By Kelly Sloan | Contributing Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
The inestimable Peggy Noonan, in her regular Sunday Wall Street Journal column, was exacting, as usual, in her analysis of Kamala Harris: “This week she couldn’t answer a single question straight, and people should see it. She is an artless dodger.”
A bit little later on in the piece, referring to a typical word-salad response, Harris proffered to a question: “That isn’t the answer of a candidate trying to be forthcoming and using her limited time in an attempt to be better understood. It is the sound of someone running out the clock.” And further on yet: “What are her thoughts, right now, about illegal immigration and the border?… Was the influx a good thing? Why? Does it constitute a national emergency? Why? What attitude does she bring to this crucial question? Failing to speak plainly and deeply now about illegal immigration is political malpractice on a grand scale. There are other large questions. What philosophical predilection does she bring to taxing, spending, regulation, to the national debt? She owes us these answers. It is wrong that she can’t or won’t address them. It is disrespectful to the electorate.”
That piece was published one month ago, on Sept. 21, three weeks before her interview with Brett Baier on Fox News. It could have been written the day after that interview, and every word would be just as relevant and accurate.
During that interview, Baier committed what might be called an act of premeditated journalism on Harris. He asked tough, but entirely relevant questions, along the lines of what Noonan suggested ought to be asked of the Democratic candidate for President. It’s axiomatic at this point that Harris’ campaign has been a somewhat hermetically sealed affair. She has become famous for her lack of media interviews, and for her stumbling hopelessly when she does give them. Moreover, prior to her sit-down with Baier, every interview she had conceded to had been almost absurdly accommodating, allowing her to answer evasively, with only clichés.
Baier would have none of it. Criticize him all you want for the periodic interruptions – this is someone who might be President of the United States; he had little choice in the matter. Just as he had done with Donald Trump, Baier ably performed his duty, pressing Harris to elucidate on important policy questions.
Of course, Harris filibustered anyway. I don’t think in the entire 25-minute interview she gave a single direct answer. But Baier pushed for them, and the fact she could not oblige spoke volumes. It was insightful, but not the way it ought to have been.
As a political matter, Harris had little choice but to accede to the interview. The race is essentially tied; Trump, let’s just say, has his flaws and weaknesses among conservatives, and for either candidate pulling a percentage or two from the other side in a battleground state is well worth the effort. It was a marvelous opportunity to try and peel off a handful of voters who lean conservative but are looking for a reason not to vote for Trump.
Unfortunately for Harris, she blew it.
What exactly, one wonders, are Kamala Harris’ campaign advisors advising her to do during interviews? I am obviously not privy to any of those discussions, but I wager they must go one of two directions: A) they are trying their mightiest to prepare her, to outline policy proposals, put fine points on details, and work out answers and approaches to questions on a variety of pressing issues – in which case she is completely ignoring them; or B) they are just telling her something along the lines of “OK, madam Vice President, look, whatever the question happens to be, for the love of… well, of whatever… do not, I repeat, NOT, under any circumstances, ever, EVER, provide anything that could be construed in any way as an answer. Got it?” In which case she is following their advice to the letter.
There is an art to political communication, and in the world of political campaigning there is, for better or worse, a place for skilled circumlocution, for deftly circling back to address the issue you want. Harris’ answers were not skillful evasion… they were just evasion. It is quickly becoming apparent that she is no longer simply camouflaging her ideological persuasions, which are more progressive than the national appetite will countenance; but that she is, rather, out of her depth – offering opaque fluff not because of an unwillingness to illuminate, but an inability.
Prior to the interview with Baier, the most pressing concern was that Harris, candidate for President of the United States, was an unknown. That calculus has now shifted to an even more pressing concern that Kamala Harris, candidate for President of the United States, is woefully inadequate to the role she may assume.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.