New York Times reporter Jeremy Peters said today that Kamala Harris has a clarity problem. Liberal Twitter is aghast:
I get it: Trump is famous for long, meandering paragraphs of word salad that are sometimes incomprehensible. But even if Peters is wrong in a technical sense, he's right in every practical sense that matters. Trump is crystal clear that:
- He's against illegal immigration.
- He's anti-woke.
- He's in favor of tax cuts.
- He's against China and in favor of protecting American industry.
- He's pro-Christian.
- He'll fight against bureaucratic red tape.
- He's in favor of more coal, oil, and gas production.
- He's anti-crime and pro-cop.
- He's pro-gun.
There are obviously also issues where Trump tries to either stay quiet or fudge his position: Israel, abortion, and climate change, for example. But for the most part, every human being in the country knows at least the direction of his main positions.
This is less true of Kamala Harris. Partly that's because she's been on the national stage for only three months compared to Trump's ten years. But there's more to it than just that. She's certainly in favor of abortion rights. Everyone knows that. She supports Obamacare and believes in climate change. But take a look at that list of nine Trump positions. Harris is a little fuzzy on every single one of them.
I'm obviously extremely pro-Harris, but this doesn't blind me to the way she comes across. Most people know she's generally liberal and will do liberalish things as president, but that's about it. There's still some doubt on where, precisely, she stands on lots of hot button issues. There's no similar doubt about Trump.
POSTSCRIPT: I should add that a little fuzziness isn't necessarily bad. Lots of successful politicians try to appeal to all sides. But it is what it is.
Well, Trump at least claims to be all those things for 1-9.
His crimes don't count, and defunding the police that discover his crimes is A-OK--it's everyone else's criming that's the problem.
This is the key thing! If Harris were to address these points, she'd have to actually have realistic plans that the media would tear apart in detail. TCFG can just blather about his feels, and that's enough. I mean, he hates China, so he's gonna put a blanket tariff ? I mean, that's -insane-, but he gets a pass. But Harris would have to propose something detailed and realistic, and of course such a thing would involve various oxen getting gored, so she'd get pushback b/c of all that. It would go on and on and on. Oh, and we remember when Hillary had a ton of worked-out policies on her FUCKING WEBSITE and nobody bothered to go look.
Harris has figured this out. She remembers what happened to Hillary. She's staying purposely light on details, b/c the media is not an honest reporter.
Trump has a long history of hiring "illegal" immigrants (including groups he or his VP want to make illegal).
Trump's biggest policies are increasing tax rates on anything we import and any businesses that puts him off.
Trump is certainly not anti China. He's making his watches and Bibles there.
Trump brags about 50 states and and an overworked Judiciary work of new abortion red tape. And did you hear about Chevron? That will certainly add m/billions to litigators bottom lines.
You get the point...and my point is the fact that these "clear" positions Trump holds are only facially true and thus also show the giant failures of the free press.
Texas had a strong law going after employers who hired undocumented workers...and it didn't last long. So Abbott goes after the theatrics, e.g. National Guard at the Border, razor wire, bussing people...but leaves his employers and their employees alone (unless called in).
+1
I don't think she's fuzzy about anything, but then I'm not trying to find any way I can to vote for complete evil and pretend it's a good thing.
If she's not fuzzy, what are her stated positions on the above topics?
The problem is that Drum seems to be looking for bumper sticker positions on issues that don't deserve bumper sticker answers. On taxes she has been pretty clear. Higher taxes on billionaires, no tax increase on people who make under $400,000. Will she actually do that? Probably not. But then Trump is running on tariffs, so he is hardly simply in favor of cutting taxes.
Pro-police is also a vacuous kind of issue. I would bet that unlike Trump Harris thinks that attacking a policeman is an actual crime and not a political crime. But I have no doubt that Trump is pro-police in the sense that there should be no consequences for policemen who kill civilians (I mean unless they are trying to steal an election for Trump of course) while it is unlikely that Harris would agree.
It is hard not to see the criticism of Harris here being that she is an adult and so does not address issues at the level of a 5 year old.
Let's not feed the trolls! I agree with you - this is just standard journo complaining about how a regular politician isn't cozying up enough or giving journos exactly what their wretched little hearts desire.
Why the false dichotomy between being so-called "soft on China" and protecting American industry? It doesn't have to be zero-sum.
Same thing with taxes. Everybody knows the direction Kamala would propose WRT taxes. Drum is playing dumb.
And so on, yada yada.
I see what you're getting at, when she's complex or nuanced you work to not be able to follow it so you can imagine you didn't understand it so you can feel comforted that your corruption is common and ordinary, because of the wingnut beer goggles you wear inside your head.
I apologize if I am mistaken.
Off the top of my head, which is the view you're asking for,
1. She's against illegal immigration.
2. She's against getting it wrong.
3. She's in favor of raising taxes on the wealthy
4. She's against China and in favor of protecting American industry.
5. She belongs to some kind of church, though I cannot recall what nor would any serious person care.
6. 'Red tape'. I'm sure the billionaire thinks this is a serious issue.
7. More coal, oil, and gas production --is an assholes' idea of a plan.
8. She's anti-crime and pro-cop, but not unaccountability, and only Nazis have a different point of view.
9. She owns a gun, as a prominent public figure who's made a lot of enemies she's one of the few people on Earth with a real rationale to have one.
There is nothing fuzzy about anything here.
Say, did you know Trump would win if only people in prison voted?
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/2024-election-prison-poll-trump-popular-behind-bars.html
Criminals are on the same brainwave as the neo-Nazi police unions, who'd have thought? (But we learned that from A Clockwork Orange, the future conservatives are always dreaming of).
Not a hard thing to do unless you keep your head up your behind, or are glued to right wing media.
1. She's against illegal immigration, and pro legal immigration.
Can you say the same for Trump? Because he on multiple times has waffled between being pro or against legal immigration or whether or not he'll try to deport people legally in the US.
2. She is anti-discrimination of any kind.
"Woke" is the right wing boogeyman that right wingers use to refer to anything they don't like.
4. She is in favor of fair taxing.
Meaning taxing more those at the top, and taxing less those at the bottom.
5.She is pro-US economic and industrial interests.
Trump keeps waffling between being anti-China and promoting Chinese interests, not to mention actually having all his trinket crap made in China.
6. She is pro-freedom of religion and freedom from religion.
Unlike Trump she won't try to force a single religion on everyone else not put the interests of one particular religion over everyone else.
7. She'll fight for proper regulation. Not more and not less than what is needed to make industry thrive while keeping consumers safe.
8. She's in favor of needed coal, oil, and gas production, while boosting more sources of clean energy. Energy production of all kinds has always peaked under Democratic Presidents (both Obama and Biden were better for coal, oil, and gas production than Trump was). She'll do the same.
9. She's anti-crime and pro-good cops.
She literally put criminals behind bars and called for police accountability. Trump is an actual criminal who calls for police to be more abusive.
10. She's pro-responsible gun ownership.
She is an actual gun-owner, he is a felon that can't even legally own guns.
Clear enough for you?
Thanks for making it clear.
Of course this whole exchange just points out the difference between right-wing demagogues who rely on slogans that can be shouted to stoke fear and hatred, and serious politicians who want sensible policies that can't always be easily reduced to a slogan.
It's a problem for all Democrats, not just Harris.
Here you go:
He's against illegal immigration. So is Kamala.
He's anti-woke. She recognizes racism is still a problem in this country.
He's in favor of tax cuts. She is too. Trump favors cuts for the wealthy, Harris for the middle class.
He's against China and in favor of protecting American industry. Not sure about China, but in favor of protecting American industry.
He's pro-Christian. No, he appears pro-Christian, his behaviors are diametrically opposite. Harris behaves like a Christian.
He'll fight against bureaucratic red tape. Same as. Harris
He's in favor of more coal, oil, and gas production. Harris is in favor of reduced consumption, and renewable energy.
He's anti-crime and pro-cop. She is a prosecutor. He is a felon. Do the math.
He's pro-gun. He is pro-AR15 with no background check. She is pro-gun for responsible owners and non-military firearms.
That was pretty easy.
Not sure I've seen Harris ever mention tax cuts for the middle class, and I hope she doesn't.
It's a Republican talking point that she wants to extend current tax cuts for the middle class, while lapsing tax cuts on corporations and the rich.
On her web site, the first policy is "cut taxes for the middle class".
I haven't heard Harris suggest we should consume less.
Most are not "topics". They're MAGA slogans. Harris isn't pro- or anti-woke because it's a childish creation of Trump Republicans. She's neither pro- nor anti-Christian because the government is not supposed to favor one religion over another. It's in the constitution. "Bureaucratic red tape" is vacuous sloganising. All politicians are "anti-crime and pro-cop" in principle but unlike Trump, Harris wisely refrains from gibbering about matters for which state and local police forces are mainly responsible.
Why Kevin thinks Harris should allow Trump to stipulate the issues on which she is required to have a position is a mystery.
"If she's not fuzzy, what are her stated positions on the above topics?"
If you don't know it's because you've refused to listen. Not surprising from a dimwit like you.
Does this imply that Kevin is trying to do so? LOL.
I may have been fuzzy.
Kevin's not going to like that. I think you need more clarity.
I was fuzzy.
The details of her opinions on those issues are so much less important than her views on abortion, personal privacy, freedom of the press, safety from assholes with guns, dangerous hate groups, the rule of law and so on. Trump argues that election results are only valid if he wins. Harris hasn't provided the details of her take on this, but it's rather obvious that she expects the way people vote to have something to do with who wins.
A guy from my office put it
'No one believes most of Trump's ramblings. And no one believe most of Harris' recent, changes of heart on policy. All politicians are full of it.'
Did you check if he also believes that Harris will send people to storm the Capitol if she loses?
Yehouda I learned long ago, having political disagreements in the office is not good for one's career. So no, I didn't challenge his statement.
I see your point, and I am not going to tell you what to do.
But I think it worth noting that this means that in your office the Trumpists dominate political discussions.
Like meth, the addictive qualities of bothsiderism are quite high
Which changes were recent? Were they significant to national security or economic policy?
Harris is crystal clear on the one issue that matters--Biden won the last election. Trump continues to deny that, which disqualifies him to be president. This is an either/or election. Your either for democracy, or you're against it.
So the narrative is:
Kamala is unclear because while she is crystal clear on many issues, she does not have a black and white position on several issues that Donald talks about. frequently.
-And-
Donald is crystal clear because while he does not have black and white positions on many issues, he is clear on several of his favorite topics.....although literally no one knows what his plan might be on a single one of them and can barely speak coherently for more than a minute.
Media narrative building is so fun!
Trump is crystal clear on a lot of other stuff, too!
1) Hannibal Lecter is both "great" and also--despite being fictional--somehow dead.
2) Al Capone is likewise great and also dead.
3) A dead golfer had a big weiner.
There are of course other pressing issues on which Trump's position is very murky: for example, is it better to get eaten by a shark or electrocuted?
lol!
Depends on a lot of things, doesn't it? I mean, is the shark a very good looking shark, and is the electric charge big enough to knock you out or do you just lie there and fry?
There is a lot of fuzziness in Trump's position, and I think it seems intentional.
😂😂😂
Allow me to slightly edit:
1. Trump does not care if there are any restrictions at all on gun ownership, other than arresting a dude within a half mile of him.
2. Trump does not care if abortion is criminalized.
3. Trump does not care about environmental regulations, and probably doesn't care about climate change to the extent he even bothers thinking about it.
4. Trump does not care about any rights for ethnic and social minorities, at all.
5. Trump is fine with lower taxes, especially on himself, and further could care less about the federal budget.
6. Trump is easily against any government spending on the poor, for any reason.
7. Its not that Trump has some immigration policy, its that, see above, he could care less about immigrants, and since the "immigrants" he refers to are brown and poor, has no problem with accusing them of say, eating cats.
As for the NYT, they cannot get over the line to the effect that there are 70 million Americans who are fine with some combination of 1 - 7.
Kamala Harris has a completely different standard, as was discussed in a post last week, I believe. But she speaks to her voters as well as a top Democrat should be able to do. She might not have the sheer charisma of Obama, but I don't think comparing her positions to Trump's "positions" is valid. Its really not fair. Trump just has one more thing he does not care about, and that is that the MAGA morons who believe in 1 - 7 will vote for him, even though he could give a rats ass about them as well.
Exactly. Whatever his positions, Trump in a (Wotan forbid) second term would devote no time or effort or political capital whatever to enact any of them, just as he did in his last term. Some underlings would pursue their political hobby horses, writing executive orders for him to sign on teevee. If the Republicans control enough seats in Congress, they would take time out from undermining their leadership to pass tax cuts strongly favoring the wealthy.
As she has made quite clear by now, Kamala is the anti-Trump (as would be Biden or most sane candidates). That should be enough to make a choice. If that choice is Trump, then that is the voters' and the nation's problem, not Kamala's.
Let’s see, Trump lies, Harris behaves like any politician, ergo, Harris has a problem. What makes this analysis even stupider is that her stated and unstated views are pretty irrelevant. Policy is done by a team effort not by one individual, even a president. Kamala, as president, like Biden and Obama, will seek compromise and accommodations on the issues from a Democratic Party perspective, enough said.
Well stated!
1+
In short, I would say voters need to look for the right attitudes and character, not policies.
the fact that harris is sometimes a little unclear is true, because sometimes everyone is unclear and of course she fudges a bit on questions she doesn't want to answer. the comparison to trump as someone who "you know what he's saying every time" is nonsense and borderline insane.
I know what he's saying every time. It's a lie. Every. Single. Time.
This Jeremy Peters?
“Critics Say Musk Has Revealed Himself as a Conservative. It's Not So Simple.”
bruh
lol.
lmfao even.
She's not great at interviews. No need to pretend otherwise, and it literally has nothing to do with her fitness for office. She's far more fit for office than Trump.
Honestly, it's a lot easier to sound good when you're making sh!+ up.
Plenty of democrats before her have shown a lot more clarity in interview formats and were just as honest about complex issues. It's difficult, and I doubt I'd do as well as even she does.
"Trump is crystal clear..." The only thing crystal clear about Trump is his pathological dishonesty. He may say things with conviction but he doesn't believe anything he says. He says things out of necessity rather than out of any long held belief.
sometimes I think Kevin trolls us.
It is either trolling or his most ridiculous post ever. Take your pick (or maybe that isn't clear enough).
Harris is abundantly clear she's against illegal immigration. The problem isn't Harris. The problem is the right-wing noise machine, which keeps saying that Harris wants illegal immigrants everywhere. This is so effective that even Kevin, a supposedly aware pundit, can't make himself say what Harris's clear position is on illegal immigration.
The other things are impossible for Harris or any Democrat to have a "clear" position like being "pro-gun," but not because Harris's positions are unclear. It's because saying you're in favor of gun ownership, but would ban assault rifles, demand training, limit the number of guns people can own, ban open carry, and demand registration is COMPLICATED. Anything complicated seems unclear because you can't sum up your policy with "guns for everybody" or something equally simplistic.
The problem isn't Harris, it's that liberal positions on specific issues generally aren't simple and can't be summed up. But the general principles can be! Equality's easy enough to know, in this context. And she's doing great with that.
Once again, we are talking about a reason - Harris's supposed fuzziness - that is mainly an excuse for people who will vote for Trump because of his advocacy of White Christian Supremacy, or because they actually will benefit from his tax-cutting, anti-regulatory economic policies. Many people say they don't know enough about Harris or she isn't clear enough on issues because they don't want to admit the real reason they will vote for Trump. Does it make any sense when people say they don't like Harris because she is stupid or because she changes race? This lack of clarity another thing that Trump and Republicans throw out and which the MSM seem to feel obliged to take seriously.
Shorter Kevin: Kamala needs to do more serious interviews and put out more detailed policy papers. Even though neither serious interviewers nor detailed readers exist in mainstream media outlets anymore… and it’s unclear if they did exist whether regular people would pay any attention anyway. Because voters are secretly wonks inside, and need more reasons to vote for her than just vibes when her opponent does nothing but spew word salad everywhere.
I suppose Kevin’s list works if you put “says he is” after “He” in each sentence. It used to be said that “actions speak louder than words” but Trump has proved that saying is wrong.
IDK if I would give so much weight on the conversation between two media hacks concerned more about keeping their ambitions than speaking on the big, fat, ugly elephant in the room that they're desperately trying to ignore.
But if you're going to waste time on these two, think about how little Trump values speech. No one who values speech would be a firehose of lies. So what if he speaks his mind; his mind is trash and what he says is trash.
If one values the trash so much, one is definitely not a good journalist. Hence, my statement that Tur and Peters are hacks.
My response to old friend who's voting for Harris but nonetheless really, really wants to know what policies she is for.
I understand your wish for policy. Realistically, however, such are WIBNIs (Wouldn't It Be Nice If). In reality, they follow in a messy fulfillment of the old "Man proposes and God disposes" substituting the bear pit of Congress for God ...you get sausage that is made of the most ungodly ingredients under unsanitary conditions. Worse than Boar's Head liverwurst.
Policy is a WIBNI fantasm. Let's concentrate on survival, starting with the survival of democracy. It's been said that a country gets the government it deserves...let's hope we can rise to the challenge on Nov. 5th to deserve democracy.
Mark Cuban calls Trump a "salesman," and I think that's right. Kevin has listed 9 items Trump is entirely clear on, yes. Let's consider for a moment:
"He's against illegal immigration."
He says he is. He says he'll build a wall (which won't stop illegal immigration) and lock people up and deport them and he's promising a lot of stuff he can't deliver. Does anyone really believe that he's going to ship out all that cheap labor and force people like him to hire and pay Americans to do all the work?
"He's anti-woke."
What does that even mean? Is he proposing to bring back segregation? To make it legal to refuse to hire someone on the basis of race or sex? Because he made no attempts to do that in his first term in office. He says what his supporters want to hear but he has no convictions.
"He's in favor of tax cuts."
Every Republican presidential candidate is in favor of tax cuts.
"He's against China and in favor of protecting American industry."
Again, what did he actually do over four years as president? He's just reinforcing the prejudices of his supporters. The billionaires he cares about will never tolerate it if he makes it impossible for them to benefit from cheap manufacturing in China.
"He's pro-Christian."
Really? What definition are we using for "Christian"? Is he even pro-Evangelical? He gave them three Supreme Court justices (Leonard Leo did that, really). What actual Christian values does he genuinely support? Harris has a record of being a good Christian; Evangelicals give Trump a pass for essentially knowing nothing.
"He'll fight against bureaucratic red tape."
Like he did in his first four years in office? He'll fight against regulations on industries. Getting a driver's license and paying your taxes didn't get any easier during his first term in office.
"He's in favor of more coal, oil, and gas production."
Yeah, you got me there. Then again, Harris is as well. The difference is that Trump is actively opposed to alternate energy.
"He's anti-crime and pro-cop."
Name one presidential candidate (put forward for election, not someone running in a primary) who was pro-crime or anti-cop. He claims to be anti-crime but also claims immigrants are killing people in their kitchens on a daily basis. He claims to be pro-cop but apparently thinks the police in any major city are presiding over a hell-hole. He's pro-small-time-white-cop, maybe.
"He's pro-gun."
I guess that's why the Trump administration banned bump stocks (the Supreme Court declared that unconstitutional, so does that cancel out)?
Trump is pro "whatever the crowd or people he's talking to ask for" and anti "whatever they are against". He gave a speech where he bragged about his COVID vaccine, got booed, and stopped giving that part of the speech afterward. He tells the people in front of him that only he has what they want and that his product is the best and anyone else offering to sell the same is a liar or a thief and their product is the worst.
That nobody seems to see the difference between "having a clear position" and "consistently lying to people about your values" baffles me.
...And for all that Trump may be unambiguously for all those things, he ability to bring them to pass is zero. He's the Great Oz, Wise and Powerful, pay no attention to the moron behind the curtain.
So let's see. Trumps is so clear, expect that he doubles back whenever abortion comes up and cant' speak to policy because, hey, that's so hard. Ad voters care so much about policy details. And Harris hasn't bent over backward to lay out an agenda since obscure pundits complained. And she doesn't have a huge record in office to offer one as well. And voters really, really care.
Come on, Kevin is just regurgitating right-wing talking points, the second of three times this afternoon, and it's offensive. So who's against illegals? Dems aren't. Who is woke and out to shut down policy, well a few on campus are,, although not a single candidate for mayor in a contested primary last time out was. Etc., etc.
I imagine Harris isn't responding to all of it each day because it sucks her into a right-wing machine. And Kevin backs up that machine every step of the way.
It's surprising to see that while Kevin thinks Trump has shown clarity, Kevin misstates Trump's immigration policy.
1) Trump is against immigration, legal or otherwise, by non white people.
It doesn't matter if they are legal or not as shown by the whole Springfield brouhaha.
Trump doesn't have policy positions. He just says what he thinks people want to hear. He couldn't care less about any of that stuff.
Democrats should not allow Trump to define the issues important to voters. Unfortunately, they do it far too often. But it's hard for them to prevent it when the media keeps falling over itself to make Trump the headline story.
For days, the media has been beside itself with excitement because The Donald worked at a McDonald's. Talk about owning the libs! Best retail political stunt in history! Piers Morgan predicted it would be the event that won him the election.
Contrast the coverage with that of Harris helping to hand out meals to Hurricane Helene victims in Augusta, Georgia. What, you missed that? So did most people ... because the story was buried by MAGA lies about FEMA.
But it's too silly for words to suggest Harris should be getting into conversations with journalists about whether she's "pro-woke", "anti-Christian" or in favor of "bureacratic red tape".
kevin drum: i'm obviously extremely pro-harris...
ron howard voiceover narration: he was not pro-harris at all.
My take on Harris:
> He's against illegal immigration.
Her too. She tried to pass a bill to limit illegal immigration that was blocked by Trump.
> He's anti-woke.
She's pro-woke.
> He's in favor of tax cuts.
She's in favor of tax cuts on the middle class and raising taxes on the wealthy.
> He's against China and in favor of protecting American industry.
Same for Harris.
> He's pro-Christian.
She's pro freedom of religion.
> He'll fight against bureaucratic red tape.
Everyone will fight useless red tape. Trump is pro letting business do whatever it wants regardless of the consequences. Harris is in favor of ensuring competition and limiting the ability of business to exploit externalities that harm society as a whole.
> He's in favor of more coal, oil, and gas production.
Harris realizes she can't stop more coal, oil, and gas production, but we also need to increase renewables production for multiple reasons. See anti-china above.
> He's anti-crime and pro-cop.
Except for the crimes he commits and except when the cops are coming after him. Harris was a prosecutor. She's clearly anti-crime and pro-cop.
> He's pro-gun.
Harris is pro responsible gun ownership. And she realizes that there's not much she can do to ban machine guns.
The problem with delusional people is their delusion makes them think rational people are delusional, so there's not much I can say to you, Kevin, to make you realize that you're delusional, but that is sadly what you have become. Why couldn't you have waited until after the election?