Heading into the first sit-down interview in the campaign, the onus was on CNN’s host Dana Bash. Would she ask tough questions … or go soft? Would she be a journalist or a media flunky?
Those questions were fairly raised when she was selected to moderate the Biden/Trump debate for several reasons. To the surprise of many, Bash did not give favor to Biden in the Biden/Trump debate– and even Team Trump praised Bash for her fairness. She performed like a real journalist.
So, what about the Harris/Walz interview? Sad to say, Bash crashed.
Unlike her debate performance, Bash and CNN put on a show that could have been a Harris/Walz infomercial. Yes, she did ask Harris about a couple of her flip-flops – but mostly to allow Harris to provide the boilerplate response. There were no serious follow- up questions. No challenge when Harris said she is not going to ban fracking and has been consistent in that. No video of Harris when she said she would end all fracking … period. No challenge when she said proof of her position was the fact that “we (the Biden administration) did not ban fracking” Hmmmm. I seem to recall that Biden issued an Executive Order banning fracking on federal lands.
You could see the direction that this so-called interview was heading with the first question. What would Harris do on day one of her presidency? She said she would look after the middle class with jobs and business investment. Platitudes … no policies.
Most of the interview dealt with positive fuzzy stuff. Walz’ son expressing a loving and emotional reaction to his dad’s speech (which should never have been mocked). Very touching, but not policy. Then there was the photo of Harris’ grandniece watching the Vice President giving her acceptance speech – a photo that is being hyped by the left as akin to the image of the raising of Old Glory at Iwo Jima in terms of symbolism. Nice pic, but nothing to do with policy.
Harris was asked what she was doing when she got THE call from President Biden. Her initial response is that she should not give out too much information – TMI, if you will. Well, she was cooking pancakes and bacon for the family. And that is Harris definition of TMI?
(If Harris was talking about “makin’ bacon” in the colloquial or slang sense, THAT would be TMI. But I digress.)
When Walz was asked if he misspoke when he said he carried a gun “in war,” the governor went on about gun violence in schools without answering the questions. Bash did not press the issue. We got the same deflection when asked about past lies dealing with his 1999 drunk and reckless driving charge. He deflected into “my students love me.” No direct answer. No policy.
When Harris bragged about bringing down inflation, Bash took a pass on the obvious — noting that inflation rose to record heights under the Biden/Harris watch. Harris was not asked about the excessive spending that fueled the inflation – and Harris’ role in casting the tie breaking vote on the massive spending bill.
As revealing and soft as the questions were, what was never asked was more shocking. Nothing about Ukraine … China … Iran … or Afghanistan. Nothing about tax policy. Just a lot off platitudes about cutting prices … lower medical costs … lowering housing costs. No question as to how Harris would do all that. Bash did not even pursue Harris on her proposed price and rent controls proposals.
Harris was not asked about crime – specifically her history of soft on crime polices. Decriminalizing illegal border crossing … ending cash bail … calling for a cut in the enforcement activities by ICE … and raising bail money for rioters in Minnesota.
As if the questioning was not bad enough, the CNN program was structured like a campaign ad. There was that warm fuzzy video opening. In conjunction with breaks, CNN showed videos of Harris and Walz in positive settings, including a restaurant. The pertinent question was … what did they order? She had a burger, and he had a brisket. (Is that another example of TMI – as in “too meaningless information”?)
When they did use Trump in the videos, they cherry picked his most unpopular statements – setting Harris up for her well established responses. The entire interview was never intended to elicit policy information from Harris as opposed to making her look as good as possible.
As the New York Times wrote:
“In a setting arranged by the Harris campaign to appear friendly — just three people sitting together at a neighborhood coffee shop in Savannah — it was going to be difficult for Ms. Bash to extract much news out of the vice president.”
And indeed, she did not. That is especially true when you consider that the questions were the result of groupthink at the station. The questions were no more impromptu than the carefully scripted answers.
Harris spent a lot of time peddling her alleged “values” over policies. Even where she did a 180-degree turnabout on fracking – and fibbing in the process (according to the CNN fact checker). Harris illogically claimed that all her substantial flip flops reflected no change in values – Bash let her get away with it.
If not exactly fawning, Bash’s interview was too friendly to be viewed as a true interview conducted by a real journalist. The entire show was heavy on the puff and poop – virtually devoid — of issues. Viewers would not know much more about Harris after the interview than they did before. The Harris strategy is all about selling a marketing image while ignoring the tough questions.
Interestingly, at the start of the show – and following each commercial break – Bash would say “live from Savannah, Georgia.” Actually, the interview was taped and edited in advance. Only Bash’s introductions were live. That qualifies as disinformation and is not how a journalist or a news network conducts real interviews.
Despite the highly favorable treatment by CNN, I tend to agree with political strategist David Axelrod and many others. He gave Harris a good review but concluded his critique with “I don’t think she moved the needle.”
Others – from Fox to the New York Times – were not praising Harris performance. She was dull … boring … and again displayed her word salad approach to impromptu oratory. The Times wrote, “She still struggles to be punchy off the cuff.”
In consenting to an exclusive single interview, the Harris campaign is keeping with its strategy of limiting exposure to the press and the public to the bare minimum. Bringing along her affable teammate is further evidence of that. Walz was there to minimize the time Harris was exposed to direct questions. He was there to pick up the ball if she fumbled. As the Wall Street Journal noted, he was there as a crutch – as one observer called it, “her ESA (Emotional Support Animal).” For most of the interview, Walz just smiled and nodded.
Walz succeeded in his mission. He took airtime that could have been used for more important questions for Harris – and it is Harris who sets the policy. The fact that he is in lockstep to her very liberal agenda is at the same time notable and inconsequential.
Some have suggested that after the convention Harris would open up to a more traditional relationship with the press and the public – more interviews, press conferences and off-the-cuff responses. At the time of this writing, she has nothing on her schedule – and still no policy page on her website. It looks like Team Harris is going to run the Biden bunker campaign strategy on a single theme – “I am not Donald Trump.”
The interview made Harris’ cheerleaders cheer and her opponents pounce but did nothing to inform those voters who are seeking for more information on the issues before making a voting decision. Despite the pass from Bash and CNN, Harris’ performance was not informative and not reassuring to voters. She comes out of the inning with no hits, no runs and no (existential) errors.
So, there ‘tis.