CHAOS: When Anderson Cooper tried to ask...

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2024

...the candidate tried to answer: Sometimes, you just have to feel sorry for our political candidates.

Such a time occurred last night during CNN's Town Hall. Early on, Candidate Kamala Harris ran through a list of her policies, plans and proposals.

Anderson Cooper offered this sad attempt at a follow-up question: 

HARRIS (10/23/24): So that's why my plan, and it's a new approach, is about tax cuts for our small businesses so that they can invest in themselves and grow and in the process, invest in communities, invest in neighborhoods, and strengthen our economy overall.

So those are some examples. It's about a new approach, a new generation of leadership based on new ideas and, frankly, different experiences. I bring a whole set of different experiences to this job, and the way I think about it, than Joe Biden. 

COOPER: Some voters, though, might ask: You've been in the White House for four years. You were vice president, not the president. But why wasn't any of that done over the last four years?

We heard no gnashing of teeth from the candidate. If we had, we would have cheered.

In fairness, let's be fair! Cooper did include a qualifier: "You were vice president, not the president," the moderator thoughtfully said. 

Even so, that attempt at a follow-up strikes us as the world's dumbest possible question. 

Sad! The question is built on a framework which has ruled the roost, for the past several months, in the journalistic / intellectual rubber room known as the Fox News Channel. By some process of "inanity leak," the framework had now leeched over and had invaded CNN's Town Hall.

Anderson Cooper, please!  As is known by everyone except our nation's major journalists, the policies of an administration are set by American presidents, not by their vice presidents. 

This basic fact has long been understood. It helps explain why John Nance Garner once made a famous statement. In the passage shown below, the foremost authority explains:

John Nance Garner

[...]

Like most vice presidents in this era, Garner had little to do and little influence on the president's policies. He famously described the vice presidency as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss" (for many years, this quote was bowdlerized as "warm spit"). Historian Patrick Cox traces the possible origin of this quote to a 1960 conversation with Lyndon B. Johnson, who consulted Garner on John F. Kennedy's offer to run for vice president.

Like most vice presidents in this era? Presumably, the leading authority refers there to the era which still exists!

Vice presidents aren't in charge of policy! Is there someone who doesn't understand this point? People, we're just asking!

For the record, Garner was born in1868. He served as Franklin Roosevelt's vice president for eight years, up through 1941.

According to that leading authority, his assessment of the job of vice president has been widely quoted since 1960. Its meaning is widely understood—except by CNN's Cooper, along with a coffle of "journalist actors" on the Fox News Channel.

You'd think some things were so freaking obvious that even our millionaire TV stars would be able to understand them. The charade isn't performed that way at Fox—and last night, there was Cooper, adopting one of their standard frameworks!

By our reckoning, that was an unfortunate question. Politely, the candidate responded:

HARRIS (continuing directly): Well, there was a lot that was done, but there's more to do, Anderson. And—and I'm pointing out things that need to be done that haven't been done, but need to be done. And I'm not going to shy away from saying, "Hey, these are still problems that we need to fix."

In truth, a president seeking a second term might have said the same things! Mercifully, Cooper moved on at this juncture, having earned at least a half dozen "Fox News Brownie points."

That was an unfortunate moment from Cooper. A bit later on, he asked a question we would regard as obvious and plainly significant.

Under the circumstances, the question didn't have to be asked. But the question remains unanswered and unexplained, right to this very day. Last night, Cooper joined Bill Whitaker of 60 Minutes in asking the question again.

As you can see in the CNN transcript, the candidate had just responded to a question from a college student about the southern border. Perfectly sensibly, Cooper followed with this:

COOPER: Let me ask you about that. You're talking about the [border] bill that Donald Trump quashed in 2024. You talked about the bill he [presumably, President Biden] tried to get passed in 2021. That he wasn't able to get passed. 

2022, 2023, there were record border crossings. Your administration took a number, hundreds of executive actions. It didn't stem the flow. The numbers kept going up.

Finally, in 2024, just in June, three weeks before the last—the first presidential debate with Joe Biden, you instituted executive actions that had a dramatic impact, really shut down people crossing over. Why didn't your administration do that in 2022, 2023?

It's an obvious question—and it remains unanswered. Like Whitaker before him, Cooper was asking this:

Why didn't President Biden institute those executive actions during the first three years and five months of his administration? Why did he wait so long?

It's an obvious question! Sadly, you'll note that Cooper continued to throw gorilla dust with his references to "you" and "your administration"—references which continued to suggest that it was actually Candidate Harris who had somehow been in charge.

Simply put, many of our cable journalists just aren't any sharper than that! That said, the question is an obvious question—and it remains unanswered, even as we type.

As you can see from the CNN transcript, the candidate failed to answer Cooper's obvious question. As a result, Cooper posed the question again:

COOPER: But if it was that easy with that executive action, why not do it in 2022, 2023?

Once again, the candidate failed to answer! As she finished her second non-response, Cooper asked for the third time:

HARRIS: ...We have dealt with it such that, to your point, we now, as of today, as of our visit, have lower undocumented immigrants and illegal immigration than Trump when he left office. But we need a permanent solution and that requires bipartisan work.

COOPER: That's true. Do you wish you had done that? Do you wish you had done those executive orders in 2022, 2023?

The candidate evaded the question again. At this point, Cooper moved on to an extremely dumb question about one part of the bipartisan border bill, which he himself identified as a "compromise" bill.

(If you know the meaning of the word "compromise," Cooper's next question was very dumb. Also, though, the candidate's answer was poor.)

At this site, we've formulated a theory—more accurately, a speculation—about President Biden's border policy during those first three-plus years. All by itself, that unexplained border policy may hand Candidate Trump the November 5 election.

(You'll note that this was President Biden's policy. There is zero reason to assume that it was somehow Vice President Harris who was making these decisions.)

Why didn't President Biden take action sooner? At some point, we'll share the speculation we've formulated. For today, let's leave it at this as we continue to ponder the sorry state of what's left of the dying American discourse:

In our view, Candidate Harris is quite weak as an explainer, as major politicians go. 

We very much wish that wasn't the case, Also though, there's this:

The Fox News Channel is a fount of intellectual squalor. Last night, a leading framework from that Potemkin News Channel leaked over into the work performed on CNN.

A form of moral and intellectual chaos emerges from Fox on a daily basis. Consider one new example:

On one of that channel's primetime shows, Candidate Harris is now routinely referred to as "that broad." The angry pushback from incel culture is on full display there each night. 

(Eyes Wide Shut, come on down!)

A form of moral and intellectual chaos emerges from the Fox News Channel on a daily and nightly basis. The existence of social media only makes matters worse.

Last night, we got to see another small part of the problem. Simply put, we humans aren't gigantically bright, our big stars perhaps a bit less. 

Simply put, we humans aren't built for this type of work! In closing, Earth to Anderson Cooper:

It's true! Candidate Harris has "been in the White House for four years"—but she hasn't been in charge!

Everyone understands that fact. Everyone on the face of the earth except our millionaire stars!

Tomorrow: We're still trying to make our way back to what the public was told last weekend by The Man Who Screams, with much more to follow.

62 comments:

  1. Cokeheads are known to gnash their teeth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used to be addicted to Coke, stuff is like black gold, tastes sooooo good that it’s highly addictive, but very poisonous to your body.

      Most workplaces offer Coke for free - to ease their exploitation of your labor, but just say no, otherwise you’re saying yes to weight gain and eventually cancer.

      Delete
    2. Both my cavities I blame on Coke.

      Delete
    3. Most workplaces offer coffee for free, but I've never worked anywhere that offered free coke, despite the fact that a substantial percentage of workers drink Coke in place of coffee in the morning. It has been a lifelong gripe.

      "There have also been claims that chemicals in soft drinks can increase cancer risk. While some studies have detected very low levels of chemicals such as benzene and 4-methylimidazole (4-Mel) in certain soft drinks, there is no evidence they increase the risk of cancer at the low levels found in soft drinks. The chemicals have been found to be carcinogenic (cancer causing) in other types of exposures, but at far higher levels than present in food or drink. Good diet, exercise and avoiding excess weight gain are recognised ways to reduce your risk of cancer and other disease."

      Delete
  2. Leave it to Anderson Cooper, and the entire rest of the media to not ask members of Congress running for re-election, what they are doing to streamline immigration and make it easier to navigate, since that will reduce illegal immigration.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A significant omission since Congress has twice passed on enacting comprehensive immigration bills because passage would be on Biden's watch.

      Delete
    2. And Harris has addressed this point every time she has been asked, including when she was interviewed on Fox News.

      Delete

  3. "Vice presidents aren't in charge of policy!"

    Yes, I agree. And we all know the correct answer in this situation: "I was just following the orders".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vice Presidents don’t execute policy. They cast tie breaking votes in the senate.

      Delete
    2. Anonymouse 10:51am, and they sit in their office and read Drudge otherwise. They offer nothing and have no onus to explain or account for anything during their time in office.

      Delete
    3. Vice Presidents don’t “follow orders”, because they don’t execute anything. They give speeches, chair commissions, etc. This is a separate issue from “explaining or accounting for anything”. I believe you’ll find that Harris IS explaining Biden administration policies, particularly touting the successes, but also giving responses to cooper’s questions. You may not like the answers, but that’s what she’s out there doing.

      You’ll note that Somerby is making the point about the powers of the vice presidency, so perhaps you should take it up with him.

      Delete
    4. "Border Czars" don’t execute anything in Democrat administrations? Is this by design?

      Delete
    5. She wasn’t the “border czar.”

      “Biden asked Harris to lead diplomatic efforts to reduce poverty, violence and corruption in Central America's Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, as well as engage with Mexico on the issue.”

      https://www.reuters.com/world/us/republicans-call-harris-failed-border-czar-truth-is-more-complicated-2024-07-30/

      Ultimately, the president has to approve any policy recommendations. The VP, in any administration, as Somerby notes, has no power to independently implement or execute policy.

      Delete
    6. Anonymouse 11:38pm, what do you think I’m doing by commenting upon the blogger’s formulation as to VP accountability?

      Your anonymouse pal at 10:51, also echoed Bob.

      Why don’t you take it up with God

      Delete
    7. I don’t know, Cecelia at 11:58, but I do know that you complained to me at 10:51 rather than criticize Somerby directly. I also know that I and Somerby are correct. 10:47 (and 11:46) implied that the VP had all kinds of powers to issue executive orders that affected border security when that isn’t the case.

      Delete
    8. Actually, Harris was not the “border czar”, but was given a task to address root causes of immigration early in the first month of the Biden admin, and Harris’ work in that area has been viewed as highly successful. The closest to a “border czar” is the Homeland Security Secretary; “border czar” is a made up phrase meant to attack and trivialize an issue without offering anything of substance, the very definition of gorilla dust.

      Delete
    9. Why are conservatives so obtuse?

      Delete
    10. @Anon 1:26
      Not all of them are. Some just pretend.

      Delete
    11. Do Democrat “border czars” always deny them being “border czars”? Is this by design?

      Delete
  4. HARRIS (10/23/24): So that's why my plan, and it's a new approach, is about tax cuts for our small businesses so that they can invest in themselves and grow and in the process, invest in communities, invest in neighborhoods, and strengthen our economy overall.

    ————-

    Absolute genius!! Who would have ever thought of that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The practice of chopping up the law and creating special benefits for chosen groups has gone too far. It encourages businesses to focus on analyzing legal minutiae, rather than running their business as well as possible.

      The same problem exists with individual benefits. The many programs -- housing, child support, education, etc. -- can cause unintended consequences. A single mother at my company got promoted. The higher salary would make her ineligible for certain benefits. She went to an expert to figure out how that would affect her. The expert figured out that the promotion would cost her money. The reduction in benefits was greater than the increase in salary. The expert then went on to figure out a way that this woman could get even more money by not working at all. So, she left the workforce.

      Delete
    2. Cool, made up story.

      Delete
    3. DiC, Are you arguing that people should get no benefits, even if they are poor and can’t make ends meet?

      Delete
    4. When a promotion means more money but also loss of benefits or a higher tax bracket, you accept the promotion and pay the extra amount that goes with it because, in the long run, having that higher title will lead to career progress and a better job later on.

      If a full time working woman at your firm was receiving "benefits" that suggests your company was not paying proper salaries to begin with.

      Delete
    5. Keep in mind that Dickhead in Cal has been retired collecting maximum SS benefits for about the past 20+ years.

      Delete
    6. Believe me, back at the office we are all extremely thankful DiC retired, he was completely incompetent and a total nutcase. In the office pool, we bet on who would most likely “go postal”, and everyone picked David.

      Delete
  5. “Why didn't President Biden institute those executive actions during the first three years and five months of his administration? Why did he wait so long?”

    Harris did give a response to this. Perhaps it wasn’t what Somerby wanted to hear from her.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, VPs are not in charge of policy. However, Harris said that she wouldn't have done anything different from Biden.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Harris Says 'Not a Thing Comes to Mind' That She'd Do Differently Than Biden
      https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-view-republican-cabinet-1965824

      Delete
    2. What would Donald J Chickenshit have done differently from his first term, fuckface? Or was managing to get himself impeached TWICE in one term, just a perfect record?

      Delete
    3. A few minutes after she said that, she came back to the question, and said that she would appoint a Republican to her cabinet.

      Delete
    4. That was an off the cuff response to a vague question, and made sense within the context of the situation. Harris has given plenty of detail on how she will differ from Biden, if you ignored that, that’s on you.

      Delete
    5. Dickhead in Cal provides a link to a lightweight article in Newsweek reporting on her appearance on The View, a real heavy hitting interview.

      Also, in the Newsweek story,

      Recent reporting has also suggested that she has been weighing whether to break with the president more forcefully on certain issues.

      The next good faith post Dickhead in Cal writes will be his first.

      Delete
  7. Bob has been talking about Homer, Lincoln and the House Divided for a while. In that vein, members of Team Blue, listen to this ( https://youtu.be/jHMz1aWs7Ek ) speech by Tucker Carlson. If you want to peek out of your cocoon and see how the other half feels, spend a few minutes watching it, instead of reflexively dismissing it with your usual adjectives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Great point. If you can't understand why half the country supports the other candidate, it creates a kind of cognitive dissonance. Yes, there are some racists, but do you think half the country is racist? Or, from the other side, there are some politically ignorant people, but do you think half the country is politically ignorant?

      Delete
    3. This is a straw man argument.

      Delete
    4. Mmmm yes, that guru of wisdom and insight, Tucker Carlson, who was even too much of a loon for Fox News.

      Bob worries that we are divided (as we have always been), but doesn’t seem to care what we are divided over.

      We pretty much do now understand, via science, why nearly half the country support Republicans and why a majority of the country is on the right wing spectrum. And yes, racism (among various other oppressions) is a major factor, and continues to be a dominant, pernicious aspect of our society.

      Delete
    5. Tucker Carlson, fired from Fox NOOZ, because his lying contributed to their over 3/4 of a Billion-dollar defamation settlement and last seen polishing Putin's knobs at a grocery store in Moscow.

      Delete
    6. Carlson’s mother left him when he was 8. He’s been loopy ever since.

      Delete
    7. Much of the Republican aversion to folks in the LGBTQIA+ community is due to an internal revulsion of their own latent homosexuality/bisexuality, an inner shame brought on by abuse and religious indoctrination, but completely unnecessary since being gay, or whatever, is just as natural and harmless as being straight.

      This is rather obviously the case with Tucker Carlson, as he swoons for Putin. I mean, that “girlish” laugh, c’mon man.

      Delete
    8. David, half the country is racist and politically ignorant. They're the same people, you dumb ass. Just look in the mirror.

      Delete
    9. Yet these supposed racists helped elect Obama. And they enthusiastically support a VP candidate whose wife is a person of color.

      Delete
    10. Divorce doesn't explain everythingOctober 24, 2024 at 4:14 PM

      @1:21 This is Somerby's theory, but most boys in divorced families don't turn out like Carlson. Carlson's father remarried quickly, so Carlson had a stepmother. His father was wealthy, so Carlson did not suffer poverty or disadvantage in childhood. The large majority of boys in Carlson's situation do not become miscreants like him. So something else must have contributed to his oddness. Somerby needs to look elsewhere to explain why Carlson is the way he is.

      Delete
    11. My theory is that Fox discovered Carlson's close ties to Russia and that is why they immediately fired him.

      Delete
    12. 4:16 comment directed at David.

      Delete
    13. I'm not sure what you think is special about Carlson's speech. He repeated the usual Republican lies and victimization complains, called Democrats names, and assured the crowd that Trump would win. Nothing special or new about him at all.

      Delete
    14. Dickhead in Cal: that is a myth, Dickhead. Obama won because the radical white supremacists despised John McCain and Romney. And Vance is the least qualified VP candidate from a major party in my memory. Bought and owned by a radical billionaire; Why would you be enthusiastic about that? As Vance himself said, his wife "is not white but she's a good mother".

      Delete
  8. Somerby is engaging with a couple of rhetorical trick ponies that he loves to trot out:

    1) Somerby loves trying to be that bully that trips the nerd and then sarcastically says “oh, I’m sorry” and asks “are you ok?” with phony sincerity. Somerby loves going into great detail about how Dems struggle with an issue, relishing all the minutiae, beating a dead horse, and then briefly offers weak criticism of corporate media for plausible deniability, for the rubes.

    2) Somerby loves tail wagging the dog/blame the victim scenarios, loves when the media behaves as a Republican attack dog, attacking Dems from the Republican pov so that the Dem position becomes electorally untenable, and then demands the Dems explain why they haven’t addressed the issue, from a Republican pov!

    In reality, Somerby delights when corporate media attacks Harris, he lovingly savors every aspect of it.

    In reality, the recent wave of immigration, like most past waves, is mainly driven by chaos in homelands that is primarily the result of US meddling. The recent wave in fact started under Trump, but was halted due to the pandemic, which then developed pent up demand that then led to increased crossings as the pandemic faded. Immigration is the lifeblood of our country, immigrants enhance both our economy and our culture. There’s nothing wrong with waves of immigration, other than how we handle it in terms of treating these people, who are fleeing messes mostly of our making, with humanity. This is what Biden addressed in his first 100 days, by undoing Trump’s inhumane policies (which in and of itself had little impact on the number of crossings). Somerby had dumbly complained both that Biden did nothing, and did too much.

    Why didn’t Biden shut down the border earlier? Because immigration is a net positive for the US, and a humane way of dealing with messes in other countries, messes we usually had a significant hand in. Why did Biden eventually shut down the border? Because corporate media, operating at the behest of Republicans, mendaciously made it an electoral necessity.

    Somerby has failed to make a credible coherent argument substantiating his Republican stance on the issue (immigration bad, me good). Instead he muddies the water, attempting to be murky about his own stance - hiding behind the weakest of media “criticism”, but ultimately pushing standard Republican talking points.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you want to go vote together?

      Delete
    2. "Somerby has failed to make a credible coherent argument substantiating his Republican stance on the issue (immigration bad, me good)"

      He hasn't even stated his Republican stance on the issue, let alone argued for it!

      How duplicitous he is.

      Delete
    3. Somerby has repeatedly agreed with the Republican claim that Biden has failed to address immigration, routinely amplifying the Republican stance, yet does not bother to substantiate the claim, just agrees with it and amplifies it. I agree with 12:42, Somerby has failed in that way, and I agree Somerby/Republicans have tried to have it both ways, both that Biden did too much and too little, and I think Americans are smart enough to see this, and if Harris wins, then this “duplicity” by Republicans may well have played a significant role.

      Delete
    4. @Anon 12:42
      Are you always this boring?

      Delete
    5. When a commenter is boring, consider the possibility the he might be an AI.

      Delete
  9. “Why didn't President Biden institute those executive actions during the first three years and five months of his administration? Why did he wait so long?”

    A big part of Harris’ answer was the need for congressional action on the border, rather than relying solely on executive orders. A bill was introduced on day 1 of the Biden administration, and failed. Recall that Trump’s government shutdown 2018-2019 was due to his extremism about the border. The same extremism led to the tanking of the 2024 border bill. Couple that with the general climate of extremism and propaganda on this issue from the right wing and you get the GOP unwilling to enact anything but the most extreme policy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It’s nice to see a VP who supports their boss.

    Pence, on the other hand…

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pence’s support was tempered by a fear of getting hung up on certain issues.

      Pence was wisked away on Jan 6, some say they heard LZ’s Gallows Pole blasting in Pence’s limo, a killer track.

      Delete
  11. Sorry, posted this at the bottom of the wrong essay.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Does Somerby imagine that if he writes some irrelevant stuff about Garner, people will think he knows things?

    ReplyDelete