Hen in the Fox House: Jorge Velázquez and Ramiro González Better Served Democracy than Bret Baier

Fox News has been a toxin in the United States for most of thirty years. Yesterday, Kamala Harris went into the Fox House in an attempt to chisel away at that toxin.

It’ll be days, weeks, years before we learn how it worked, in part, because it was (in my opinion) only the third most important TV yesterday.

The most important TV was probably Trump’s town hall on Univision. Six minutes in, a man named Jorge Velázquez took the mic (after Trump offered a smarmy compliment him on his hair, which is the kind of beautiful thick mane that Trump covets). Velázquez described that he used to pick strawberries and broccoli and asked, if Trump deports everyone he wants, who will do that work and how much will food prices go up. (Given the way he distilled the problem with Trump’s mass deportation plans with one poignant question, I would be unsurprised if he has some tie to the United Farm Workers,)

Trump immediately said he was the best thing to happen to farmers. He seemed to suggest he would bring back the bracero program (since Elon Musk has begun paying Trump’s bills, Trump has been pushing to greatly expand legal immigration). But he ultimately didn’t answer the question. It was an unresponsive answer to a question that every person who imagines themselves a journalist should be asking.

That wasn’t the only challenging question Trump dodged. After 25 minutes, José Saralegui asked Trump why he lied about the Haitians in Springfield. After 33 minutes, Ramiro González, a Republican who has dropped his registration in the party, invited Trump to win back his support by explaining his inaction on January 6. Trump not only offered the platitudes he always does, lied about his supporters bringing guns, and used the first person plural to align himself with the mob (which may end up being useful to Jack Smith), but he did not answer the question. By that point, a number of the viewers in the audience had a hostile body language to Trump. After 40 minutes, Jesús González asked Trump to explain his gun control policy to victims of school shootings. After 43 minutes, Carlos Aguilera asked Trump if he still considered climate change a hoax.

In this forum, average voters asked Trump the kind of questions that journalists no longer do. And they did so on an outlet that sill commands a great deal of trust from its viewers.

The second most important TV yesterday may be the Fox Town Hall for women.

It was everything that Trump voters distrust about the media (though will overlook here): A hand-selected group of Trump sycophants that was edited to take out parts damaging to Fox (including that one participant had already voted for Trump).

The Georgia Federation of Republican Women wrote on its Facebook page Wednesday that the group helped host the event, posting photos from the venue and writing they were “Super excited for the opportunity of hosting this event right here in Georgia!”

Shortly after CNN reached out to the group and Fox News about their role, the post was edited to state they were “excited for the opportunity of attending this event right here in Georgia!”

[snip]

The first question posed to Trump at the town hall came from a woman identified as Lisa, who asked the former president a question about the economy. The network did not disclose that Lisa is also the president of the Fulton County Republican Women group.

Some of the town hall attendees made it clear they were supporters of the former president, either in their questioning or in their attire.

“I want to thank you for coming to a room full of women the current administration would consider domestic terrorists,” a woman named Alicia said to laughter from the audience before a question about foreign policy.

But a portion of Alicia’s question was edited by Fox News to remove her admission that she was voting for Trump.

“I proudly cast my vote for you today. I hope they count it,” she added, according to an audio recording from a CNN reporter in attendance.

While it’s common for a pre-taped event or interview to be edited for time, Alicia’s short remark came in the middle of her question, which remained intact on the broadcast.

During another moment missing from Fox’s broadcast, Trump asked the crowd who they were voting for, leading to a chant of “Trump, Trump” breaking out by the attendees.

And Trump still bolloxed three questions. In response to a visibly distraught woman asking about child care costs, he offered the same babbling pablum about assigning Ivanka to address the issue that he offered at the NY Economic Club. In response to a softball about IVF, Trump first claimed to he the father of IVF before confessing he needed Katie Britt to explain why it was important. And then when a woman asked Trump about making choices for her own body, Trump offered the same canned answer about moving abortion back to the states but him, personally, believing in exceptions that don’t exist in a number of states.

Within the safe space of Harris Faulkner’s set, Trump seemed not to care about offering credible answers. The women in the room will vote for him anyway. But clips of his answers will circulate outside that safe space.

Importantly, Fox also edited a clip from the woman’s town hall, to cut Trump’s most fascistic speech, identifying the Pelosis as the “enemy within.” When Bret Baier questioned Kamala Harris about it during their interview, she called him on the edit, and used it to talk about what “you and I both know” about Trump’s threats to turn the military on Americans. What was meant to be one in a series of gotchas instead became a moment for Harris to point to things that Fox deliberately keeps from its viewers: the threat Trump poses to democracy.

When Baier played a Trump transgender ad, offering little excuse for doing so, Harris noted that Trump had paid $20 million to instill fear about an issue that has little to do with issues that affect people’s lives. Again, she pointed to the spectacle that Fox viewers consume unthinkingly.

The Fox News interview will not win over voters, by itself. But Harris turned Fox into an issue. She called out Baier, repeatedly, for interrupting her. He kept doing it.

She also revealed things that don’t get covered at Fox. Harris mentioned having just been on the stage with Trump’s former staffers twice. She mentioned his former aides saying that he was not fit to be President. She mentioned Trump’s accusations there’s an enemy within. She mentioned that Mark Milley said that Donald Trump was a threat, without raising the word fascism (after which Baier attempted to dismiss it by specifying it was a quote in Bob Woodward’s book, telling viewers where to find more). She described Mike Pence’s criticisms of Trump and joked that Pence’s opposition to Trump is why the job was open to pick JD Vance.

All of these are things that are not permitted on Fox News.

During several of those exchanges, Baier’s face looked pained, as if he was acutely aware of the danger of letting such things be aired on Fox News.

After 25 minutes, as Baier was trying to drown out Harris’ criticism of Trump’s handling of Iran, he said, “We’re talking over each other, I apologize.”

Harris responded,

I would like that we would have a conversation that is grounded in full assessment of the facts which includes — I think this interview is supposed to be about the choices that your viewers should be presented about this election. And the contrast is important.

Baier interrupted again. As Harris told viewers to go check out her site to see her solutions, Baier interrupted again.

It’s the term, “we both know” which Harris used at least four times, that resonates.

Someone commenting after the interview voiced the same impression I have of it: It’s a Google interview. [Update: It was Brian Stelter.] No one will be convinced by it. But a number of people might Google to find out what the hell Harris was talking about — to find out what Milley said, to find out what Republicans supporting her have said to explain why, even to find out her plans to help people buy homes.

And when they discover that it’s actually Fox — and not CBS, as the Fox-fueled conspiracy holds — that is hiding stuff from its viewers, they may grow to question what they’ve been told.

But the Baier interview was, in my opinion, only the third most important TV yesterday. That’s significantly true because there are far more undecided voters among Univision’s viewers than among Fox’s. And Trump showed contempt in that situation. He showed contempt to undecided Latino voters, to their face. And he refused to answer the questions that no one else will ask.

Normally, the whitewashing that Fox does for Trump hides how contemptuous he is of American voters. Yesterday, there were several places where voters might see the cracks in that whitewashing.

image_print
137 replies
  1. PensionDan says:

    At the Fox Town Hall, Trump was asked to clarify his ‘enemy from within’ comments. He confirmed he was talking about Democrats, and he name-checked ‘the Pelosis’. Not just Nancy Pelosi, the whole family. Someone should ask Trump if he plans to pardon DePape, the guy who attacked Paul Pelosi with a hammer.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      California, perhaps anticipating another Trump presidency, also convicted DuPape on five state charges. No presidential pardon for those.

  2. PeteT0323 says:

    I watched a replay on YouTube. I think KH did a superb job handling Baier. It is quite unlikely that this will change the mind of any hard core FOX-MAGA voters and unknown how many undecideds/swing voters will even see the event.

    I think the repeated mention by Baier about needing to “wrap” – with the final hard wrap call – at the end is an indication that FOIX wanted to minimize damage.

    She done good. Very good.

    PS

    I know what the media says Harris is not articulate, etc. Anyone with even just some of their five senses can easily compare Trump and Kamala and figure out who is not “all there” – by a long shot. I’d like to see someone take “common questions” of Trump and KH and splice in their responses to show them back to back. It would be pretty obvious who is and is not “all there”.

    • LadyHawke says:

      It may not change the mind of any “hard core FOX-MAGA voters,” but that doesn’t describe all of the people who passively hear FOX in waiting rooms, workplace and commercial spaces, or even within their households. Yes, she done good.
      Edit: Sorry, I missed that mickquinas also addressed this in his second paragraph below.

  3. dannyboy says:

    My favs, from a list of Marcy’s Hits:

    ” used the first person plural to align himself with the mob (which may end up being useful to Jack Smith)”

    “Harris to point to things that Fox deliberately keeps from its viewers…All of these are things that are not permitted on Fox News.”

    “Harris responded, ‘I would like that we would have a conversation that is grounded in full assessment of the facts'”.

    I’ll point out that their appeal to me is because they are all statements which are broader than this election. In my mind Harris is gonna’ win, so I am focusing more on how Trump and MAGA get pushed back into their holes.

    (For Trump, I forsee prison as his hole; for his cohorts, some prison, others discredit). For Fox, financial losses Bigly!)

    • gruntfuttock says:

      ‘For Trump, I forsee prison as his hole’

      He deserves it but it won’t happen: firstly, his lawyers will keep stalling things for years to come (he’s still got a lot of money they can try to get a slice of (unless Melania outlawyers them)); secondly, his mental health is going to forestall any such thing: he’s really not well, you don’t need to be a doctor to see that these days.

      If he loses, he’ll be shafted through having to pay up for his crimes; if he wins, Vance and his backers are the real power.

      EIther way, Don’s a sad old git dancing his way into the darkness.

      Still dangerous, though, like a wounded hippo.

    • Super Nintendo Chalmers says:

      I immediately thought of The Big Lebowski when Dude slips up and says “we” and attempts to correct himself by saying “the Royal We”.

  4. sandman8 says:

    I thought Harris did well on Fox. Baier’s questions were mostly long monologues with a question mark at the end. He tried to start a new one each time she was two sentences into an answer. More of an unruly debate than an interview.

    I liked that she pointed people to the website for her policy positions. The idea that politicians are supposed to provide magical sound bites that solve US immigration, Israel/Palestine, abortion, and gun violence is ridiculous. It would be nice if our political system didn’t equate pithy responses with viable long-term solutions to nearly intractable problems. Even when we ask voters why they support a candidate’s position on these issues, we should probably give them a few minutes to think about how they want to respond (but not to take their answer from others or look it up on the internet). Just the idea that people should get a minute to think before jumping into solving world hunger might be nice.

    [FYI – username fixed. /~Rayne]

    • DiffPaul says:

      I flashed back to the Super Bowl interview of OReilly interrupting Obama over and over and over. I couldn’t believe how disrespectful it was.

      • SteveBev says:

        Bret Baier on Hannity immediately launched into whinging about KHarris being late, leading to this argument

        “As if they were trying to Ice the Kicker” !!!

        Guess we can take from that who he thought went home with the match ball

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          Fox and other friendly venues allow Trump to be an hour late or more and never say a word. Brett Baier is working the ref.

          A very practiced liar, Baier consistently portrays the world according to the Fox News script, which makes it impossible to tell what he really thinks.

        • SteveBev says:

          Are any politicians anywhere ever on time for anything during campaign season?

          But Trump is notoriously poor. Still given the accelerating rate of his cancellations maybe his time management will improve?

  5. mickquinas says:

    What I’ve been trying to remember, that I think the Harris campaign is well aware of, is that a whole lot of people are too busy trying to survive in an enshittified (h/t Corey Doctorow) world to maintain the political awareness that is assumed by pundits and poll-watchers on either side of the beltway. A whole lot of people are just now tuning in to this race, and for them the political reporting of the last year or three has been background noise. They remember being horrified by January 6, but haven’t kept up with (what feels like) the dragging prosecution of it even as they know that the former president was involved (not least in his failure to act).

    Harris isn’t winning regular Fox viewers by facing off with Baier, but Fox is sadly the default in a lot of places (bars, lobbies, waiting rooms, etc.) where folks are just starting to pay attention to politics. I remember the line from “V for Vendetta” where the dictator berates his co-conspirators telling one, “we are drowning under the weight of your inadequacies!”

    20 years ago, any of the things that have happened (hurricane lies, hunting FEMA, COVID tests to Putin, “so what” if Pence is in danger, 39 minutes of ?) since October 1st might have been enough to end Trump’s candidacy, and it’s horrifying that for maybe a third of registered voters the chaos is already priced in to their voting decision. Today, none of them qualifies as an “October Surprise” and it’s difficult to imagine what would actually serve to break the spell. But each seems to be another drop, eroding perhaps a few votes here, a few votes there, not merely the ongoing and unfolding testimony to his inadequacy but also the building demonstration of Harris’ fitness, a steady drip-drip-drip until, hopefully, finally, this particular stain is washed away.

    • Bobster33 says:

      I travel monthly and make it a point to get the TV’s in the hotel lobby to show MSNBC instead of Fox. Once I was asked by an employee why I did not like Fox. I explained that I cannot trust a news network that has paid almost a billion dollars in penalties for broadcasting lies. I have never had a staff member refuse my request.

      • JVOJVOJVO says:

        I did the same thing at the lobby bar at the St Regis in DC last month!
        Bartender was happy to oblige and noted it was the manager who put it on FNC

        • -mamake- says:

          Did the same in 2018-19 when I was traveling alot. The staff at a DC hotel happily did it and appreciated being asked. Then others in the area started talking openly about was a sick f*** this guy was and some mentioned ‘isn’t he past heart attack time?’ I was pleased that I asked as DC was the first place I did.

          It never hurts to ask. Same w/ blaring TVs in airport waiting areas, although haven’t flown in a few years. Most appreciate the volume going down. I even used to have a generic remote that would shut TVs off w/out anyone knowing the source. My fav guerilla action. :-)

  6. Ebenezer Scrooge says:

    Philip Bump of WaPo made an excellent point: even if Harris more than held her own with Baier in the “news” part of Fox, she lost later that evening, with the “opinion” part. The Hannities of the Fox universe jumped on out-of-context clips of the interview to make Harris look worse. Many more people watch the “opinion” part of Fox than the “news” part.

    • harold hecuba says:

      Though I agree with your sentiments re: more people probably watching opinion instead of news, I don’t think she “lost”. It may have been tilting at windmills, but as others have (sort of) noted that if only one voter can be saved…

      But given what I heard on the local right-winger radio show this am, the MAGA crowd is losing their shit. Normally, the host banters about some inanity for about five minutes. This am, they went straight to ridiculing Harris and talking about how she failed, etc. It was kinda funny how they were losing their shit over it.

      Which leads me to believe that I really do think the Trumpers are slowly losing their confidence over the election. I know the polls have this one extremely tight, but, I don’t know…I think she’s gonna outperform this election.

      • ToldainDarkwater says:

        My study of Trump’s behavior this week, particularly in the 39 minute danceathon, suggests that Trump doesn’t think he’s going to win, and he doesn’t really feel much like doing the politics thing any more.

        I have a good friend who works in a profession that is dedicated to uncovering people’s emotional truths. She agreed, and pointed to another thing he’s said this week. Of course, they have to keep up a good face, for the sake of down-ticket races, for instance. And maybe for pride.

        But I think Trump thinks he’s losing.

  7. earlofhuntingdon says:

    Lawrence O’Donnell pointed out yesterday that Brett Baier is not the straight-news guy, as opposed to another Hannity, that others in the media are portraying him as. Baier is the guy who ran around with his hair on fire in 202, telling Fox to lie about its own election desk’s prediction that Joe Biden had won Arizona He was adamant that it change the story and lie, especially as it took another four days for other networks to come to the same accurate conclusion.

    As a coda, O’Donnell noted that Brett Baier was still with Fox, but the very good people at its election desk, who accurately predicted Biden’s win in Arizona, Fox fired. Brett Baier is a fraud and a liar. But that’s not breaking news.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      No edit button. I know it seems like Baier and Fox have been around since Adam left the garden, but I meant to type the year “2020,” not “202.”

      • we're not in kansas anymore says:

        For a half a second, I read that sentence as “the guy who ran around with his hair on fire in [area code] 202” which sorta kinda makes a bit of sense as well…

    • SteveBev says:

      And I thought you were setting up a joke involving Roman candles and the Lion’s den in reign of The Old Fox Septimius Severus
      (based on Machiavelli’s description that he was both fox and lion)

      • HikaakiH says:

        While you’re mentioning shows of long ago, it is worth noting that your nom-de-web is a pointer to a very fine show indeed. (Round the Horne for those that don’t know.) I heard a good number of them re-broadcast by the BeebBeebCeeb about 15 years ago. I think it was not long before BBC7 got renamed to Radio-4-Extra.

        • SteveBev says:

          One of the notable features of “Round the Horne” and in particular the “Julian and Sandy” sketches was the use of Polari as a basis for creation of double entendres, which many of the public took simply to be amusing nonsense words, not realising that Polari was a coded language of the gay community

          “Their use of Polari in sketches introduced the gay cant to a mass audience, and identified them as gay to those in the know. Although this prompted a brief revival, Round the Horne ultimately led to Polari’s near-demise as a means of communication between gay men”

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_and_Sandy

  8. Oldguy99 says:

    WRT the end of the Fox interview, with Baier repeatedly forcefully saying he was being told they had to wrap, I also wondered if the producer realized that information was leaking into the hermetically sealed universe. I doubt we will ever know for sure, but noticed repeated comments on Twitter shortly afterward from blue check accounts claiming the Harris campaign had pulled the plug, which leads me to believe that Fox hitting the brakes was a real possibility.

    My one big disappointment in VP Harris’ answers was her letting Baier’s use “illegal immigrants” as a descriptor for people released before hearing after an encounter with the Border Patrol. She had the opportunity to humanize the many good people fleeing terrible conditions and arriving at the border, and the need to handle them with compassion and in line with international law while protecting the country from those seeking to exploit the weakness in processing the Trump administration had left (hence her answer that the first legislation the administration pushed was immigration reform). She played immigration on the Fox defined field, and suffered for it. She then rebounded well in the rest of the interview.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Disagree. She juggled several balls in the air just fine, notwithstanding that Baier kept throwing new ones at her while she was doing it. She didn’t need to recover from anything.

      • Oldguy99 says:

        I agree she did well for most of the debate, but think she was immediately put on defense with the opening “illegal immigrant” question. The GOP and Fox have worked together to make southern border immigration the top election issue, all reality based threat assessment notwithstanding. She had the opportunity, with the gratuitous use of the term by Baier, to contextualize the problem and failed to do so. While she rightly blamed Trump for scuttling the bipartisan bill, she missed the chance to inject actual thoughtful discourse on immigration into the Fox universe and instead let Baier define the terms of the issue.

        • emptywheel says:

          One point I meant to make in this post but got so distracted with how good the Univision questions were I forgot was this:

          If Harris offends everyone at Fox News, she has lost nothing. There were no gaffes that will hurt her outside of Fox News. But if she attracts just a few people, it’s a win.

          If Trump offends some people in his Fox News town hall, he loses a lot. He needs as many Fox women as possible to cut into the gender gap.

          If Trump offends Latinos, he loses a shit-ton, because they may decide the election.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Yes, exactly, Marcy. Brilliant and gutsy move on the part of Harris and her campaign. I know from my own experience that those kinds of strategic, but uncomfortable, moves were highly beneficial to a positive final outcome. So, I’m hoping the same holds true here. But only time will tell for sure. Not long now, though.

        • synergies says:

          Marcy, that’s so interesting. TFG has been throwing around “eugenics“ Mexicans bad genes. We generations of being in the West, have all had Mexican friends. Simplified and very good friends. Simplified married to other races with kids. Simplified, WHAT! ?

          A lot of Chicano’s are cool, calm, collected & stay under the radar for the easing of, the waste of time. It’s not like something that doesn’t register with all races and the YOUNGER GENS. “Bad genes,” could be a Nov. surprise.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          Marcie, in that regard, the only thing I thought she could have done better in that “interview” was to treat Baier with less respect. Too many “With all due respect…” lead–ins, iow, imo.

          Maybe she was trying to dampen any misogynistic “harridan” charges, or maybe she’s just that polite. In any event, he deserved no courtesy whatsoever once his over-talking, misdirecting ambush strategy became apparent.

          As you say, FOX viewers were not her target anyway.

        • Rayne says:

          Let’s not forget that Harris not only has to deal with misogyny but racism.

          You can bet any firmer pushback would produce criticisms that she’s [dog whistle synonym for “uppity”]. You can bet in certain circles she probably is anyhow for have the moxie to appear on Fox News.

        • BRUCE F COLE says:

          Yup. There’s a shitload going on in the undertow of every interaction she asserts herself in. And more so as she threatens that glass ceiling.

          Sorry for misspelling Marcy, btw, Marcy.

        • dopefish says:

          Reply to punaise
          October 17, 2024 at 5:37 pm

          Thank you for making me laugh out loud. This election season needs more real pun-dits like you!

          (Hey, if the shoe fits, where it?)

          Also, great points by EW and Rayne about the tradeoffs Harris is trying to navigate here (peel Fox voters, racism, sexism). Her experience as a prosecutor is clearly helping, I think she’s doing as well in this hostile political climate as I could have hoped.

          I think she’s been striking just the right balance between intelligent, authentic, sane and not too threatening to the racist or misogynist idiots whose votes she needs to grab some of. The glass ceiling is real, but here’s hoping Harris can shatter it!

          My greatest fear is that she’ll make some small mis-step and the RW-biased media will crucify her for it, while continuing to ignore and excuse Trump’s cognitive decline, increasingly weird and unhinged behavior, and of course his total unfitness for any kind of public office.

    • Shadowalker says:

      Baier told Newsweek she was late and may have done so intentionally to “ice the kicker”. They were scheduled to start around 5 PM (with 15 minute fudge room) for them to be able to turn around for 6 PM air time. She was 2 minutes past fudge @5:17. He also thinks the Harris team was looking to use some clips from the confrontation for other networks to air. If what he claims is true, than they “executed” masterfully.

    • gruntfuttock says:

      replying to:

      synergies: October 17, 2024 at 1:01 pm

      ‘“Bad genes,” could be a Nov. surprise.’

      Wishful thinking here but I wish somebody would ask Trump which specific genes he’s referring to, on which chromosome(s). Because it’s complete and utter BS.

      Infinite universes? Perhaps in one of them there is a nice, kind, intelligent Donald who actually loves his wives instead of thinking of them as trophies.

  9. BRUCE F COLE says:

    Brilliant rundown and analysis of those three events, Marcie. Thank you.

    As to whether the Fox interview will end up being a Google-prompt or something more, I’m hoping it will also be craftily featured in her ads, going forward (as commenters above have noted, with the plural “Pelosis” featuring footage of the attack on Paul).

    • Trypeded says:

      Yes that crossed my mind too, it could be very effective.

      In response to your concerns above that Harris was too polite, I’d like to point to her expressed desire to provide a contrast.

      By treating her interviewer with respect (respect his loyal viewers might appreciate) she displayed a contrast that made his outrageous rudeness glaringly apparent.

      • HikaakiH says:

        “By treating her interviewer with respect (respect his loyal viewers might appreciate) she displayed a contrast that made his outrageous rudeness glaringly apparent.”
        I think you make a good point. Despite Baier being an awful person working in service of awful people, if Harris had been curt, brusque or veered into rudeness, it would not have served her purpose. She was there to peel off some voters, even if it is just a small percentage. She wasn’t there to make Democrats happy by insulting someone they dislike.

  10. john paul jones says:

    In one (minimalist) sense, the Fox interview was good because it takes a weapon out of the hands of the Trumpists: “She refuses to do interviews.” That was always BS, but still, any time you can take a weapon out of the hands of an agressor, it’s good.

    As to the Unavision video, I really wondered if Trump understood how condescending he was being, what it would look like to a non-cult audience.

    • xyxyxyxy says:

      To him, the more condescending – the better.
      He’s pushing to get his voters to show up and the more hate he spills, the more he’s pushing those that may be on the fence as to voting to show up.
      He’s got a ceiling of voters but he’s hoping for scare tactics, even if they don’t do violence, to keep others away from the polls.

      • grizebard says:

        It’s clear that Trump and his supine party courtiers have bet their shirts on getting out the MAGA vote. But easy to forget that although it’s purest catnip for them, it’s not enough alone for him to win. There also have to be a lot of non-cultists willing to overlook his increasing shitfest and vote with their eyes blindfolded and their noses pegged.

        When things are this close, to scupper him it just takes a segment of decent independents and Republicans to finally catch on to his creepy dog-and-pony show and decide enough’s enough.

        He just can’t resist playing to his vilest gallery, but it may well be diminishing returns.

        • JVOJVOJVO says:

          He’s not resisting it imho, he is fomenting it – just like last time. He needs his core MAGAts standing back and standing by so when he loses all Hell can break loose.
          I’m not being alarmist with this opinion, I’m being a realist. It’s his plan to win no matter what is the cost as long as he isn’t paying for it which is what happens if he loses.

    • Marci Kiser says:

      “In one (minimalist) sense, the Fox interview was good because it takes a weapon out of the hands of the Trumpists: “She refuses to do interviews.”

      Nothing we do ever “takes a weapon out of the hands” of Republicans. Obama releases his birth certificate? Oh no, we need the long-form version. No not that one, the other one. No, not that one either.

      Candidates need to release their medical records. Ok, here are Harris’s. Oh my god she has allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, which Trump says are “a very messy and dangerous situation. These are deeply serious conditions that clearly impact her functioning.” They’re calling seasonal allergies a disqualifying medical condition.

      Harris doing the Fox interview was a good call for different reasons, but it did nothing to neutralize Republican attacks. There is nothing you can ever do that will satisfy them.

      • bgThenNow says:

        I actually was dumped from my insurance once for “mild seasonal allergies.” It was a win for me in the end because as a self-employed person, I could not get into a group plan. My state had a “denial of coverage” group plan I could access with my “denial of coverage” letter.

    • VinnieGambone says:

      Watching Trump speaking about the “weave” or anything, it reminds me of his comments related to declassifying the stolen documents. That all he had to do was think them declassified, and, poof, ta – da, so ordered. In his skull anyway.

      I wonder if he ever looks at clips of himself and ever once cringes ?
      In his mind he aces everything.
      Has no clue so many Amer is cans see him as a total moron. I will be sooo glad when he is finally gone. Life after Trump. Justice will be when he tries to keep himself relevant, meaning, still on the air, and no one cares or puts him on.
      Well maybe, if there is a new show called,
      Name That Has-been.

      He wouldn’t last 22 seconds on the Chuck Barrish Gong Show.

  11. OldTulsaDude says:

    Marcy mentioned it but it made me sit up wide eyed: Trump said “we” twice when answering a question about the Jan. 6 insurrectionists.

    • earlofhuntingdon says:

      Trump should be careful about explaining that Freudian slip by saying he’s using the royal “we.” He may not know that, in the common tongue, it means, “I.”

      • HikaakiH says:

        Well, the royal pronoun suits a man who thinks himself a king and has the SCOTUS busy working on that for him.

      • SteveBev says:

        “We are a grandmother” (TM) Margaret Thatcher

        And in the customary etiquette of English courts:

        KCs (formerly QCs) use the form of address to the court
        “We submit to your Lordship that ….Our contention is …In our submission. ..”
        cf Junior Barristers (non KCs) use the 1st person singular

        Ps English barristers don’t “think” or “opine” in court but have arguments, contentions, submissions which they present.

        Recently qualified barristers are frequently benchslapped with “I don’t care what you think, my court is no place for your opinions”

  12. Savage Librarian says:

    So, Bill Barr is involved in the Murdoch Family Trust legal issues. I wonder how much longer Rupert will be able to carry on. Sure would be good if some changes came sooner rather than later:

    “Rupert Murdoch, 93, wants eldest son Lachlan to run his empire after his death – but his other children want their say.”
    …..
    “But despite their immense importance the legal arguments over the Murdoch Family Trust presented within the impenetrable walls of a 1960’s annex court extension in Reno last week are known only to the judge and court staff, Rupert Murdoch, his first and second set of children and an army of lawyers, including Trump’s attorney general William Barr.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/sep/22/murdoch-family-fox-news-court

  13. Badger Robert says:

    Ms. Wheeler’s comments about the Univision town hall are for more important than the VP’s appearance on Fox e-News.
    Ms. Wheeler identifies again, that there are communication networks that are not dependent on corporate news, and which are probably difficult for even honest poll makers to measure.
    Its not surprising to me that the Hispanic-Americans identified by Ms. Wheeler were able to see the undisguised arrogance of the former President. I think she has identified another section of the electorate that can see the xenophobia of the Republican nominee is clear evidence that he has unmitigated contempt for all non-white Americans.

    • JVOJVOJVO says:

      Isn’t this the reason VP Harris should do a town hall meeting, or at least an interview, on Univision?!

        • emptywheel says:

          She did. In fact the same guy who asked Trump about Jan6 asked her about Helene/Milton aide (he’s in Tampa). She gave him a long answer abt the disinformation about FEMA support, described the meetings she had been in on aide. Started with empathy to check that his family was okay.

  14. Badger Robert says:

    OT: did the defense file a non-appeal delay request in the 01/06 case? Doesn’t the seven day delay expire tomorrow?

  15. Matt Foley says:

    Free $100,000 watch for every time Harris called Baier a “nasty person.”

    Has Jimmy Carter’s mule been arrested yet?

    • RitaRita says:

      The NY Times Magazine ran a well-written and researched article yesterday, “What A Crackdown on Immigration Could Mean For Cheap Milk” by Marcela Valdes. An Idaho dairy farmer interviewed talked about long hours, the split shifts, and the brutal working conditions and the low pay. The only people he has found who will work under those conditions for the amount of money he can pay are immigrants, who are hard workers and reliable. The dairy farmer said that he and other dairy farmers would be forced out of business if the immigrant work force disappeared. And he acknowledged the disconnect between Republican rhetoric and reality.

      In the Univision town hall, when Trump was asked immigrants working in agriculture, he said that we need good people but then reverted to how only the worst come to this country.

      I’ve heard one estimate that 50% of the work force in agriculture is not here legally. I imagine the same goes for the construction industry.

      The deceitful approach by Republicans towards this the immigrant workforce has been going on for decades. I remember about 20 years ago the DOJ started pursuing employers who had a workforce with undocumented workers on the theory that if employers stopped hiring undocumented workers, they would stop crossing the border. That program lasted about one month.

      • Konny_2022 says:

        IIRC the law that allowed for going after employers hiring “illegal” immigrants was introduced by Reagan. Yet, that law provided a path to legal status for millions of immigrants, back then even called amnesty.

      • CaptainCondorcet says:

        I am convinced that program was ended early not because it didn’t work, but because it worked exactly as intended and initial investigations led to a list of people that they were informed they couldn’t touch. No proof, but the number of major donors to the Republican party who employ significant numbers of undocumented immigrants is not zero

        • RitaRita says:

          It was a long time ago but Darryl Issa’s name pops up as someone who thought the program was not fair. At least in California, most agribusinesses are Republican. I’m sure that they all have plausible deniability about using undocumented workers.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          You may mean former congresscritter Darrell Issa. A late arrival to California, which he represented in the House, he made his money in Ohio, in cars, car electronics, and a mysteriously burned down warehouse

          Another former congresscritter from California is Devin Nunes, whose family was from California and made their money in Ag, especially from dairy cows. He’s now the ceo of Trump’s Truth Social.

      • earthworm says:

        i live in an area with a large undocumented work force. for years it has been said that the rightwing around here is evenly divided about “illegals: ” those who hope to exploit them (underpay or withhold earnings) with those who heartily endorse employing them to undercut wages of locals on the one side; and the jackass MAGATs, who hope to stir up a race war, on the other.
        in any case, we ALL were or are immigrants.

        • RitaRita says:

          What is so disheartening is how unsympathetic so many are when their own ancestors were similarly exploited and treated with the same level of scorn and hatred Trump and his followers heap on immigrants today.

  16. Kempmouse says:

    Ot: what does everyone think of the swiss (Russian??) watches/honey article that dropped today. Cnn paywalled it, but rawstory has a free version.

      • P J Evans says:

        It’s got a “subscribers only” block on it. But there have been stories in the last couple of weeks about the location of the company responsible for the watches – it may be the same place as the gold shoes – being located in a mailbox in Wyoming.

        • Rayne says:

          I’d just opened that article on my phone, didn’t indicate it was paywalled or that I had a limited number of articles.

          The member-hardening honey spokesperson Vladimir Dmitriev is likely a ghost — someone using a fake name. The name is extremely common.

        • xyxyxyxy says:

          Here’s hottake https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6Hf9UB4tfs by Meidastouch on Trump nft scam.
          It includes discussion of addresses, starting at about 5:20, of organizations running these scams in locations with various criminal ties in among other places, Cheyenne WY.
          Also when I try scrolling down the CNN article it hits the paywall notice.

  17. FiestyBlueBird says:

    Harris displayed a Sabrina Ionescu confidence level, while knowing the series ain’t over.

    You gotta take and make close late game shots. She did.

    To Earl:
    Yeah, Lawrence O’Donnell shined a bright light on Brett. That was a great take-down. Had watched it just minutes before I read your comment.

  18. bgThenNow says:

    It is hard to imagine the “bad genes” trope going very far after the brilliance of the Latino questions on Univision. Bravo! I hope some good ads come from that.

    I really wish the Democrats would add some dimension to the immigration issue. We are at full employment (essentially) with all US born and immigrants of all status’ working. Deportation is not viable. This is a long read, but very comprehensive on immigration/immigrants, for those who have not yet seen it. https://portside.org/2024-10-13/us-benefits-immigration-policy-reforms-needed-maximize-gains

  19. Attygmgm says:

    Now that it’s come out that the Trump bible is printed in China, I have been hoping someone will use it as the center of a concrete tariff example. As in something like: It sells for $60. It costs X to print, so your margin on each one is Y. Now add the tariff you propose for everything from China. (60% would be $36). Would you take that out of your margin or would you increase the price? And if you’d increase the price, then by how much? So the consumer would now pay $60 plus Z?

  20. dannyboy says:

    I can report on the opposite experience from the Sanewashing going around the [Stupid] media.

    And for that experience, I owe a debt of gratitude to this commentariate, thru who’s eyes I see what I care not to firsthand (Also, Ruper deserves credit here).

    As background, I offer this:
    dannyboysays:
    October 2, 2024 at 10:48 am
    Admit that I didn’t watch (so you can read my Comments with that in mind).
    I did have a valid excuse.
    I’ve filled my allowable quota of digesting lies for the month, and it was just the first day.

    My graditude to this forum results from Marcy reporting on, and the community commenting on EVENTS THAT I HAVE INTEREST IN, BUT NOT THE PROPENSITY TO EXPERIENCE.

    So thanks for watching so that others don’t have to.
    Truly heroic.

  21. rosalind says:

    Mediate reporting the Fox Harris interview drew 7.1 million viewers, and the Fox Trump interview drew 3 million (saw it in a tweet, no link).

    OT-ish: if there is room for an open thread at some point, would love to trade stories about how the election is looking in each other’s towns and states. and yes, I did just receive my mail in ballot (WA State – 100% vote by mail).

    • Savage Librarian says:

      And all this time I was thinking you lived in Oregon, rosalind. Just wondering, have you noticed any changes in weather patterns there over the past decade or so?

      • rosalind says:

        like much of the Western U.S. we have had lower rainfall & snowpack and I guess are officially in drought conditions. biggest recent impact last few years is the wildfire smoke from B.C., Oregon and Eastern Washington coming in year after year. wind helped out this year a lot, but I’m still scarred from the horrible smoke a while back. that this is our new normal is frightening.

        • Savage Librarian says:

          Yes, it is frightening. We had an unusual amount of rain this September. It went on and on for days. It felt like we flipped weather with the Pacific NW. But the wildfires and smoke up there are terrible. It’s freaky.

      • P-villain says:

        I think that rating represents a lot of hate-watching. No Roman plebeian ever rooted for the Christians.

        • HikaakiH says:

          True, but there is one particular person who is guaranteed to absolutely hate that Harris’s interview got so many more viewers than his Trump’s.

        • SteveBev says:

          HikaakiH
          October 18, 2024 at 7:54 am

          Brett Baier is doing (has been forced to do) a big round of mea culpa’s
          Obviously Fox recognise that his attempts to debate/ catch KH with gotchas backfired spectacularly

          He has been particularly stung by the calling out of his dishonesty and or ineptitude with respect to the “enemy within” segment which gave Harris the crushing victory.

          For round up of Fox clips on this see:
          “ Watch MAGA Fox Host ADMIT HE LIED In Kamala Interview!”
          https://youtu.be/8TV7GW4lCz4

  22. Alan Charbonneau says:

    I didn’t watch the debate, I’m easily triggered and not in the sense MAGA means, but in the PTSD sense. I was too worried I’d flip out and not be okay for days. But going into that interview, I did not think she had to be spectacular. Instead, I thought she would come out ahead even if she was only mediocre, going into the lions den and all that. But she has got good reviews even from a few Fox hosts.

    I loved Rick Wilson’s take on the outcome:
    “You know how I know Kamala did well on Fox?
    Because the MAGA bleating sounds like someone throwing a goat in a wood chipper.”

    p.s. The Lions’ den came into Dallas and Jerry Jones had a less than awesome birthday. :)

      • Alan Charbonneau says:

        Yes, I meant interview, though Twitter wags called it a debate. I did watch the debate a few weeks back.

        Another thing that should be getting more attention is Trump’s ugly remarks that his interview with Faulkner would get better ratings than the family of Amber Thurman speaking ahead of the town hall. I hope a campaign ad is made from that and played during the World Series.

  23. dopefish says:

    Semi-off-topic: Greg Sargent interviews Brian Beutler for The New Republic, and they talk about whether the media is starting to focus more on Trump’s mental decline, and/or hold him more accountable. (podcast page, and the lightly-edited text transcript)

    Sargent: Can I just point out: Another really profound perversity to all this is that Trump is casting aspersions on the federal disaster response [ … ] Trump made an absolute hash of the one major crisis he faced, which was Covid. He’s so confident in his ability to erase 2020 from people’s minds, and here the media is complicit too, that he actually thinks he can cast aspersions on other people’s handling of crises without this coming up as an issue to bite him.

    Beutler: A lot of Trump’s behavior only makes sense when you realize that he’s internalized that the fact-police, the referees, aren’t coming. So he gets to say and do whatever he wants. If what he does fails and what he says isn’t true, everyone’s going to move on very quickly. And it’s usually a safe bet for him.

    • dopefish says:

      https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/kamala-harris-just-comes-out-and-says-it-donald-trump-is-f-king-nuts

      After playing a clip of Trump saying the military should be used against people who don’t support him on Election Day, Harris told the crowd in Erie County, Pennsylvania: “A second Trump term would be a huge risk for America. And dangerous. Donald Trump is increasingly unstable and unhinged. And he is out for unchecked power.”

      …and she’s not wrong.

      • P J Evans says:

        Worse, Vance is eager to get that power himself. And he wouldn’t have any ethical problem getting Donnie out.

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          My, yes. Strategerizing about how he would orchestrate a Cabinet coup under the 25th Amendment is probably half of what JD Vance spends his time doing. If Trump wins, he’s unlikely to make it halfway through his term before Vance puts him out to pasture.

  24. harpie says:

    https://x.com/atrupar/status/1847024810641043881
    5:20 PM · Oct 17, 2024

    Kamala Harris as a demonstrator is escorted out: “Oh, you guys are at the wrong rally. I think you meant to go to the smaller one down the street.” [VIDEO]

    LOLLOLLOL!

    Here’s the ThreadReader link to RUPAR’s LaCrosse rally THREAD:
    RUPAR: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1847010668999741899.html
    4:23 PM · Oct 17, 2024

    I’m going to do a thread on Mark Cuban campaigning with Kamala Harris in La Crosse, Wisconsin. Follow along for clips and commentary. [THREAD]

  25. CPtight617 says:

    On the whole “it’s a Google interview” idea, that is not a negative in this election. I think this is a deliberate strategy for the voters she needs to convert. That group likes to think of themselves as independent-minded and will reflexively resist taking Harris’s word about something no matter how obvious. So she has to get them to “do their own research” and “watch his rallies” to be convinced that Trump did or said it. It’s some clever jujitsu that aligns with lots of psychological research that people are much more likely to believe something if they “discover” it on their own.

Comments are closed.