Michael Shear and Reid Epstein Feign Stupidity about Trump’s Decade-Long Pitch for Authoritarianism
Here’s what the NYT digital front page looks like for me this morning.
It features Kamala Harris’ rather unremarkable interview with CNN (part one, part two, part three) as prominently as CNN itself (other political outlets are more focused on an upcoming Brian Kemp decision on how Georgia’s election will be run, Trump’s attempt to flip-flop on abortion, and yet another attempt from Trump to delay his sentence in his New York case).
Whatever.
After demanding it for a month, I get that some outlets need to claim this interview was more useful than it was.
But the remarkable thing about NYT’s focus on it is they’ve written two stories substantially about the same thing: The NYT’s own month-long campaign to drive Joe Biden from the race.
Yet in adopting that focus, Reid Epstein and Michael Shear ignored the logic that their own outlet adopted for such an unrelenting push to oust Biden, and in the process, covered up the threat Trump poses to democracy.
Of the seven things Epstein took away from the interview, the first was an overstatement of the degree to which Kamala was “hugging” Biden’s legacy versus the degree to which (for example, on fracking) she will make concessions if it achieves an overall policy goal.
Nevertheless, Epstein is right that Harris was better able to explain the success of Biden’s policies, one of two reasons I was pretty sure, from the start, swapping Harris for Biden would be an improvement, justifying the swap.
As it turns out, Ms. Harris is a better salesperson for Mr. Biden’s accomplishments and defender of his record than he ever was. Perhaps that’s little surprise, given the president’s diminished political skills and trouble speaking coherently in recent years.
Having thus maligned Biden, Epstein then claimed that Harris wants to turn the page on both Biden and Trump. He focused on Harris’ depiction of her opponent not by name, but time period — the last decade — and quipped (I’m sure Epstein thinks this is clever!) that Biden has been prominent over the last decade and a half (treating the two years between when Biden reacted strongly to Charlottesville and the time he actually announced as part of his candidacy).
… but wants to turn the page on him as well as Trump.
What Ms. Harris did do was offer herself up as a continuation of Mr. Biden’s leadership even as she distanced herself from him.
Asked by Ms. Bash if she had any regrets about defending Mr. Biden’s fitness for office and ability to serve a second term, Ms. Harris said she did not and praised the president.
Then, in the next breath, she deftly put both him and Mr. Trump in the rearview mirror.
“I am so proud to have served as vice president to Joe Biden,” she said. “I’m so proud to be running with Tim Walz for president of the United States and to bring America what I believe the American people deserve, which is a new way forward, and turn the page on the last decade of what I believe has been contrary to where the spirit of our country really lies.”
Mr. Biden, of course, has been either president, vice president or a leading candidate for president for most of the last 15 years.
Then Epstein returned to it in his commendation for the boring interview, suggesting that Bash didn’t demean Biden as much as Epstein — or rather, “Republican critics” — want.
Republican critics of Ms. Harris may have wished for a harsher grilling — or for more direct questions about how she felt about Mr. Biden’s aptitude and acuity — but Ms. Bash pressed the vice president when necessary.
Shear did something similar.
His entire post focused on how Kamala answered Dana Bash’s question (three minutes into the third part) of whether the Vice President regretted supporting Biden until he dropped out.
Vice President Kamala Harris said on Thursday that she did not regret defending President Biden against claims that he had declined mentally, saying that she believes he has the “intelligence, the commitment and the judgment and disposition” Americans expect from their president.
“No, not at all. Not at all,” the vice president said when asked if she regretted saying Mr. Biden was “extraordinarily strong” in the moments following the disastrous debate in June that led him to abandon his bid for re-election a month later.
Shear did not, as Epstein did, feign confusion about what Harris meant when she adopted that “last decade” moniker. He explained — perhaps for Epstein’s benefit? — that it was a reference to Trump.
Instead, he misrepresented what she was doing with Biden, temporally, claiming that “she talked about Mr. Biden mostly in the past tense[,] with a kind of nostalgia.”
But she talked about Mr. Biden mostly in the past tense — fondly, but with a kind of nostalgia that made it clear that he no longer represents the future of the country that she hopes to be leading in January.
[snip]
“History is going to show,” she said, “not only has Joe Biden led an administration that has achieved those extraordinary successes, but the character of the man is one that he has been in his life and career, including as a president, quite selfless and puts the American people first.”
Her reminiscing about Mr. Biden’s place in history — she said it was “one of the greatest honors of my career” to serve with him — came just after she said she was determined to “turn the page” on a decade of American politics that has not been good for the country.
“Of course, the last three and a half years has been part of your administration,” Ms. Bash reminded the vice president.
Ms. Harris said she was talking about “an era that started about a decade ago,” an apparent reference to the beginning of former President Donald J. Trump’s first campaign for the White House in 2015. She said the era represented a “warped” idea that “the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down.”
That was clearly directed at Mr. Trump, and she suggested that the warped era would continue if he returned to the White House next year. [my emphasis]
Now, in point of fact, both men misrepresented how the Vice President used that “decade” moniker. She actually used it twice. Once, the instance they focused on, in the last third of the interview, which I’ll get to.
But she also used it in response to Bash’s very first question, the dumb “what would you do on Day One” question that TV pundits love.
I think sadly, in the last decade, we have had in the former president someone who has really been pushing an agenda and an environment that is about diminishing the character and strength of who we are as Americans, really, and I think people are ready to turn the page on that. [My emphasis; after this, Bash snapped back, repeating the, “what would you do on Day One” question.]
That is, Harris defined what she meant by “the last decade” in what was probably her fifth sentence in the interview (possibly even fourth — the woman may use longer sentences than me!), after introducing a focus on the middle class and a return to hope. From her very first response, Harris tied the way Trump (whom she never named) has diminished America to some kind of effect it might have on the middle class.
And the questions that followed that one were focused on policy, which Harris always addressed, whether in the present tense or past, in her role as Vice President. “Well first of all, we had to recover, as an economy,” Harris explained why she (and Biden) had not implemented further steps she’d like to take to help the middle class. “That’s good work,” Kamala boasted, after listing a bunch of Biden’s economic accomplishments. “There’s more to do, but that’s good work.”
In fact, Kamala’s answer to the question NYT dedicated much of two columns on, whether she regretted defending President Biden after he bombed the debate, was in the present tense.
Harris: I have served with President Biden for almost four years now and I’ll tell you it’s one of the greatest honors of my career. Truly. He cares so deeply about the American people. He is so smart and loyal to the American people. And I have spent hours and hours with him, be it in the Oval Office or the Situation Room. He has the intelligence, the commitment, and the judgment, and disposition that I think the American people rightly deserve in their President. By contrast, the former President has none of that. And so, one, I am so proud to have served as Vice President to Joe Biden. And two, I am so proud to be running with Tim Walz for President of the United States, and to bring America what I believe the American people deserve, which is a new way forward and turn the page on the last decade of what I believe has been contrary to where the spirit of our country really lies. [my emphasis]
In a question implicitly about how successful she has been thus far, in the race, Kamala defined who Biden is, present tense, and then explicitly contrasted that to Trump. Biden has, present tense, the intelligence, commitment, judgment, and disposition to be President, and Trump has, present tense, none of that. That’s what she used to springboard from her tenure as Vice President into her candidacy with Walz, a way to turn the page on the last decade that has been contrary to the spirit of the country.
Bash, like Epstein, tried to make this a gotcha, which is when Kamala explained for the second time what she was talking about.
Bash: The last decade — of course, the last three and a half years has been part of your Administration.
Harris: I’m talking about an era that started about a decade ago where there is some suggestion — warped, I believe it to be — that, the measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you beat down, instead of where I believe most Americans are, which is to believe that the true measure of the strength of a leader is based on who you lift up. That’s what’s at stake as much as any other detail that we could discuss in this election. [my emphasis]
But then Harris returned to what she said in that very first question: When she says “last decade” as stand-in for the opponent she won’t name, she means that a different vision of leadership is as important as any of the policy questions.
Where things turn to a past tense in which Harris does not presume herself to have participated — the one that Shear quotes to support his claim that “she talked about Mr. Biden mostly in the past tense” — came in response to her telling of how Biden told her he was going to drop out, which led her to think about how history — people in the future — will regard Joe Biden and the decision he was making, placing this past tense as past to some future time when pundits finally get their heads out of their asses.
The VP told the story: she was interrupted while making extra bacon for one of her grand nieces by a call from Joe Biden. Biden told her his decision, and, “I asked him, are you sure. And he said, yes. And that’s how I learned about it.”
The past tense Shear quoted came in response to a follow-up.
Bash had asked, and pressed a second time, whether Biden offered to endorse Harris right away. Harris responded that Biden was very clear he was going to support her (Kamala didn’t actually answer about the endorsement, but then they may have had earlier conversations), but that that wasn’t her first priority.
My first thought was not about me, to be honest with you. My first thought was about him, to be honest.
She then launched on a reflection about what, “I think history is going to show” about Joe Biden’s presidency, describing it as transformative economically, bringing back American alliances. Then she addressed “the character of the man.”
This is a question that goes back to one of two reasons Biden offered in February why he remained in the race: because he was really good at being President. The other (as I reviewed the day after the debate) was that he believed, in February, he had the best shot at beating Trump.
On July 21 — on the day that Biden was still scrambling to make the prisoner exchange with Russia even as NYT pundits were falsely reporting he was totally isolated — Biden was still very good at being President. With the significant exception of Gaza, he may still be. By that point on July 21, though, it had become clear that Harris is better able to beat Trump. As suggested by Epstein’s begrudging admission that when Kamala lays out Biden’s economic accomplishments, they look pretty good, part of that is defending the things the Biden Administration did to recover from the mistakes Trump made.
But part of it is offering a contrast with Trump. Which, because Harris apparently chose not to name her opponent and not to let silly pundits demand a response to Trump’s latest attention-getting provocation, as Bash did with a question about Trump’s presumption to define Harris’ race, the Vice President is referring to as a last decade. She did it in response to the first question, and she did it a second time in response to the question NYT chose to write about twice.
This is actually a pretty subtle way to do this. Obviously, Harris has befuddled two men who imagine themselves experts.
In their confusion about it, though, Epstein and Shear make a similar mistake to the one their colleague Shane Goldmacher did when he described that Kamala was running as a change candidate. They did so, even though Goldmacher himself referred to what Kamala was running against as Trump’s “decade”-long “bulldozing approach” advocating for “urgent upheaval.”
[S]o much of Trump’s lasting influence is about his lasting attack on rule of law. The insistence that this is about incumbency obscures the real threat Trump poses to democracy, whether or not he’s president.
Take this crazy Goldmacher paragraph.
For nearly a decade, Mr. Trump’s bulldozing approach has been premised on the idea that the nation was staring into an abyss and only urgent upheaval could save the country. The question for Ms. Harris is whether she can frame Democrats keeping power in 2024 as a break from that dark and divisive era.
It is true that Trump has been claiming that “only urgent upheaval could save the country.” But that was a fascist trope. It wasn’t true and even if it were, none of the policies Trump pushed would do anything but enrich people like him. Journalism should do more than observe that he made those false claims; it should explain why they’re false.
In the very next sentence, though, Goldmacher asserts that the challenge for Kamala (again adopting the dumb poll-driven assumption that she’ll only win if she is the change candidate) is by offering, “a break from that dark and divisive era.” What “era”? By reference, Goldmacher must mean that the near-decade in which Trump has told fascist lies is the “dark and divisive era” (though Trump’s racist birtherism started long before that). But it’s not an era. It’s a fascist belief, a means of exercising power, a means of dehumanizing your political opponents, one that had huge influence, but one that with the exception of the political violence it fostered, only held sway over a minority of the country (albeit a large one).
All three of these men — Goldmacher with his treatment of Trump’s tropes about America as an era, Epstein with his confusion about Harris’ (second) reference to a decade, and Shear’s invention of past tense usage that doesn’t exist — struggle because they’re viewing this exclusively about policy, even though Harris described that “the true measure of the strength of a leader” is “what’s at stake as much as any other detail that we could discuss in this election.”
As I noted in the earlier post, when people flatten this out into policies and incumbency, they ignore the ongoing threat that Trump poses to democracy and Kamala’s vision of how to defeat it.
Kamala is running on democracy just as much as Biden did in 2020. It just looks different, because she has more successfully wrapped it in a bipartisan flag. Even there, there’s real continuity (don’t forget that one of Biden’s most important speeches about democracy in 2022, one that had a real impact on the election, was at Independence Hall).
Largely enabled by Trump’s ongoing effect — again, especially on Choice — Kamala has just found a way to make democracy matter more personally, more viscerally.
Kamala is not eschewing the incumbency she has Vice President. On the contrary, she is running on a continuation and expansion of Joe Biden’s successful policies (even if journalists are missing that). And she is running, just as Biden did, on defeating both Trump’s electoral bid but also the threat he poses to democracy itself.
This is precisely why the NYT said the stakes on Biden dropping out were so high as it kicked off a relentless campaign to force Biden out: because, first, Donald Trump was a menace, and second, Biden didn’t have what it takes to hold Trump accountable.
Donald Trump has proved himself to be a significant jeopardy to that democracy — an erratic and self-interested figure unworthy of the public trust. He systematically attempted to undermine the integrity of elections. His supporters have described, publicly, a 2025 agenda that would give him the power to carry out the most extreme of his promises and threats. If he is returned to office, he has vowed to be a different kind of president, unrestrained by the checks on power built into the American political system.
[snip]
He struggled to respond to Mr. Trump’s provocations. He struggled to hold Mr. Trump accountable for his lies, his failures and his chilling plans. More than once, he struggled to make it to the end of a sentence.
These self-imagined pros apparently haven’t thought through how this all works. Epstein, at least, is still looking for his pound of flesh, for further humiliation for Joe Biden. The others are ignoring the two tasks: win an election, and reinvigorate an American dream that — because doing so would prove that democracy can deliver for the middle class — proves the value of democracy.
Kamala Harris is, in no way, disavowing Joe Biden. Rather, even as she’s pitching their joint policy success, she’s renewing the effort to package an American exceptionalism that can defeat Trump’s American carnage.
In 2020, Joe Biden, a member of the Silent Generation, offered a defense of democracy as democracy, which was enough for people who remember fascism and actual communism. In an era when many have forgotten that history and lost faith in democracy, GenX Kamala Harris has to do something more: She has to sell democracy, which Trump has been discrediting for a decade, itself.
Bash is either a useful idiot or a closet fascist. I have a very good sense of what Trump will do on day one: invoke the Insurrection Act. And this Court will support him.
Under the pretext of ridding the country of “illegals” he will turn the United States into a military-police state. Who knows, maybe we will be arguing about the Third Amendment and unlawful quartering? Assuming we can get past the cordon of soldiers to get to the courthouse door.
I seem to recall, years ago, that whenever Bash was on as a commentator, she always seemed to know what Rudy Giuliani was thinking before other reporters.
There’s a distinction between being a good president and being able to run for president, unfortunately. It’s ironic that Biden was being a superb president and resigned from running for president on the same day. Despite this–no apologies forthcoming so far–the rumors will probably never die that Harris and others close to him were covering up the extent of his “mental decline”.
They were almost certainly covering up Biden’s inability to make a coherent case to the important demographic targets necessary to fend off a fascist wanna’ be.
After the SOTU speech I was confident Biden would slaughter Trump if any debate were held and figured his handlers wouldn’t pick a fight if he couldn’t. But they did. They literally stuck their chins out and said, “Go ahead!” That may have been Biden himself, I don’t know. If the President was stubborn enough and insisted, I suppose they’d have no choice.
But after the first “Biden – Obama” spots came out I became concerned. The Abbott and Costello routine where Obama ripped off lines no problem followed by Biden’s heavily edited takes made me worry (I got roundly criticized here in spite of the fact I’m pretty sure I’m the only person who comments at Emptywheel that has cast a show for 100+ million people in 45 countries and 9 languages). It looked as though Biden was second billing and Barrack had to get him back to watch Wheel of Fortune and supper.
My wife and I were speechless 3 minutes into the debate. I won’t go any further on that. I will say the democrats are perfectly capable of bungling an election and could probably figure out a way to lose to Jeffery Dahmer – they’re currently tied with a man who has more felony convictions and countless civil judgements.
Unfortunately running for office is closer to auditioning and stumbling to recount his many successes wasn’t going to cut it. He’s been a great President in my view. Maybe the best in my lifetime. But he’s now a lousy candidate. And yes, they were covering that up.
Do you have any suggestions as to how democrats can overcome Fox, Newmax, and all the pro-Trump junk pushed into peoples’ social media feeds? How can democrats get through to the 40+ percent of voters who get their information from those sources?
They do get through to the forty percent or whatever. Their message is “I don’t care about your issues or ideas; I care about miniscule segments of the population and continue to service their interests exclusively.”
This has been a problem going back decades. Traditional left wing blue collar/middle American interests have been sidelined by a number of people on the margins. For instance, most people don’t receive a direct impact related to Trans issues. They’re totally beyond the experience of the majority of the population. It doesn’t register. In fairness, nobody would if the left hadn’t taken up the mantel and, in that regard, they’ve done a great job. Years ago, you could say the same thing about Civil Rights. But it doesn’t resonate with most people and MSNBC spent almost all its prime time on those issues in the run up to the 2016 election. Possibly because of Rachel Maddow’s interests in the topic. I don’t know.
Due to the years long attacks on academia, science and journalism, the right has delegitimized traditional sources of information. But they have cornered and captured the low information/propensity voter and brought them to the polls. People who in years past would never vote now make up a significant portion of the republican base and I think the Harris campaign understands that.
In short: What they’re doing is a bare start to recover those voters. Theoretically, Trump’s repugnant character is helping that along (maybe turbo charging it?) and the republicans are mistaking his popularity with a change in American culture. Ultimately, they will pay a price, if the democrats seize the opportunity. The jury is out on that.
Rayne could you let me know why I’m going to mod? Sorry if I’m doing something wrong. Too wordy for iPhones?
[Moderator’s note: I have no idea what triggered auto-moderation. You didn’t use any *obvious* trigger words but sometimes it’s a combination which has recently appeared in a lot of spam, unbeknownst to you or me. Just be patient and your comment will eventually be cleared by a human volunteer. (p.s. 276 words is a bit wordy if you are merely sharing opinion and not sharing new material.) /~Rayne]
I wonder if you’d explain (briefly!) the determination to push the conspiracy narrative about a “cover-up.” I understand the political reasons for it, but would like to know why you think it’s important to continue pushing this narrative. Is it bothsidesing after the years of reading about 25A discussions among those in Trump’s orbit?
I’m going to insert a warning here: bring receipts or don’t reply.
Robot-seventeen’s claims are treading very close to amplification of propaganda for the lack of supporting material to substantiate a conspiracy.
What propaganda? You are characterizing it as a conspiracy, but I look at it how a professional would. Speculation is fair. If others are forwarding a claim that is propaganda and/or a conspiracy it’s not my intention to peddle lies and I don’t think I am (that may be an issue I’m not aware of). I’m simply saying my impression was he wasn’t capable of a coherent public presentation and that has proven out. There is zero chance his handlers didn’t know that or are complete amateurs. I sniffed it out in 30 seconds and commented on it here.
If you need to censor me for that by all means go ahead.
Reply to Robot-seventeen
September 1, 2024 at 11:42 pm
If you’re going to make a claim, bring supporting material. It’s that simple.
If you you’re going to speculate, bring supporting material. It’s likewise that simple. Otherwise it’s just thread clutter DDoS-ing discussion.
Rayne I truly don’t understand what you’re talking about when you say bring receipts. What is it you’re asking for? Links maybe? Quotes from other sources? This seems like a beat down for sharing an opinion you don’t agree with rather than a request that is equally shared on the platform. I’m happy to admit I’m wrong if that is not the case.
I don’t know about any “conspiracy”. If you’re trying to label me as “one of those” please don’t. In the same way as Reagan’s handlers shielded him, Roosevelt was specially treated, etc etc my guess (not my conspiracy) is that Biden was handled in the same way. Assuming you don’t have special access (I don’t) what would lead you to any other conclusion? The debate? The speech following his stepping aside?
For starters:
“Biden’s heavily edited takes” — really? Point to the editing.
“And yes, they were covering it up.” Again, show your work.
There are enough right-wing trolls dropping in to bash Democrats. If you’re going to do it, bring evidence to justify your claims or go vent your spleen someplace else because that’s all it is otherwise, just another op-ed bashing Biden.
You’re done in this thread. You’ve chewed up enough yardage here obstructing discussion.
Thank you, Marcy, for another well-thought, well-written commentary.
Marcy’s parsing of flawed opinion pieces (hiding as news stories) is of a style of her parsing of flawed legal briefs and decisions, which makes me think of the similarities of how those two genres are put together by bad actors. First they decide on their desired outcome, then they cherry pick (or invent) information from the underlying story/case to support it. When you go back to the original sources, you wonder how the hell those writers ended up with the story they did, unless that was their goal all along. I should have gotten used to that from getting Gateway Pundit stories sent to me by folks trying to support their positions.
Thank you for your work on these.
Absolutely. I was impressed with Harris’s deft ability to avoid the pitfalls Bash’s interview seemed intended to provoke. But Marcy’s careful close reading of both the interview and the Times article helped me understand much more thoroughly not only what is going on the the mainstream media, but also how difficult Harris’s job will be in the next two months. She’s done brilliantly so far. Thank you, Marcy.
Always keep an eye out for the label “Analysis” because it’s an alarm bell that the Times is letting reporters inject their vibes and prejudices into a supposed news article. Peter Baker’s front page “Analysis” pieces are prime examples, which are just the latest collection of unattributed talking points he’s collected from GOP sources that he wants to promote.
AG Sulzberger has openly stated how much he wants more stuff labeled “Analysis” in the news sections, without bothering to reconcile it with his nagging about how the news needs to be “objective” and lecturing critics who supposedly can’t understand the division he maintains between the news and opinion pages. He’s broken the old line, but wants to be able to condemn anyone who points it out.
I am very happy to see that Marcy’s pieces on this site are starting to pop up more frequently on Memeorandum. I have no idea what algorithm causes that to happen, but if it means a few more people will read her devastating dissections of the pathetic excuse for a newspaper that the NYT has become, then please keep up whatever you are doing to increase that exposure!
Thanks for the tip, re: Memeorandum. Interesting site.
Best keep in mind, though, that Memeorandum leans right. They may have picked up emptywheel coverage but the greater percentage of sites they aggregate are right of center.
Thanks; I consider myself duly warned. And to be honest, I was a little shocked to see a number of items on their front page sourced to “PJ Media,” which is a junk site so far as I could tell.
I agree.
I have been checking memeorandum on a pretty much daily basis since the news aggregator has been on the web. Although the site claims that it is “an auto-generated summary of stories that US political commentators are discussing online right now. Not human edited…”, I doubt it has always been that way.
Although emptywheel has made it into the mix from time to time over the decades, it seems only recently that not only is emptywheel often represented, but is sometimes the top item on display, as is the case as I write this comment. I have no idea how articles are ranked, but there have been times in the past when important posts here, which had the best information available anywhere on the web, didn’t make the page, even though there were inches and inches of dross displayed.
NYT’s campaign to force Biden out wasn’t so much to force Biden to drop as much as it was to force Biden to acknowledge the majesty, the prestige, and the king-making talent of the NYT by granting the NYT an exclusive interview for the NYT to make the sole decision of whether Biden should continue running for re-election. Any follow-up analysis should be read as “sour grapes” if the interview is done by anyone NOT part of the NYT.
Also, humorous to me that Harris uses long sentences. Anyone legally trained either uses incredibly clipped sentences or incredibly long sentences. My staff refers to such sentences by my first name and to edit them with extreme prejudice.
It is incredible that these propagandists seem to prefer fascism. Harris is right, we have been infected by a “dark and divisive era.” No bleach will cure this. Stunning that there is anything “close” about our situation.
Yesterday I read TX has disenfranchised over a million voters, part of the infection we are fighting.
The first rule is never believe anything Abbott or Paxton say. The numbers cited by them are part of the normal tidying up of the voter rolls. The majority of the names removed were dead, moved out of state, or requested to cancel their registration. The next largest number were on the suspense list where the registrar has some evidence that the voter has moved. They are routinely removed after one or two cycles of non-voting. About 6,500 are alleged to be non-citizens of whom 2,000 are alleged to have voted previously. We await any proof of this.
Recall that in 2019 Paxton flagged 95,000 registered voters as non-citizens. Since most of them were actually naturalized citizens, Paxton gave up on his efforts to disqualify them and the Secretary of State resigned over the scandal.
Of course in Texas felons can run for office but they can’t vote!!
That’s still a lot of voters that are being suspended, in a state that is not noted for its quality of government.
Agreed. 1 million is an egregiously large number even for a state with a large population.
Like to see Harris focus on Trump’s vocabulary during the debate. She could make the point that all over America every day millions of motorist drive by signs on highway construction sites made possible by Biden’s infrastructure funding bills.
On all those signs Americans see something, finally, that doesn’t rile them. Something in fact they like seeing, and would like to see more of….
The signs they see say the work is the result of Bipartisan Cooperation.
I don’t know that Trump ever once spoke that word .
Bipartisan is not a dirty word, although he probably thinks it has something to do with the LGBT + community.
“…something to do with the LGBT + community.”
LOL. Reminds me of this Doonesbury, hope the link gets through:
https://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2024/04/14
Sh*t !! Doonesbury still cranking? For real? For me, out on the ranch, for months, between goat milking and wood-splitting, it was Doonesbury, endless Doonesbury, 30 years ago now, every published paperback someone had brought to the library years earlier; thanks for this reference I didn’t think he was still putting out–didn’t he retire at some point?
The Times has a bothsides article about Harris and Trump’s housing plans that is absolutely chilling in how it normalizes Trump’s mass deporation plan.
https://bsky.app/profile/nycsouthpaw.bsky.social/post/3l2wwf3zdo22n
What’s the effect, reporters Jeanna Smialek and Linda Qiu wonder? Why, it might cut down on construction workers. And that’s about it.
Mass deportion in the millions carried out by home invasions by the National Guard would devastate entire communities. Maybe that should be considered as an effect on housing too? Not for Smialek and Qiu.
Qiu, by the way, has written some of the most appallingly bad recent factchecks by the Times, somehow doubting things he is documented to have said or done by the Times’ own reporters.
Jay Rosen has described this kind of reporting as refuge seeking, where reporters try to avoid controversy with bothsides and false neutral coverage. I’d add that it’s also the case, as it clearly is with Shear and Epstein, of reporters who are completely over their heads and unable to handle evidence or make basic judgments. This kind of garbage is partly ideological, it’s partly institutional, but it’s also incompetence, all linked together by toxic leadership..
Putting 10M paperless folks in camps would collapse the construction, ag, meat packing, and service industries for starters. So, no biggy.
There’s also the weird bloodless framing that the people involved can’t be considered.
This isn’t some abstract accounting issue like what happens if the US caps title insurance fees. There are countless cases where a legal immigrant is married to an undocumented one, and National Guard sweeps will threaten marriages. Where undocumented parents have kids who are citizens. Some may be minors, others young adults, others parents with their own kids.
There would be major economic costs on entire families and communities anytime just one person was grabbed from their home by the military, not to mention ehat happens when there are indiscriminate seizures.
But Smialek and Qiu dismiss it all with the wave of a hand out of callousness, stupidity or both.
Maybe the idjits pushing this think that they detainees can build their own camps and grow their own food.
(They would have been fine with the camps for the Japanese detainees, I guess. Even the ones that were in the deserts. Or the mountains.)
It’s quite a stretch to believe the remaining undecided voters in the states that matter will be turning to the NYT to inform their final decision. They are really not making as much noise as they need to attract attention in the crescendo of hot air and bullshit leading up to the vote. The MSM needs the Harris-Walz ticket more than the reverse. The Harris-Walz campaign needs to be logging miles and personally reaching into every last nook and cranny of these states they can get to, every minute counts.
Marcy … I keep trying to figure out how much of this idiocy is misogyny and how much is implicit racism.
Given how the NYT savaged Clinton, misogyny has got to be a driving force.
Thank you for watching and parsing.
[Welcome back to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We are moving to a new minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is far too common (there are more than one Kathy/Katherine/Kate each in this community) it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]
There’s no reason for it to be one or the other. Both seems a better answer. For a certain type of male ego, they two attributes are inseparable.
Misogyny. Big time.
or, perhaps, instead of willful misogyny, it might simply be the *voice* or *perspective* of the narrator that we’ve just come to accept as the rightful way to view things (and that the FRAME is the problem) ….. the frame that HE, the narrator, uses to “frame” his assessments of interviews, speeches, wayward smiles, or the wearing of tennis shoes with business pants-suits by a female political candidate that he finds most instinctive or meaningful — is the more operative way of thinking about this?
perhaps the most explanatory words of Marcy’s poignant literary critique are?
“. . . in point of fact, both *MEN*”
“All three of these *MEN*”
“These **self-imagined pros**…”
(my emphasis).
For example, the mass media repeatedly continues to push narratives and frame this election in terms of:
1- who is “Winning” the horse race; instead of who has a more fruitful future outlook for the country.
2- “flip-flopping” showing lack of spine or conviction; and not a sensible adaptation in light of evidence.
3- being interviewed solo shows lack of personal confidence; instead of devout belief in the power of TEAM.
4- leaning forward in an interview shows slouching or lack of confidence; instead of an earnest desire to hear and fully understand the interviewer’s questions.
5- waiting weeks to schedule an interview shows lack of policy positions and distain for the media; instead of being superbly busy with hiring staff, planning a convention, preparing for a debate and desiring at least 5-6 hours of sleep per night.
6-“Day 1” executive (authoritarian) action is valuable; working collaboratively with the true law makers of this country — Congress, not so much.
ETC. ETC. ETC.
Sorry to be so blunt and grouping by gender stereotype, especially to our sensitive and astute male commentariot, but please ask yourself who tends to think instinctively of most issues in our lives in terms of:
1a- WINNING/losing
2a -“Spine” (strength or weakness)
3a- ME or I
4a- talking not listening
5a- working/pushing/going 24/7 (at the expense of, or simply devaluing, time with family cooking bacon for our grand-nieces, and time for self-care or respite)
6a-Executive Power should be maximized.
I’m so tired of having MEN FRAMING our political discourse, so much so that any female journalist seeking to advance in the profession, accepts the frame as gospel, and can’t even see that she’s bought into it. These MALE frames are tired, well-worn, and simply IRRELEVANT and INOPERATIVE for this political moment.
If it were up to me, any political commentator seeking to publish their insights about this election would be required to watch this video
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3FGIyxhGkvo
and then be subjected to an intense interview asking if they have truly walked in the shoes of their mothers, wives, and daughters, and truly felt — deep down in their souls, since June 24, 2022, what it feels like to be told by the Supreme Court that they, themselves, and everyone else of their gender are not equal to the men in this country. . . and that, at its most stark, the male who rapes and impregnates them against their will has more rights than they do and the rapist is fully within his rightful place in our country to sentence them to 40 weeks of pregnancy whether they consent to it or not. If God deemed you fertile, you may be subject to such a sentence.
I’d pointedly ask: HAVE YOU CRIED OVER THIS? LOST SLEEP? FELT duped IN THE MOST BARREN PART OF YOUR SOUL — that you were absolutely mistaken and completely STUPID for believing for the past 48 years that you were equal to MEN, and had EQUAL RIGHTS as men, under the law?
I’m guessing men of a particular race — especially those who have had to have “the talk” with their male black sons as they reach driving age — may, unfortunately, pass this “walking in the shoes of recently-declared-devalued women” test with flying colors and gently offer “welcome to the brotherhood….” and that women of color would score 200 on this 100 point exam of knowing what this feels like.
And I certainly don’t want to count out any compassionate male soul, like Gus Walz and his dad seem to clearly have… but for the non-shoe-walking men or blind trad-wife types taking my exam, I’d give them a 70-day pause from editorializing, summarizing, analyzing, and categorizing this election in terms of some frame that makes sense to THEM, and gently assign them to the important task of “just shut up and listen.”
And, I’d assign them to spend their listening time learning about other races that matter, (for example https://lucaskunce.com , https://www.debbieforflorida.com , https://janellestelson.com ), and educating the electorate about them, using any frame 1 through 6 listed after the semi-colon.
PREACH IT, SISTER, AMEN. Damn, this is a post! Superb, *chef’s kiss*!
I wonder if Shear and Epstein gave any thoughts at all as they compared their works to Harris’s acceptance speech last week in which she proposed a “new way forward.” Did they not realize it’s right there in how she talks with the media now? In how she treats others now? Or did they think it was only in how she would wield the power of the presidency if elected.
They’re so blinded by privilege and the weight of patriarchal tradition they’re missing it.
ADDER: meant to remark on your point about female journalist buy-in — that’s internalized oppression right there. Gail Collins in NYT complaining in tandem with Bret Stephens about Harris’s lack of interviews is an obvious example next to CNN’s Dana Bash’s interview of Harris-Walz.
Brilliant. Should be required reading for every journalist at the WaPo and New York bloody Times. They are the models most other journalists aspire to be.