Dream is gone?
LOESCH: Well. it was really hard, Jesse, to understand what she said because I don't speak Drunk Hallmark.
According to Loesch, Candidate Harris had been speaking a language known as "Drunk Hallmark." As we've noted, Loesch is skilled at what she does.
Elsewhere in the Fox News empire, a certain analytical theme may have taken root as Loesch offered this comment. Last night, on the prime time Gutfeld! show, the program's host offered these words of wisdom as he pretended to discuss the interview with Ruhle:
GUTFELD (9/26/24): Now we know why Kamala has been avoiding the press. I've never seen anyone so anxious and irritable while trying to express hope and joy.
She probably woke up with a headache. I don't know if she's a wine drunk, but her policies are those of a wine drunk—fake platitudes that could only impress other drunks matching her drink for drink until the morning when the harsh sun of reality peeks through the blinds.
She probably woke up with a headache. She seems to be a wine drunk!
Drunk drunk drunk drunk drunk drunk drunk! Will this bit of invective join the sexual insults aimed at Harris which are now a routine part of this primetime "cable news" show?
We can't answer that question. But one of the program's D-list comedian guests soon jumped in with this:
GUTFELD: Joe, like Kamala—uh, Kamala [changes pronunciation]—you have performed in front on one person. What did you make of her performance?
DIPAOLO: I would say the two-drink minimum is for the audience. I don't know what it is, but there's something about the way she talks, the more I listen, I think, "Am I drunk?"
He's probably the nicest guy in the world But that's the way the game is played on this dominant "cable news" channel.
On Wednesday evening, Loesch had opened with "drunk." One night later, the children were possibly starting to follow her lead.
That said, it's as we showed you yesterday. As Loesch continued to speak with Watters, she offered a claim about Candidate Harris we'd never heard before.
As it turned out, it was very hard to locate the source of this unfamiliar claim. As we showed you yesterday, this is what Loesch said:
LOESCH: This is what happens when you never—you don't know what it is to be middle-class, you don't know what it is to run a business.
This woman, Jesse—I know you know this—she is soooo privileged. If you look up "privileged," it is like every Democrat candidate ever in the dictionary.
She went—and I know she talks about busing—but she started in a very expensive primary school that most Americans could not even think of affording. And she lived in a really nice neighborhood.
She had a two-parent home, which is a privilege now, thanks to Democrat policies ruining the American family. She's been privileged, nonstop, from a baby now to where she is...
Did Harris secretly grow up wealthy and highly "privileged?" We first saw that claim aggressively pushed last Saturday morning on the soul-draining propaganda show, Fox & Friends Weekend.
Now, Loesch was selling that notion too, with Watters looking on. In this case, Loesch included a specific claim we'd never heard before:
Candidate Harris had "started in a very expensive primary school?" We'd never heard any such claim—and as best we could tell as we fact-checked the claim, Comrade Google had never heard this specific claim either.
A quick bit of background:
When you fact-check a claim like this from someone on the Fox News Channel, you'll typically find its source in an item from the New York Post or from the web site of Fox News itself.
Sometimes, the claims in question are defensible, possibly even accurate. A lot of the time, they aren't.
In this instance, a Google search didn't turn up any obvious source of Loesch's surprising claim. We had to Google around at length before we could get some idea of what she might possibly mean.
What was Dana Loesch talking about as she tried to paint a picture of Harris as a child of wealth? The best we can offer is this:
At first, we thought she might be referring to Harris's year or years in preschool. Way back in 2020, an article from the Berkeleyside news site had discussed that fairly familiar material. The report was republished this year:
How Kamala Harris’ childhood in Berkeley influenced her
[...]
Harris was bused to the [Thousands Oaks Elementary] school from a yellow home on Bancroft Way, between Browning and Bonar streets.
Combing through old phone books and real estate records, Berkeley historian Steven Finacom deduced that Harris lived in the building that now houses Berkeley International Montessori School. Harris’ spokeswoman confirmed the location. When Harris lived there, beloved family friends Regina and Arthur Shelton ran a preschool out of the bottom unit. Her family had previously lived on Milvia Street as well.
Around that era, redlining forced black Berkeley residents to live west of what is now Martin Luther King Jr. Way, in the flatland neighborhoods like the area Harris grew up in. Finacom described Harris’ neighborhood at the time as “an integrated community with families of various races, both middle class and poorer residents, and both renters and homeowners.”
Harris lived in the Bancroft apartment with her mother Shyamala Gopalan Harris and her sister Maya...
Despite her massive wealth and privilege, Harris's family lived in an apartment in a redlined neighborhood. Also, she attended a mom-and-pop preschool on the first floor of the building where she lived.
Decades later, that building "now houses Berkeley International Montessori School," a wholly different undertaking. At first, we wondered if that might be the tiny germ out of which Loesch had built the claim she turned loose, two nights ago, on several million Fox viewers.
Skillfully, we continued to search. We decided to seek the work of Steven Finacom, the Berkeley historian who was cited in the passage we've already posted.
Eventually, we landed on this extremely detailed recent report. After describing the mom-and-pop daycare run by the Sheltons, Finacom includes a single murky statement which may have triggered the novel claim of a certain highly skilled talker:
Kamala Harris’ Berkeley: 3 homes that shaped her early childhood
[...]
[J]ust before the Harris family’s time in the home, the ground-level garage was eliminated and converted into space that would accommodate the day care business of Regina and Arthur Shelton...
Today, the Sheltons’ former day care space houses the Berkeley International Montessori School.
From the Bancroft Way house, Harris went to church in Oakland with the Sheltons; took piano lessons from another nearby neighbor; learned ballet from Madame Bovie, a world-famous ballerina; frequented the Rainbow Sign, a Black cultural center that would help shape her political imagination; and, after attending kindergarten at the private Berkwood School, [Harris] caught the school bus to first grade at Thousand Oaks Elementary School during the second year of Berkeley’s integration program.
According to Finacom, Harris "attended kindergarten at the private Berkwood School." She then went to first grade (and beyond) in the Berkeley public schools.
Assuming Finacom's report is accurate, is Berkwood supposed to be the "very expensive primary school that most Americans could not even think of affording?"
We don't have the slightest idea, and neither does anyone else. "Cable news" doesn't work that way, especially when practiced by professionals like Watters and Loesch.
At any rate, our googling continued. Eventually, it yielded this:
Decades later, the Berkwood School merged with a second school, becoming the present-day Berkwood Hedge School. In all candor, we can't tell you what the original Berkwood School was like more than fifty years ago, when Harris was 5 or 6.
At any rate, Finacom reports that Harris spent her kindergarten year at a private school. Is that what Dana Loesch had in mind when she launched her surprise attack on the candidate's life of wealth and high privilege?
We don't have the slightest idea. Neither does anyone else.
"I know you know this," Loesch said to Watters, before she launched her attack. Almost surely, Watters had no idea what Loesch was talking about, but he did know enough not to ask.
According to experts, Loesch was speaking an emerging modern language known as Drunk Fox News Attack. Whatever is said in that drunk-adjacent modern tongue, everyone else will nod in agreement during a Fox News broadcast.
For the record, Kamala Harris didn't grow up in a "typical" middle-class family. In various ways, the cultural context within which she was raised differed from the American statistical norm.
That said, she did grow up in the Berkeley flats—in a redlined section of Berkeley. And she did get bused from that part of town to a public elementary school up in the Berkeley hills.
Also, she did grow up in a two-parent family, until her parents separated and then divorced. In fairness, she did grow up with one obvious type of privilege:
She wasn't surrounded by people like Loesch—by people who constantly invent new forms of garbage to air on Fox News Channel shows.
In our experience, the claim that Harris was the secret child of wealth began on Fox & Friends Weekend. It began with videotape from a very angry Breitbart staffer who grew up in Montreal.
A trio of friends told viewers that day that Harris had secretly grown up in the lap of wealth and privilege. Conduct of this type never stops on the Fox News Channel. People like Maggie Haberman are correct when they say that existing structures of our mainstream orgs weren't built to respond to such conduct.
Kamala Harris is a wine drunk. Also, Hunter Biden may have started "banging" (or "f*cking") Jill. This garbage can gets opened every night on this "cable news" channel as millions of voters look on.
Loesch is good at what she does! The problem starts with what she does, and with the surrounding silence.
Borrowing from Frost, is there something we're withholding? Is it making us weak?
There's a parallel between calling Harris drunk and calling Trump crazy. Both are serous allegations. If true, they would invalidate a person for the high office of President. And, both are based on someone's interpretation of appearances.
ReplyDelete"When Trump speaks, he sounds crazy."
"When Harris speaks, she sounds drunk."
BTW, it doesn't matter, but for several months Scott Adams has been asserting that Harris sometimes sounds drunk. He may deserve the blame or credit for this meme.
Why have we been taking it on faith that Trump doesn't drink? His slurring and gaffes and idiocies and disjointed wandering thought processes and his bizarre statements (he is now saying he will bomb Iran to smithereens) all reflect someone who is drunk, as much as demented or crazy or stupid. He also cannot walk properly, another sign of drunkeness. And now they are accusing Harris of being drunk. We all know that every Republican accusation is a confession. I think Trump has been drinking frequently and that it shows in his public appearances. It is the most likely explanation for his weird behavior. And there is no reason to believe such a liar when he says he doesn't drink. We have all been played for fools, especially the MAGAs. Trump is a lush.
DeleteI hope they make Scott Adams explain himself, before they make him and Curt Schilling Supreme Court justices.
DeleteYou want crazy? I'll give you crazy:
Delete“You will no longer be abandoned, lonely or scared. You will no longer be in danger. ... You will no longer have anxiety from all of the problems our country has today," Trump said. "You will be protected, and I will be your protector."
I will protect women at a level never seen before," he said. "They will finally be healthy, hopeful, safe and secure."
Trump added: "Their lives will be happy, beautiful, and great again!"
I wouldn't let me daughters anywhere near that rapist. DiC loves him though.
Delete"There's a parallel between calling Harris drunk and calling Trump crazy."
DeleteThe big difference is there doesn't appear to be any factual basis in calling Harris drunk.
Whereas Trump routinely engages in rhetoric that can fairly be labeled, if not crazy, then crazy-adjacent.
You have a point, Hector, but I do not agree. It's not crazy to choose to use "crazy-adjacent rhetoric," when that style of rhetoric is sensibly chosen because it serves one's purpose.
DeleteSuppose you were speaking extemporaneously and you had to hold the audience's interest for an hour or more. Could you do it? I couldn't. Trump accomplishes the difficult feat routinely by the use of rhetoric that you consider "crazy-adjacent."
At 12:15, when I hear that version of crazy Trump (there are many others) I weep for the sad folks who take that seriously, and also know decent Americans must protect themselves from them.
DeleteD in C, to clarify, you dismiss then, the Daily Howler’s contention that Trump has mental problems?
DeleteHarris will win the election, Trump will try to steal it, it will come down to the Supreme Court; last time around, same circumstances, the SC rejected Trump's efforts, but the right wing Justices are unpredictable and are scary in their lack of concern over ethics.
DeleteRepubs always trot out fearmongering over immigration every election cycle, but this time they plan to weaponize it more than ever to falsely suggest there was a wave of immigrants voting, to sow enough doubt to get the SC to take the case. Dutifully, their minions will push the immigration scare, we have seen right here at this blog.
Harris lost her father at the same age when Tucker Carlson lost his mother (both to divorce). Somerby has sympathy for Carlson but not for Harris. There truly is a double standard for lost boys, in Somerby's mind.
ReplyDeleteLies and Infidelity is a very serious issue to deal with and it has become a major threat to most marriages and relationships.Scars left behind from a narcissist husband is hard to erase from the mind. I was reluctant at first about finding the truth about my cheating husband but I’m glad I finally took the courage for it and now I believe the saying that “The Truth Will Set You Free” cos I feel better and free now after knowing the truth. I got help from Mr James a PI/Hacker as he helped cloned my cheating husband’s phone and I got access to all his phone call logs, emails, text messages both deleted texts and also social media chats, without having access to his phone because he is mostly out of town due to the nature of his work , This was very revealing for me as he’s a serial cheater until I got all proof and ended things.I’m glad to uncover his, lies, secrets and Infidelity. You can contact him if you need help via gmail (Worldcyberhackers@gmail.com)
DeleteWhere is the discussion of Harris's economic policy speech and her one-to-one interview afterward, promised to us last week? Somerby called for more details and now he cannot be bothered to discuss what she said. Obviously, this was just an excuse to attack Harris as reclusive, not a serious request for more info.
ReplyDeleteSomerby has focused his media "criticism" on Dana Loesch, which is weird because the concerns that Loesch have about Harris, the concerns that Somerby is highlighting, are irrelevant and have failed to gain any traction. So why is Somerby focused on a non story?
DeleteWhy is Somerby ignoring the more relevant story of the other Dana - Dana Bash? Bash falsely smeared Rep Tlaib with antisemitism, when Tlaib did no such thing. Why is Somerby ignoring that story, instead focusing on a smear of Harris that never went anywhere?
https://theintercept.com/2024/09/24/cnn-rashida-tlaib-dana-nessel-antisemitism/
Gutfield's rants are nonsense, but no more than the Right's explanation of economics.
ReplyDeleteDiC - PCE 2.2% YoY. Remember six, seven months ago when you said let’s wait to see what happens? Well, we’ve waited. Inflation is whipped.
ReplyDeleteThe closely followed core rate that strips out food and energy, meanwhile, also rose 0.1%. That was a tick below the forecast and more good news.
DeleteThe core index is viewed by the Fed and Wall Street as a better predictor of future inflation.
The increase in core rate in the past 12 months, however, edged up to 2.7% from 2.6% in July. But the uptick is not expected to last.
Yes, the trend is promising, but we haven't gotten down below 2% yet.
Hey, Dickhead, have you seen the Vance dossier yet? What is your position on law enforcement monitoring of women's menstrual cycles? You never answered.
DeleteOK @12:15 - here's my answer. TDS can make intelligent people gullible.
DeleteWhat is the felon's plan to get the PCE down from 2.2% to 2.0%? Billionaire tax cuts and tariffs, tariffs, tariffs?
DeleteYeah, right, Dickhead. Have you purchased your $100K watch from the felon yet? How do you say sucker in Russian, Dickhead?
DeleteAn inflation rate 1.8% lower than Reagan's best.
DeleteWe're living in the real morning in America.
I'm so gullible I believed Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh testifying under oath that Roe was settled precedent.
Delete“It is important precedent of the Supreme Court that has been reaffirmed many times,” Kavanaugh said of Roe. “It is not as if it is just a run of the mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered, but Casey specifically reconsidered it, applied the stare decisis factors, and decided to reaffirm it. That makes Casey a precedent on precedent.” Brett Kavanaugh
David is correct. Anyone who listens to a word a Republican politician says, and believes it, is a gullible fool.
DeleteImagine believing American citizens are harder workers or commit less crimes than immigrants.
How naive can someone be?
2% is an arbitrary goal, if your focus is on 2%, then you haven't a clue about economics.
DeleteDavid understands economics even less than he understands politics.
Aside from his general ignorance, David is disingenuous and argues in bad faith.
David will never change, indeed most right wing adults, when it comes to these types of issues, are immutable.
"Yes, the trend is promising, but we haven't gotten down below 2% yet."
DeleteDiC - This is important - 2% is a target, NOT a ceiling. The rate will bounce around 2% if all is going well. But 1.7% is WORSE than 2.2% because it is further from the target. And it's much worse, because the last thing we want to do is risk falling to the zero lower bound again. That was the killer that prolonged the recovery from 2008-2009.
(That was DG)
DeleteYou have a point, Hector, but I do not agree. It's not crazy to choose to use "crazy-adjacent rhetoric," when that style of rhetoric is sensibly chosen because it serves one's purpose.
ReplyDeleteSuppose you were speaking extemporaneously and you had to hold the audience's interest for an hour or more. Could you do it? I couldn't. Trump accomplishes the difficult feat routinely by the use of rhetoric that you consider "crazy-adjacent."
No one forces Trump to speak extemporaneously. That’s his decision, so I don't see it as a justification for anything.
DeleteBut let's take for example his crazy claims to have won in 2020, in your view a sensible and well-chosen lie because it serves the purpose of his re-election effort.
Q: Is Trump's getting elected a great enough good that it cancels out the damage that will linger for generations that election results, hence the democratic process itself, are so easily manipulated, so thoroughly corrupt?
Can one take pride in such a country? Why would you obey the laws in such a country? How would we not turn into a nation of cynics?
Lies have consequences, whether crazy or sensible or somewhere in between.
This is a stronger argument, Hector, than claiming that Trump is crazy. One can make a case that Trump's lies are harmful to the public. Of course, it's probably impossible to prove objectively, but it's certain plausible.
DeleteI think you're right that we have turned into a nation of cynics. IMO Trump's lies contribute to cynicism but there are many other sources .IMO that's because so many institutions lie and mislead and are sometimes simply incompetent. WHO in the source of covid. New York forcing old age facilities to take back people infected with covid. Janet Yellen saying inflation would be "transitory." I don't need to get into media lies and mistakes here, because Bob overs them thoroughly. I could go on.
I guess what I'm saying is that we are right to be cynical.
Janet Yellen saying inflation would be "transitory."
DeleteHey - that wasn't a lie. First, it was her opinion; second, her opinion turned out to be correct -- inflation was transitory.
But as usual Daivd, you read my comment in the kindest possible way for Trump and your support of him.
DeleteMy argument isn't that we're 'right' to be a nation of cynics.
My argument is that the stolen election lie has a uniquely powerful cynicism-inducing effect.
Because the whole point of a democracy is in the elections. To the extent that a democracy has a sacred area or function, it is in the elections.
And Trump is saying, over and over and over, that our democracy is so corrupt that not even the President of the United States could stop the cheating in 2020.
Trump is a cancer.
I would be careful not to assume that a relatively small initial step (Trump's claims), however unsavory, will inevitably lead to a chain of grave consequences (a lawless, cynical citizenry) unless there is empirical evidence that supports it.
DeleteEmpirical evidence: January 6.
DeleteJan 6th is proof Trump's rhetoric can influence a specific group of individuals for a short period of time. It is not evidence his rhetoric would result in generations of lawless and cynical citizens.
DeleteJan 6th was the culmination of the months of Donald J Chickenshit plot to steal the election. It is just more proof that he cannot be trusted with power again.
Delete"Jan 6th is proof Trump's rhetoric can influence a specific group of individuals ..."
DeleteWhich ones? Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, or other "fine people" on the Right?
Jan 6th...is not evidence his rhetoric would result in generations of lawless and cynical citizens.
DeleteWhat would be the kind of evidence that would convince you, Dr. Science? I mean, you have an open mind, right?
For an event to lead to inevitable, widespread generational change, it must qualify as a transformative experience that profoundly affects all aspects of society and directly causes lasting shifts. It would need to impact many people in meaningful ways, prompting them to change how they think and act, with these changes being carried forward by future generations. The event must reshape societal values or norms. The actions of January 6th have not triggered such reactions, nor does it seem likely that they ever will.
Delete