SATURDAY: Introducing Nehamas and Epstein!

SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2024

Introducing Hurt: Through whatever fortuity, some people at the New York Times basically know it all.

Lucky for us, they're willing to share! For the latest example of this service, we introduce Nehamas and Epstein.

On Wednesday, Candidate Harris gave a speech at the Economic Club of Pittsburgh. Nehamas and Epstein were assigned the task of creating a news report about the candidate's speech. 

Nehamas and Epstein were eager to share. Headline included, their report started like this:

Harris Casts Herself as a Pro-Business Pragmatist in a Broad Economic Pitch

Vice President Kamala Harris laid out a broad vision of her economic plan on Wednesday as she sought to bridge the political divide between the progressive senator who ran for president in 2019 and the pragmatic, pro-business candidate she is presenting herself as now.

During a speech in Pittsburgh in which she declared “I am a capitalist,” Ms. Harris promised to protect and expand U.S. manufacturing as she tried to convince voters that she will defend and lift up the middle class.

“From our earliest days, America’s economic strength has been tied to our industrial strength,” she said. “The same is true today. So I will recommit the nation to global leadership in the sectors that will define the next century.”

Speaking not with the trappings of a raucous campaign rally but in front of the sober signage of the Economic Club of Pittsburgh, Ms. Harris delivered remarks seemingly tailored to voters sitting in wood-paneled offices reading the print edition of The Wall Street Journal. Such voters may have supported John McCain and Mitt Romney, and might believe the economy was better four years ago, but the Harris campaign appears to be hoping that many will now have trouble stomaching the idea of voting for former President Donald J. Trump.

As always, there were the things the candidate said. Then too, there were her motives.

It was in their account of the candidate's motives that the Timesmen's omniscience appeared. Their various insights came early and often. Here are some of the things the Timesmen revealed:

Paragraph 1: When she delivered her address, Harris was "s[eeking] to bridge the political divide between the progressive senator who ran for president in 2019 and the pragmatic, pro-business candidate she is presenting herself as now."

Paragraph 2: Harris was "tr[ying] to convince voters that she will defend and lift up the middle class."

Paragraph 4: Harris's remarks seem to have been "tailored to voters sitting in wood-paneled offices reading the print edition of The Wall Street Journal."

Paragraph 4: The Harris campaign appears to be hoping that many [such voters] will now have trouble stomaching the idea "of voting for former President Donald J. Trump."

Credit where due! By paragraph 4, the Timesmen were restricting themselves to reporting how matters "seemed" or "appeared." That said, also this: 

Before the Timesmen tried to report much of what the candidate said, they were willing to build a framework around her reasons for saying the things they'd eventually have to mention.

In their next two paragraphs, they stooped to the task of mentioning some of what Harris had said. But then, in paragraphs 7 and 8, there they went again:

Ms. Harris made her pitch in a Democratic stronghold that was once a capital of American industry, in a top battleground state that could determine the winner of the presidential election. She has previously given economic addresses on her plans to lower costs and to help small businesses. Her emphasis on manufacturing on Wednesday was a return to a more traditional Democratic talking point, one often highlighted by President Biden before he dropped out of the race in July.

Her speech tried to weave her economic themes together into a broader vision. She said she was “not constrained by ideology,” an apparent response to polls that show some voters consider her too liberal...

The candidate wasn't saying something she believed or was pledging to do. Instead, she was giving voice to a "traditional Democratic talking point." 

She was apparently responding to polls—polls which show that some voters think that she's too liberal.

Nehamas and Epstein were serving the public in a familiar way. They were telling us less about what Harris said, more about why she said it. 

For the record, the ability to do this may have stemmed from the greatness of their preparation: 

Nehamas is thirteen years out of Harvard (class of 2011). Epstein, a somewhat older man, was perhaps a leavening agent. He graduated from Emory in the class of 2001.

For the record, we aren't saying whether the Timesmen were right or wrong in their various assessments. Such assessments move us beyond our own pay grade.

It does perhaps seem strange to think this—to think that Harris believes she can win this race by appealing "to voters sitting in wood-paneled offices reading the print edition of The Wall Street Journal." Are those lucky duckies the targeted voters who "think she's too liberal" (according to polls)? 

On Olympus, the gods know the answers to such questions. But as Homer once noted, most of us here on Earth by way of contrast know nothing.

Nehamas and Epstein were sharing their views. They did so early and often.

In a different neighborhood, Charlie Hurt would soon be sharing his views about Candidate Harris's Thursday interview with MSNBC's Stephanie Ruhle.

Charlie Hurt is a Timesman too—a Timesman of a different stripe. For the record, he seems like the nicest guy in the world. Also, his thumbnail reads like this:

Charles Hurt

Charles Hurt (born 1971) is an American journalist and political commentator. He is currently the opinion editor of The Washington Times [and] a Fox News contributor...Hurt's views have been considered to be Republican leaning.

...His first full-time job after graduating [from Hampden-Sydney] in 1995 was at The Detroit News where he became a replacement worker during a bitter strike. He worked at the paper until 2001, when he moved to the Washington, D.C. area to join the staff of The Charlotte Observer.

Hurt was The New York Post's D.C. Bureau Chief and news columnist covering the White House for five years.

From 2003 to 2007, Hurt covered the U.S. Congress as a reporter for The Washington Times before leaving to join The New York Post. In 2011, he rejoined The Washington Times as a political columnist. In December 2016, Hurt was named the opinion editor.

National Review editor Rich Lowry described Hurt as, "an early adopter of Donald Trump populism." Hurt has written numerous opinion pieces lauding Trump since the 2016 election.

For the record, everything there is legal. Specifically, there's no reason why Hurt, like tens of millions of other voters, shouldn't be allowed to hold a favorable view of Candidate Donald J. Trump.

As we've noted, Hurt seems like the nicest guy in the world. On Monday, we'll be looking at what he said about the Harris-Ruhle interview when he appeared on Thursday evening's edition of the Fox News Channel's primetime "cable news" show, Gutfeld! 

At some point next week, we'll also look at the famous 2021 interview between Candidate Harris and NBC's Lester Holt. For the record, and for some strange reason, the interview was conducted in Guatemala City.

Harris has been mocked for something she said in the interview from that day right up to this. In a global first, we'll be suggesting that you look at Holt's performance that night, but also at the way the interview has been described by members of the mainstream press.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep. That said, it isn't clear that we the people—that we the humans—are actually built—are actually wired—for the daunting task of creating an intelligent discourse.

The brightest among us are sometimes too bright. Things can go downhill from there.