Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Democrat Presidential candidate Kamal Harris is coming late to the interview game.  She has not learned the skills necessary to answer pointed questions by only taking softball interviews before. The recent interview with NBC News is a case in point. Throughout much of this interview, she prevaricated, and as the photo shows her expression, she seemed to be peeved that she was required to answer questions.

The interview starts with a question about why a large percentage of voters feel they were worse off under Biden-Harris than under Trump. On the one hand, she dodges responsibility for being second in command over the past four years, tries to say Biden is perfectly well and functional, yet at the same time says her new term will not be a continuation of Biden’s policies. But why not continue Biden’s policies if the record is so good?  And if they were so bad, how can she defend them?

When asked about “prices,” she seems to suggest that the rampant inflation has nothing to do with Biden-Harris’s policies but rather the fault of business.  She reverts to the old line about “price gouging.” In the case of food, which has soared in price, she has no answer for how price gouging can occur in a highly competitive industry with barely 1-2% profit margins.

She acknowledges “the cost of housing” but does not mention that one of the significant factors in house affordability is the monthly payment, primarily a function of mortgage interest rates. She does not acknowledge that the Fed set upon a course of rapid increases in interest rates precisely because of the wild inflation kicked off by her administration pumping $6 trillion into the economy. She and Biden caused the inflation, which jacked up home prices and interest rates.

She continues with her plan to give $25,000 to first-time buyers.  Where is the constitutional authorization to do that?  Furthermore, increasing demand (which is what subsidies would do) without increasing supply simply makes the matter worse.  And why is this gift only for first-time buyers?  Many people start with a small home and then build a family and want to get a larger home.  Many people need to move for job opportunities.  Why are they denied help, but only first-time buyers earn a magical qualification?

She continues with ideas of tax credits and the like to try to help people deal with inflation.  Subsidies and tax credits are simply salve to try to medicate the effects of inflation caused by government policies.  If you don’t address the underlying cause (too much spending funded by money printing), everyone will need tax credits and subsidies.  She desperately needs a remedial course in basic economics.

She repeated her claim about Goldman Sachs economists supporting her plan, something publically disavowed by the company.

She further says that Trump’s policies will exacerbate inflation and cause a recession by the middle of next year. That makes no sense. Recessions typically are deflationary in nature, and Trump’s plans to trim Federal spending under the tutelage of Elon Musk and de-regulate also serve to reduce prices.  Indeed, recession is a possibility under either of their presidencies, but the excess of the Biden-Harris would most likely be the cause.  The nation cannot continue with this breakneck spending and deficit financing, and “taking away the punchbowl” by the central bank would also likely play a role in any future recession.

When asked whether the nation is ready for “a woman of color to be President,” she says she wants to be President to all Americans and unite us.  Yet Democrat rhetoric suggests that Trump is a fascist, racist, and misogynist, and his supporters are bigoted White Christian nationists.  This rhetoric seems highly incendiary and is more likely to divide Americans than unite them.  Is she not aware of the propaganda from her own party and herself?

She says she will be a president that will focus on Americans and their needs.  Is she suggesting maybe we put Americans first?

Her arguments on abortion are terribly confused and disingenuous. She says the Supreme Court has “outlawed” abortions by a conspiracy of Donald Trump and denied women a fundamental right.  Well, that “right” was an invention of a previous Supreme Court, which found a “right” never discovered before in the penumbra of the “right to privacy” under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.  It has been controversial for 50 years.  No, the current Supreme Court simply remanded it back to the states to decide.  But she is correct, sort of:  as things stand right now, there is no fundamental right to abortion.  But then she goes on to say that this fundamental abortion “right,” which the present court says is not there, has been violated.  In short, she respects the Supreme Court only when it rules her way!  She only sees rights discovered by past courts.  Apparently, no court decision is valid if it reverses a precious case.

Further, she completely distrusts Federalism and the ability of the states to determine rules about abortion within their jurisdictions.  She seems to distrust the functioning of democracy through our federal system, despite many states adopting quite liberal abortion laws. She even refers to the process as “a rabbit hole,” and the issue is “nonnegotiable.” Gee, that kind of attitude ought to really bring America “together.”  Besides, the proof of the current process is, as they say, in the pudding.

 Since the Dobbs decision, there have been more abortions than there were previously.   This is according to the Guttmacher Institute, a pro abortions think tank. She is insistent that the “protections” of Roe v Wade must be restored but avoids any discussion of compromise on the issue with Senators and Congressman of the opposition party.  Does she want to function as a dictator?

As to whether transgenders have a right to have their sex changes paid for by the taxpayer, she says, “We should follow the law.”  Huh? If so, why follow the law here but not concerning abortions or the forgiveness of student loans?  Follow the law only when you get the result you want?  And what is that law we are following?  She wanders into getting rid of the Department of Education and insulin prices.  She says we should not be distracted while attempting to distract us.  To her credit, the reporter did attempt to get a square answer.  Scroll to minutes 13-14.  It is word salad turned rancid.

She repeats the lie of January 6th and that law enforcement officials were killed, all in the process of suggesting Democrats will contest the election if it goes the way of Donald Trump.  This is necessary because Trump is an election denier, along with Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Stacey Abrams.  She does not seem to be aware that she is basically saying that the way to deal with election denial is to become an election denier.

Much of what follows is less about her qualities and more about attacks on Trump.  She wants us to “turn the page.”  Turn the page on what, the last four years?  Why should we turn the page if the past four years were so great? She demonstrates that slogans can often get in the way of logic.

She attempts to take on Biden-Harris’s broken borders policy.  She says Trump deliberately torpedoed a solution that was before Congress. That solution was, of course, a terrible solution, and even Democrats voted against it.  Yet Newsweek pointed out that:

“All Republican senators voted against the bill except Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, the bill’s lead GOP negotiator, and moderate Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Mitt Romney of Utah.

Here is the full list of the five Democrats who joined Republicans in voting “no.”

1. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts
2. Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts
3. Senator Alex Padilla of California
4. Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey
5. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York”

In short, more Democrats voted against it than Republicans!  Including the Senate Majority Leader.

Near the end, the reporter asks her directly about President Biden’s decline in cognitive capacity, noting that Harris would not be running were it not for Biden’s mental decline. She says Biden was entirely in control and a great leader.  She knows she is caught here.  She has to say what we all know is false, that Biden is completely capable, even though she is the candidate for her party, precisely because he was NOT capable.  What a tap dance she does.

We thought this was one of the better interviews we have seen, and we commend NBC and Hallie Jackson for asking some tough questions. It was not hostile, but we thought the announcer at least asked some pointed questions and, at times, appropriately pressed her to answer.

That said, there was no discussion of the coming bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, runaway deficit spending, global wars breaking out, and the atrocities committed under the COVID-19 response. But at least some critical issues were discussed.

Now, armed with some of our observations, listen to the interview yourself.

*****

Image Credit: YouTube screenshot NBC News with Hallie Jackson interview with Kamala Harris