CANDIDATES: When Candidate Harris delivered a speech...

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2024

...the Fox News Channel fought back: She entered the current White House campaign very late in the game.

When she did, Candidate Harris faced several major challenges.

She was facing a challenge set for her by outgoing President Biden:

By his policies at the southern border, and the apparent result of same. By his failure to explain those policiesa failure we would regard clear derogation of duty.

By changes in the cost of living which occurred during his term. By his failure to make any attempt to speak to that situation.

(Also, by the gruesome behavior of his gruesome son, Hunter Biden. By his failure, over time, to come to terms, in any way, with the actual conduct of the special group of people he weirdly describes as "the Bidens.")

Vice presidents who run for the White House are often challenged by their associations with the outgoing president under whom they served. Adding in the sheer stupidity of present-day American discourse, Candidate Harris has been especially challenged in this regard.

Candidate Harris has also been challenged by an array of positions she adopted in 2019. (She left the last presidential campaign in December of that year.) Within the context of American politics, some of those positions were so extreme that major journalists have incorrectly assumed that she never took them. 

On Fox, it's routinely asserted that the candidate is insincere in her current, more moderate positions. We would assume that she was possibly less than fully sincere when she adopted the earlier positions, back when they suited the outlook of large parts of the Democratic Party base.

That said, we have no idea.

Yesterday, Candidate Harris delivered a speech. After that, she was interviewed by MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle.

We thought her interview was by far the best she's given in this campaign. In our view, the candidate is sensational in giving a scripted speech. Previously, she has often seemed halting, unsure of herself, in her infrequent interviews.

What did the candidate say in her speech? At present, we expect to spend next week examining "the issues." That said, the candidate faces another serious challenge, no matter what she says or proposes or does. 

Yesterday, Harris gave a speech. Last evening, the Fox News Channel fought back. We were especially struck by what was offered to us the people on that channel's gruesome 8 p.m. program, Jesse Watters Primetime.

There's no way to keep up with the firehose of propaganda which issues from "the cancer growing on the society" known as the Fox News Channel. At upper-class newspapers like the New York Times, the finer element in our society has agreed that they mustn't ever report or discuss the things which occur on that channel.

For today, we direct your attention to what happened starting at 8:15 last night. At that time, Watters introduced Dana Loesch, whose thumbnail goes like this:

Dana Lynn Loesch Eaton (born September 28, 1978) is an American radio and TV host. She is a former spokesperson for the National Rifle Association and a former writer and editor for Breitbart News...
[...]
During the 2016 Republican presidential primary, she endorsed the Ted Cruz campaign while disparaging the candidacy of Donald J. Trump. However, according to The Atlantic, since Trump's election Loesch became one of the Trump presidency's most visible "passionate defenders."
In 2016, Loesch labelled the mainstream media as "the rat bastards of the Earth. They are the boil on the backside of American politics ... I'm happy frankly to see them curb stomped." When the videos resurfaced after a mass shooting at the Capital Gazette newsroom in Annapolis, Maryland in 2018, Loesch said she had meant she wanted some news stories to be curb-stomped and was not encouraging violence against journalists.

And so on from there. For the record, Loesch is conventionally attractive and is quite good at what she does. 

Loesch is entitled to her views, and also to her demeanor. But is she entitled to her facts? That's the question which is raised by what she told several million neighbors and friends as Watters looked on last night.

It was standard end-of-democracy stuff! Just to set the scene, this was the first exchange:

WATTERS (9/26/24): 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...When I hear her speak, I feel like I'm listening to a freshman Marxist collegian who has yet to take an Econ class sit here and try to dictate to people who have had to make payroll, who have had to be the first people to show up and the last people to leave, what it is to run a business... 

Loesch doesn't speak Drunk Hallmark! Or at least, so she claims.

Adding to our earlier list, Loesch is of course entitled to whatever it is she "feels like." That said, she quickly managed to employ the word "Marxist," as is the norm on this channel when offered a question like that. 

Watters followed with a peculiar claim, saying that neither Harris, nor her husband, has ever been "successful financially." In fairness, Watters routinely makes odd claims as he waves his hands all about on his peculiar program.  

Eventually, the question of facts arose. We'll admit that we'd never heard the claim in question before! 

Quick background! On Fox, the employees have been working hard, in the past few weeks, to insist that Harris is a product of upper-class financial privilege. 

She's not from the middle-class at all! Extending this mandated theme in a way we'd never heard, Loesch now offered this:

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, JesseI know you know thisshe is soooo privileged. If you look up "privileged," it is like every Democrat candidate ever in the dictionary. 

She wentand I know she talks about busingbut 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. So she can't identify with the American voter, and that's why Trump's messaging is resonating with people, because he's built stuff...

A lot of that helps illustrate an extremely basic point. As a species, we the people simply aren't wiredwe simply weren't builtfor this "public discourse" stuff.

A lot of that passage helps illustrate that point. That said, we'll admit that we'd never heard it saidwe'd never heard it said that Candidate Harris is so amazingly privileged that she started in a very expensive primary school that most Americans could not even think of affording. 

A note on the fall of the west:

Back at the dawn of the modern political era, there was no way for a person like Loesch to make a statement like that to millions of American voters. Today, major platforms exist for no reason except to promulgate such claims.

That said, we had never heard any such claimand when we sat and googled the claim, it was very hard to find what Loesch was talking about. Loesch was so far off in the weeds when she made this statement that we couldn't find a record of other such people making some form of the statement.

Within our failing public discourse, there are the thing a candidate says—but there are also the things that people like Loesch will say about a candidate.

Tomorrow, we'll show you what we found, late last night, after a rather difficult search. Loesch was really off in the weeds when she spoke with Watters last night. That silly boy laughed at what she said.

In the wake of a certain "democratization," this is the way the remnant of our public discourse now works. The finer people at upper-class sites have all agreed not to tell you this. Life is sweeter, safer, better when you defer to Fox.

Forced to enter the race very late, Candidate Harris faced major challenges. On balance, it seems to us that she's doing a very good job.

That said, there are certain challenges no candidate can hope to meet. As it turns out, the whole human race faces a challenge from the way we humans are wired!

Tomorrow: In all candor, we still aren't completely sure what the talk host meant


53 comments:

  1. Dama Loesch is correct. She is a rat bastard of the Earth, who is a boil on the backside of American politics, and who, frankly, everyone paying attention, would like to see curb stomped.
    This is the kind of bi-partisanship which will be needed in the USA as we deal with 21st century problems.
    Hurrah!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are very few good people on the right. Perhaps they will learn from their experiences with Trump, but coddling them before the election is a bad idea.

      If there were good Republicans, they wouldn't have voted for a stop-gap bill that stops funding the Govt on December 20, at Christmas, before the newly elected House members take their seats. Why do that except to cause pain and chaos?

      Delete
  2. Don't let Loesch fool you, Bob.
    She's still a big supporter of Treason McRapey.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Somerby says he thinks Harris is doing a very good job as a candidate entering the race late. But what does he spend his time on? Describing what Watters and Loesch say about her on Fox and complaining about Biden using a right-wing framing of his administration. Somerby says Biden didn't explain enough of his border policy and he was enmeshed with Hunter (accepting right wing views, unsupported by fact). Somerby correctly notes that Harris not responsible for Biden's problems, but he does accept the right wing view that she is insincere in her current policies, preferring the views she stated in 2019 while trying to position herself within a large field of Democrats seeking the presidential nomination. Harris dropped out in December because she couldn't gain sufficient funding, in such a field. Biden selected her as his running mate because of her strength as a candidate and their policy agreements, which negates the charges that she was an AOC-style extreme progressive, which the right has been trying to hang around her neck. Somerby laps up the right wing fairy tales. He suggests he will examine those criticisms later this week, but why has he even raised them, as if they have any merit whatsoever?

    And does it really matter where she went to elementary school? Loesch has clearly told some lies about Harris in order to paint her as an elitist, but what schools did Donny go to? What privilege was he born into? What business has he ever succeeded in building and not bankrupting? Somerby oddly explores the right wing smears, failing to defend Harris against them by telling us the truth about her, even her childhood. Maybe he will do that tomorrow and maybe not. Today, the lies are hanging there in dead air without rebuttal by Somerby (or quoting anyone else who has addressed right wing complaints).

    It is OK if Somerby is a Republican in-sheep's-clothing who cannot bring himself to vote for Trump. He has good company. But he should tell the truth about his views. He cannot complain (with the Republicans) that Harris has backtracked on certain stances while himself claiming to be something he is not -- liberal. Liberals do not watch Watters and Loesch.

    Somerby promised he would talk about Harris's speech and interview today. Instead he gives us Republican talking points against Harris, without rebuttal. More of the same old same old. Somerby claims Biden is a bad president (because of Hunter and the border) but does that rub off on Harris? Somerby doesn't say. That isn't how a liberal defends a Democratic candidate. It is the way Somerby tries to create doubt among his readers about whether Harris is who she says, and believes what she says in her speeches, without repeating any of her ideas, economic or not. With "friends" like Somerby, Harris has double the enemies.

    When will Somerby keep his promise and compare Harris's and Trump's economic speeches? Never, I'll bet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "He cannot complain (with the Republicans) that Harris has backtracked on certain stances while himself claiming to be something he is not -- liberal."

      But what if--and I know this is a somewhat preposterous question--what if it's true that Harris has backtracked on certain stances?

      Can you recognize that truth and still be liberal? Or is the recognition of certain truths verboten?

      Delete
    2. Obviously, someone appointed 9:51 as the arbiter who sets the criteria for admission to the ranks of “liberals,” and one of those criteria is blind adherence to the dogma that 9:51 declares. A true liberal cannot deviate in the smallest detail without facing excommunication as a heretic.

      Delete
    3. 9:51 excellent comment, lost on the two clowns in the peanut gallery who surely must be pretending they are as dumb as they seem.

      Delete
    4. Now let's be fair. How can PP and I be both as dumb as we seem, and pretending to be as dumb as we seem?

      Delete
    5. "Liberals do not watch Watters and Loesch."

      How about liberal media critics? Can they watch Watters and Loesch?

      It would be simpler if you'd just publish a comprehensive list of which actions liberals are allowed, and which they are not.

      Delete
    6. Hector, I am using a Somerby-style formulation to make a point.

      If you think it through, though, your question at 11:54 is really dumb; thus nullifying my formulation.

      Delete
    7. 12:11 if you think Hector’s 11:54 comment is dumb, which it is, wait until you get a load of his 12:01 comment, which is supremely dumb.

      Apparently, Hector is a Dumb Supremacist.

      Delete
    8. 12:21 why are you bothering to trigger these trolls? Maybe you find it amusing, but it seems kind of rude.

      It’s better that wounded lost souls like PP and Hector work out their trauma-borne emotional discomfort here than taking it out on innocent victims in their personal lives.

      Delete
    9. Let's see: Five times Anons responded with "dumb," and once with "clowns." Truly edifying.

      Delete
    10. I was too late to catch the "trolls," "lost souls," and "trauma-borne emotional discomfort."

      Delete
    11. Yes, there were 4 responses to my 11:07 comment, none of which amounted to more than, "Bad dog! Mustn't disagree with anonymice."

      Delete
    12. Aw PP all up in his feelings, flinging poo.

      Hilarious how PP always repeats the same insults, some of which include insulting people for saying the same thing. Well they learned it from you PP, they learned it from you.

      Delete
    13. Plainly 12:33 is defending you Hector, why are you so mad?

      Delete
    14. 12:47 - I guess if I'm the one flinging the poo, then you should be the one washing up, right?

      Delete
    15. Actually, this comment thread IS edifying. 9:51 made the ridiculous argument that Somerby cannot be liberal because he watches conservative commentators. This argument is flat-out absurd on its face, but Hector accepted this ridiculous premise for the sake of argument and asked whether there was an exception for media critics. This question, of course, steamrollered 9:51's entire argument, and Anons were left with no alternative but to rain down a torrent of catcalls.

      Delete
    16. 12:49,

      I hope I didn't come across as mad. I was just being illustrative.

      Delete
    17. PP, Somerby has admitted that he watches Fox 24/7. No liberal does that.

      Delete
    18. "PP, Somerby has admitted that he watches Fox 24/7."

      Citation?

      Delete
    19. No citation. I thought so.

      Since Somerby writes a lot of stuff, haters have a lot of stuff they could criticize. So I'm wondering: Why do they keep making shit up to complain about?

      Delete
    20. Hayley v. United States, per curiam, "Somerby has admitted that he watches Fox 24/7."

      Delete
  4. From RAWSTORY:

    "A new study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics projected that former President Donald Trump's second-term policy proposals of mass deportations and massive tariffs on all foreign goods would do significant damage to the American economy.

    As CNN reports, the study projected that Trump's plans "would cause weaker economic growth, higher inflation and lower employment," and that in some cases "the damage could continue through 2040."

    Among other things, the paper found that even in a best-case scenario Trump's policies would send inflation shooting back upward to 6 percent by 2026, and by 2028 consumer prices would be 20 percent higher than what they are today."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Loesch claims that Harris "started in a very expensive primary school...". That may be true, but she didn't continue that way. Her father and mother were divorced when Kamala was 8 years old (midway through elementary school) and her mother raised Kamala as a single parent. Both parents were eminent academics and Harris is obviously very smart (Trump's disparagement of her intelligence is another obvious lie). She was never going to have the upbringing of the average child because of that, not because of wealth.

    https://people.com/all-about-kamala-harris-parents-donald-harris-shyamala-gopalan-7974352

    It was easy to look this up. Somerby might have done it in 5 minutes using google. Why didn't he?

    ReplyDelete
  6. "That said, there are certain challenges no candidate can hope to meet. As it turns out, the whole human race faces a challenge from the way we humans are wired!"

    No candidate is expected to meet the challenges that no candidate can hope to meet. Why raise that as a unique challenge to Harris and not to Trump (who cannot meet any of the challenges most candidates can meet and are expected to meet)? Here Somerby demonstrates the double standard being applied to Harris -- she must be perfect while Trump only has to show up. If no candidate can meet certain challenges, why talk about them, especially as if it is Harris's failing that she may not meet them (hard to tell when Somerby never says what those challenges are)?

    This is such an incredibly stupid discussion on Somerby's part that I find myself wondering what the hell he is talking about, and more importantly, why.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a good point that “challenges no candidate can meet” is vague and undefined which makes his argument confusing.

      Delete
    2. He’s discussing how the spread of misinformation makes it difficult for presidential candidates, especially when there’s no pushback from outlets like The New York Times. Why is he talking about this? I’m not sure, but I think it’s to raise awareness about the lack of pushback and encourage people to advocate for it because it would help candidates like Harris.

      Delete
    3. Pushback that is easily found due to the democratization of media, which is his main focus, not the spread of misinformation. His current thesis is false, therefore his posts are irrelevant. It is this lack of relevancy that motivates his cynicism and bitterness, the driving force behind this mess of a blog.

      Delete
    4. “ Here Somerby demonstrates the double standard being applied to Harris -- she must be perfect while Trump only has to show up.”

      Comma La finally gave an interview with a media member who mere days before, had told Bret Stephens that Comma La didn’t need to do a 1:1 interview with ANYONE. Ruhle went as far as to say that it didn’t matter what Comma La believes, the only thing that matters is that she’s not Trump.

      That’’s not a different approach from Teddy White, it’s a whole nother planet. Not a peep from the rest of media.

      Delete
    5. The rest of the media needs to report on Stephanie Ruhle’s opinions?

      Delete
    6. 12:28 PM - the pushback Somerby is referring to would ideally come from major newspapers (The New York Times) and other respected journalistic institutions, as well as from public intellectuals, political commentators, or even politicians themselves.

      Delete
    7. “Somerby is right to praise Harris, she has skillfully turned a possible victory for Trump into a likely total loss for Trump, bringing an end to both his misbegotten and disastrous political venture, and his pathetic grifts.”

      Weird how this comment upset Somerby enough to delete it, such a sensitive snowflake, or maybe it’s his minders. Somerby, if the DOJ starts sniffing around, book a flight to Belarus, and quick!

      Delete
    8. 12:57 corporate media has always been in the bag for neoliberalism and other right wing notions, it is better to recognize this than to bang your head against a wall. Furthermore, due to the democratization of media, that sought after pushback is easily found via independent media, which garners a much larger audience than corporate media.

      The way Somerby frames his narrative does little to impede misinformation.

      Delete
    9. "Weird how this comment upset Somerby enough to delete it,"

      So Somerby writes 2 posts a day, then also screens comments in realtime, lets through the dozens and dozens that are insulting attacks on him, but yours was so...important enough that he deleted it?

      Paranoid much?

      Delete
    10. 1:17: It would be more interesting if you engaged with the specific points Somerby raises and back up any objections to them with facts, rather than relying on vague statements and flawed arguments, like suggesting that a larger audience means the content is more truthful.

      Delete
    11. There is something wrong with the way Somerby's website handles comments. Some do disappear and others produce a message saying there was a failure and try again later. It repeats that message over and over, so I'm not sure what "later" means.

      I don't know why this is happening, but it is more frequent in the past day or two. Somerby should check with Blogspot or change whatever setting he fiddled with, because this is probably frustrating to everyone here. And it does resemble censorship.

      Delete
    12. 4:49 Fuck you, you fucking loser.

      Delete
  7. "Here Somerby demonstrates the double standard being applied to Harris -- she must be perfect while Trump only has to show up."

    Help me understand.

    When Somerby says "there are certain challenges no candidate can meet", how do you then conclude he is saying Harris "must be perfect"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Somerby trashes Biden, but does not bother to detail why or substantiate his claim, just offers vague Republican talking points.

    Notably, immigration and inflation spiked under Trump’s reign, Biden had to clean up those messes, and has done well in that regard. (A real criticism of Biden would focus on how he has dropped the ball in handling Israel, but Somerby tiptoes around that subject.)

    Then Somerby attacks Harris with the same type of vague Republican talking points, and again, no substantiation.

    (Indeed, Trump and other politicians are often praised for transitioning from more “extreme” positions in primaries, to more centrist ones as a nominee, this has been going on for decades.)

    Then Somerby does bother to explain the many virtues of Loesch, who, Somerby wants us to know, he finds attractive and to be good at her job. Good to know, Somerby! So important!

    Which then likely plays a role in why Somerby’s criticism of Loesch is over something trivial, a nitpick.

    Then Somerby claims that these kinds of things were not heard in the past, which is utter nonsense, and again unsubstantiated.

    Somerby laments that corporate media grades Trump on a curve, a perspective he cribbed from the democratization of media, and then proceeds to trash the democratization of media, again without offering a coherent argument or substantiation.

    Broadly, Somerby says everyone is good and decent, yet also horrible in various ways. Somerby never makes a coherent point or argument, his goal is to muddy the waters, con suckers who cling to excessive literalism to defend their hero; yet his rhetoric and thinking are so poor that he fails to be effective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agree with most of this but inflation didn’t spike under Trump. On the other hand, unnecessary US deaths did, in the hundreds of thousands.

      Delete
    2. The inflation spiked as a result of Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic, same difference.

      Delete
    3. Inflation spiked because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the increase in gas prices.

      Delete
    4. Covid began under Trump and continued during Biden's term, but Biden dealt with the pandemic and has now produced a "soft landing" in which inflation is back to previous low levels.

      Delete
    5. Russia’s invasion played a role, particularly with natural gas, but was less significant than the mishandling of the pandemic. Both are tied to Trump’s incompetence and corruption, neither had much to do with Biden, who did clean up Trump’s mess.

      Inflation is primarily due to corporations acquiring enough power to raise prices arbitrarily and at will; corporations rely on instability and chaos, often in the wake of natural disasters or actions of authoritarian leaders, to provide cover.

      Delete
  9. "immigration and inflation spiked under Trump’s reign"

    You have been misinformed. Both spiked during Biden's administration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PP is wrong , but it does offer insight into his political leanings.

      Delete
  10. "We thought her interview was by far the best she's given in this campaign.”
    Yikes. I know your are Blue, but please. It was her usual word salad vomit. Like for every question on economy, her answer includes “I grew up middle class kid”, “opportunity economy” and “inspirational”. She learnt a new word for this interview – “holistic”.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Have to concur. That interview with someone who is openly supporting her showed only that Harris is dumber than a box of rocks.

      She's the Democrats Harriet Miers. A person nominated for position that she is clearly unworthy of.

      Delete
    2. Sorry, should have said "she clearly unqualified to hold."

      Delete
    3. I'm told she didn't mention Hannibal Lecter even once. Clearly disqualifying.

      Delete