Was that David Plouffe? Brian Fallon? Maybe the Second Gentleman himself? Surely no one from outside Kamala Harris' inner campaign circle would have had the chutzpah to use the term "soaring rhetoric" to describe Kamala Harris' pedestrian-at-best performance during her CNN interview last night!
But no! It was actually Jeremy Peters, an MSNBC contributor and New York Times "reporter" on today's Morning Joe--which tells you all you need to know about the New York Times, MSNBC, and the liberal media at large.
"She's really positioned herself in a way that should scare Republicans," chirped Peters. "What you see, I think, is the kind of soaring rhetoric from her about uniting the country that a lot of people are really hungry for."
It doesn't matter that it's remarkably phony -- remember, Joe Biden also campaigned as a uniter, and then as president compared Republicans to Jim Crow segregationists. He said “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.”
Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were oddly AWOL on one of the most significant mornings of the campaign to date. In their absence, Willie Geist hosted the show, and offered a much more balanced take than the raving over Kamala that we could have anticipated from Joe and Mika.
Commenting on Kamala's policy flip-flops, notably on fracking, Geist, with a chuckle in his voice, said:
"The subtext is, forget everything [chuckles] I said in 2019 [Sam Stein laughs] when I was running in the Democratic primary. The person you should look at is the one sitting before you today, and the one who was on the stage with Joe Biden in 2020."
Sam Stein took it up a notch from there, musing whether Kamala could have gone "full Bulworth." That was a reference to a 1998 Warren Beatty movie in which a politician at the end of his personal and political rope drops the duplicitous rhetoric and just tells it like it is. If Harris had gone that route, Stein imagined her saying:
"Look, I was running in the Democratic primary, I needed to get some progressive votes, and now I'm not."
Concluded Stein:
"Would that work? Probably not. But that is probably the truth or close to it."
Zing!
Stein specified that he was floating the notion of Harris going full "Bulworth," not "Bulwark." The latter is the Never Trumper outfit founded by Bill Kristol, Charlie Sykes and Sarah Longwell, of which Stein serves as managing editor. That in itself represents an interesting evolution for Stein, someone we've always thought of as an amiable but nonetheless left-leaning MSM member.
Note: The Wall Street Journal has a great take on Harris' claim that although she's flip-flopped on multiple issues, "my values have not changed." Says the WSJ:
"We take it as a studied wink to her left flank that she’s on their side but can’t say so clearly until she’s elected."
Shades of Barack Obama caught on a hot mic, telling Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have more "flexibility" to negotiate missile defense after the 2012 election. Medvedev assures Obama that he will inform his boss, Putin.
Here's the transcript.
MSNBC
Morning Joe
8/30/24
6:06 am EDTWILLIE GEIST: Jeremy Peters, this obviously was a big moment for the Vice President. Her nominee to be Vice President at her side, Tim Walz was there as well. But this really was an interview about the candidate, about who she is.
Because there are open and fair questions about why she has changed so dramatically on so many key issues. What is the sense inside the campaign about how that interview went yesterday?
. . .JEREMY PETERS: The policies that a lot of Democrats were trying to embrace because they thought that's where the party was in 2020 were really out of step with the concerns of most Americans. And that became evident when the Democratic party rejected candidates like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren in 2020, and went with the centrist Joe Biden.
So I think she's really positioned herself in a way that should scare Republicans. I know that Republicans were scrambling yesterday to try to figure out how to push back on this interview. They, once again, have kind of failed to land a punch on Harris.
What you see, I think, is the kind of soaring rhetoric from her about uniting the country that a lot of people are really hungry for.
. . .
GEIST: And the criticism you hear from the Trump campaign and Republicans, that they hope will take hold of independent voters, is that Vice President Harris doesn't quite know who she is. She was someone in 2019 and in the Senate that she's sayings she's not now.
But she answered specific questions to get into it a little more closely here. Vice President Harris pressed on those evolving policy positions, including on the question of fracking.
DANA BASH: Do you still want to ban fracking?
KAMALA HARRIS: No, and I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020. That I would not ban fracking. As Vice President, I did not ban fracking. As president, I will not ban fracking.
BASH: In 2019, I believe, at a townhall, you were asked, would you commit to implementing a federal ban on fracking on your first day in office, and you said, there's no question, I'm in favor of banning fracking, so yes. So, it changed in that campaign?
HARRIS: In 2020, I made very clear where I stand. We are in 2024, and I have not changed that position or will I going forward. I kept my word, and I will keep my word.
BASH: What made you change that position at the time?
HARRIS: Well, let's be clear, my values have not changed. I believe it is very important that we take seriously what we must do to guard against what is a clear crisis in terms of the climate. And to do that, we can do what we have accomplished thus far.
The Inflation Reduction Act, what we have done to invest, by my calculation, over probably a trillion dollars over the next ten years, investing in a clean-energy economy. What we've already done, creating over 300,000 new, clean-energy jobs. That tells me from my experience as Vice President, we can do it without banning fracking. In fact, Dana [pronounced as Day-na], Dana, excuse me, I cast the tie-breaking vote that actually increased leases for fracking as Vice President.
BASH: Yeah.
HARRIS: So, I'm very clear on where I stand.
BASH" Was there some policy or scientific data that you saw that you said, oh, okay, I get it now?
HARRIS: What I have seen is that we can grow and we can increase a thriving clean-energy economy without banning fracking.
GEIST: So Sam Stein, pretty clear there. She says, in 2019, I said I wanted to ban fracking. In 2020, when I became the vice presidential nominee, I came on board with the position that we were not going to ban fracking, and I hold that position today.
The subtext, because Dana Bash did a good job asking specific questions then about immigration, how she's changed on a series of policies, the subtext is, forget everything [chuckles] I said in 2019 [Sam Stein laughs] when I was running in the Democratic primary. The person you should look at is the one sitting before you today, and the one who was on the stage with Joe Biden in 2020.
SAM STEIN: Right. I mean, yes, that is the subtext. I've always wondered in these situations, could someone go full Bulworth, not Bulwark, Bulworth. [Geist chuckles] And just be like, look, I was running in the Democratic primary, I needed to get some progressive votes, and now I'm not.
You know, like, would that work? Probably not. But that is probably the truth or close to it.
