Harris Survives Dramatic Attempted Interview

In a prolonged exchange, Harris ducked and parried multiple efforts to catch her

Aug. 30: Harris unharmed after risky encounter … Party threatening democracy to get seat in Harris cabinet … Trump wants to inseminate everyone … New, unboring financial rules …

---

Vice Pres. Kamala Harris last night, seen fending off attempts to pierce her defenses. (Screengrab / CNN video.)

Vice President Kamala Harris is said to be recovering quite comfortably this morning after last night’s dramatic brush with a lone interrogator who successfully breached the perimeter of her comms team and got within shouting distance of both Harris and making real news.

Harris had been warned repeatedly that an interview was both essential to her political survival but that her political safety could not be guaranteed. As it turned out, Harris was only held for less than half an hour and emerged apparently unscathed, but it may be days until we get results back on any possible injuries to her approval ratings.

The interrogator — who is not being named here in order to avoid encouraging copycats — had time to take multiple shots, but none of them so much as grazed Harris’s composure.

Predictions that Harris would need the protection of Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN) proved wrong, with zero consequences for the wrong predictors. Walz basically spoke when spoken to rather than leaping to Harris’s defense, which proved unnecessary given that Harris is a grown-ass adult.

In fact, Harris was securely protected at all times by rock-solid media norms that made it nearly impossible for the interrogator to:

• Spend an extended period of time on a single subject

• Ask questions about shit that someone else hadn’t already deemed newsworthy

• Escape subject matter that only Beltway insiders care about.

Although the interrogator was said to have no known partisan motive, at multiple points she pushed Harris to take shelter in well-reinforced centrist or right-wing positions.

The following is a detailed, nowhere-near minute-by-minute of last night’s dramatic events, drawing on information culled from commentators and the transcript.

Aiming for the Cabinet

For some reason, the interrogator — okay, it was CNN’s Dana Bash — took aim at Harris’s cabinet, even though it (a) doesn’t exist yet and (b) is not an issue anyone gives a shit about.

The interrogator, however, was clearly trying to herd Harris into a centrist position, which Harris unfortunately took. The question was about the only remaining uncontroversial kind of diversity: Partisan.

Bash: Will you appoint a Republican to your cabinet?

Harris: Yes, I would.

Bash: Anyone in mind—

Harris: Yes, I would. No, no one in particular in mind. ... I think it’s really important. I have spent my career inviting diversity of opinion. I think it’s important to have people at the table — when some of the most important decisions are being made — that have different views, different experiences. And I think it would be to the benefit of the American public to have a member of my cabinet who is a Republican.

History thinks otherwise. Here are some Republicans who were appointed and/or kept on by Presidents Barack Obama or Bill Clinton:

• FBI Directors James Comey and Robert Mueller

• Economic geniuses Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan

• Then there’s Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, whose criming and theocratizing I wrote about for Salon.

Pres. Joe Biden doesn’t have any cabinet Republicans, and — start your correlation vs. causation engines — hasn’t had any massive policy failures or huge scandals. Coincidence? Or…?

So, has Biden appointed any Republicans? 

There’s FBI Director Chris Wray. How’s that going? There’s Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, whose job includes fending off inflation. How’s that going?

Biden’s envoys to Russia and Afghanistan are Republicans. How’s that going?

Revolving Door Project Executive Director Jeff Hauser reminded me yesterday that the FBI has never ever not once ever never had a Democratic director. How’s about we give that a shot for once as we hit the second quarter of the 21st century?

Hauser’s organization is an executive-branch watchdog, which focuses on appointees, and he told me yesterday: 

“Kamala Harris should choose a Cabinet that is fully committed to the platform on which she is running and her coalition's ideals. It seems very unlikely that any current Republicans would meet that test. And past precedent says that this sort of olive branch yields no political benefits and usually ends in a massive headache.”

Harris is making a classic mistake here. The executive branch does not need to reflect the country ideologically. That diversity of thought is already baked into our system across three branches.

If voters want Republican ideology at the table, they can vote for it in the House or Senate. That’s where the diversity of thought comes into the process. The president is supposed to represent and serve all Americans in the manner on which they campaigned.

Harris said “it’s important to have people at the table — when some of the most important decisions are being made — that have different views, different experiences.” Not only will she have that if she’s elected, she couldn’t avoid it if she wanted to. Why? Because the Supreme Court is dominated by right-wing, corporatist theocrats.

That’s more than sufficient table-peopling!

As comedian and author Jim Earl pointed out yesterday, Harris is promising to hand an entire federal agency to a member of the same party that Harris is now campaigning against as an existential threat to democracy.

And it’s worth noting how wildly different our politics would be if our objective media pressed Democrats on why the fuck they would possibly invite into the halls of power leaders from the party that defends storming those halls to steal power.

Gaza

Of course, centrism is relegated to the sidelines when it’s inconvenient for those in power, including the media.

“[A] lot of people on the progressive left” want Harris to block military aid to Israel, Bash said.

Which is true! Also true, a lot of other people want that. In fact, as writer Tariq Kenney-Shawa pointed out last night, a June poll found that 61% of all voting people want to end U.S. arms for Israel. 

Harris said she wouldn’t, but the exchange was so short and vague it’s impossible to say what that could mean precisely. For instance, whether she’ll continue all military aid or start following the laws that prohibit arming specific units that are violating human rights.

No time to get into the boring, nitpicky, all-important granular details when you’ve gotta ask Walz about Republican attack lines!

The Fracking News

Why was the only climate-change question last night about fracking? Two reasons.

One, that’s what people are talking about (which is the opposite of news and, paradoxically, drives TV news). Two, Harris has changed her position on it, rendering it “interesting.”

All of which combined last night into a toxic slurry that was then pumped into the public discourse as follows:

Bash: In 2019 you said, quote, “There is no question I’m in favor of banning fracking.” Fracking, as you know, is a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania.

Harris: Sure.

Bash: Do you still want to ban fracking?

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 in a town hall, you said — 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, nor 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 … I cast the tie-breaking vote that actually increased leases for fracking as vice president. So I’m very clear about where I stand.

Bash: And 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.

This is just terrible for humanity overall. It’s got one good journalism moment: “Was there some policy or scientific data?” That was a sharp way to pin Harris down, or in this case reveal that her answer was bullshit (not outright falsehood, but classic, OG bullshit).

But look at the premise for why fracking matters. Not poisoning Pennsylvanians and others. Not contributing to planetary fricasseeing. Instead, it’s “a pretty big issue, particularly in your must-win state of Pennsylvania.”

That’s not journalism serving the people. It’s not even journalism designed to make news by fracking new ground.

There are a million new things any journalist with access to Harris could ask her any day of the week. They don’t because their bosses in New York aren’t interested in issues that aren’t already in the news.

Any of them could make news by asking about Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan, a generational figure in fighting big corporations before they become SkyNet. Or, if we want to stay on climate, they could ask about Harris’s past inclination to fight climate change by holding corporations accountable. Or about continuing federal subsidies of drilling!

Instead, what we get is journalism circumscribed by obsession with campaign politics. Which is easier and more intuitively compelling¹ than issue-based journalism that could, in theory, save the planet.

That’s why the pressure point last night wasn’t why on Earth do you support a dangerous attack on Earth? It was why did your answer change — in pursuit of a gotcha moment. 

And, weirdly, it did provide a gotcha moment, but one that went unrecognized, because it had to do with substance. Harris’s ultimate, heartbreaking position was: “[W]e can grow and we can increase a thriving clean energy economy without banning fracking.”

And the reason I called that bullshit is because the goal isn’t to grow and build a clean energy economy, it’s to save the planet.

Growth is a drug that’s killing us. Greening our economy isn’t the goal — it’s part of the goal of not fricasseeing the planet. 

Yes, fair, none of us would give a perfect answer on the fly, let alone under the pressure of those conditions.

And sure, there’s the politics argument: Let her get elected first and then we sweat the policy. Fair. But even on that basis, is this really the way to go? How many people out there would she really lose if she opposed fracking? How much more enthusiasm would she have if she did?

It’s also fair, though, to acknowledge the wiggle room here. For one thing, as I’ve written before, green groups aren’t pressuring her because — behind the scenes — they’re being heard and are feeling good. That’s good! But also, the question was simplistically binary. Even if Harris doesn’t ban fracking, she could reduce the shit out of it by regulating it to death like red states did to reduce abortion even when it was legal.

As I wrote before this interview, it’ll soon be forgotten. Harris’s primary goal was to avoid making news, knowing that the media would focus on some “slip” or “gaffe” or violation of media norms. She gave them none.

The reason the media pressed for this interview was not to serve the people but to serve themselves. They’re fighting desperately to maintain their shrinking hegemony. Harris skipping them would shout their obsolescence to the solar-panel rooftops.

These interviews are about policing the norms of the people who do them as much as they’re about anything else. “You should let us interview you” often translates as “You should subject yourself to our litmus tests to keep you where we want you politically.”

Ironically, I suspect I have more faith than her own campaign does that Harris Unbound could escape the limitations of our current media both effectively and inspiringly. Look at how she defused the bullshit premise of the bullshit question about Trump’s bullshit racism.

It’s all the same old, tired playbook. Next question, please!

Trump Vows to Inseminate Everyone

or

Trump Pledges Socialized Medicine for Sperm

Former President Donald Trump has no problem tacking left when he thinks it’ll help him politically. So, with in vitro fertilization a political albatross for Republicans at the moment, yesterday Trump decided to do something about it.

Free IVF for everyone!

According to Trump, if he’s president, all IVF will be paid for by the government or insurance. It is, of course, the kind of popular, common-sense idea that would produce howls of “overreach!” from the media if it were Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) saying it about cancer. Or pneumonia. Or anything.

Naturally, the media are not howling about Trump’s lack of details — which only matter when they’re Democratic details…

…or about the fact that Trump could’ve done this when he was president…

…or about the fact that he could do this now just by ordering his subservient congressional Republicans to vote for it.

(Despite his past indifference to federal policy around fertility, historians will note that Trump spent most of his private life seeking to inseminate as many people as possible.)

Three Quickies

• Heather Cox Richardson has a good writeup on new rules to combat international money-laundering. And while it galls me to plug the number-one Substack in the world, I must admit I’ve barely seen this anywhere else and if I’d known about it in time to do the research and legwork I might even have led with it. It’s not boring accounting stuff; it’s about finally shutting down the money network that’s the circulatory system of the autocratic oligarchs working to take over the world.

• The Boar’s Head products that killed at least nine people came from a company plant that had dozens of violations just in the past year, according to newly released federal documents. Inspectors reportedly found mold and insects. But also — put down your breakfast, kids, or bookmark this one for later — liquid fat and meat juice on the walls. That’s right, they’re making cold cuts in a frat house.

• Brazil is going to shut off Twitter any second now. That’s because CEO Elon Musk is violating a law that says companies operating there must have people there so that regulators and law enforcement have someone to arrest when they crime. Musk has refused to take down false tweets from supporters of far-right former Pres. Jair Bolsonaro.

TCB

I’m officially taking off on Labor Day. I hope you have the day off, too. Knowing me, there’s a decent chance I’ll post something anyway over the holiday weekend, but I hope you take it easy.

Thanks for all the nice comments and emails you share with me about TFN! It means a lot to me personally. It would also mean a lot to me avariciously if appreciative Newsfuckers could share their kind thoughts about TFN publicly. So, instead of commenting on a post, maybe consider restacking it with your comments in a note, for instance? I swear I’ll see it, and that kind of thing will help TFN grow, which will help shrink my pathetic bids to rope you into supporting TFN financially.

Also, I don’t want this to sound like a humble-brag, but TFN’s engagement is growing enough that I’m starting to lose track of all your comments. This is not a humble-brag because it’s mostly a reflection of my poor organizational skills. I’m raising it because I want to assure you that I’m not ignoring you. So, if you don’t get a response from me and want one, please just email me or use Substack’s chat to ping me. I swear I’ll see it!

If you want to support TFN’s original reporting and newsletter, you can make a donation or become a paid subscriber.

Thank you! And come say hi on Threads, Bluesky, Instagram, Facebook, Mastodon, Spoutible, or Twitter.

Go get ‘em, kids. Remember the point is not to labor…

1. To the journalists, not the people, which is why TV news is dying.