For GOP, CNN Harris Interview Result Not What You Wanted, But You Get What You Need
Imminent discussion about Harris "values" a dangerous slippery slope... Per usual, Republicans waste too much time complaining about "the media"
Prior to last week’s CNN’s Dana Bash interview of Vice-President Kamala Harris, I suggested Republicans shouldn’t reflexively assume Bash — no pushover — would lob easy softballs for Harris and her running mate, Rep. Tim Walz, to hit out of the park.
After the fact, GOP partisans — and even a fair share of Democrats — said Bash went easy on Harris; that the lack of tough follow-ups in the first key segments (she queried Harris about fracking and immigration flip-flops) was notable, and that CNN puffery devoted to the personal side of Harris and Walz was excessive.
True and true. But it’s all relative.
Sure, the lack of persistent Tim Russert-like follow-ups on the interview front-end was disappointing, as was the back-end — where more time could and should have been devoted to more straight-up Q and A.
But while the GOP didn’t get what it wanted — an aha! gotcha! moment or gaffe — they got what they needed (pardon my imperfect Rolling Stones metaphor): The Vice-President’s overall performance was tentative — with answers that failed to convey confidence (she looked down, haltingly, far too frequently) and which, overall, raise still more questions.
Yes, Harris was indeed able to “check a box” as her supporters noted — but it’s clear she’s playing not to lose, which makes every successive interview and media engagement take on more significance. And those engagements and interviews will come, no matter what GOP skeptics think.
Events outside her campaign’s control — like the Israeli-Hamas conflict (and myriad other potential matters) can and will take control of any given news cycle requiring answers on the fly. Errors are imminent from any first time presidential candidate thrust into her position, they’re going to be reported, and the Trump folks will pounce, as they have on the Gold Star family imbroglio over Labor Day weekend.
“My values have not changed”…
The real news coming out of CNN’s interview with the Vice-President was her acknowledgement that while her positions on issues have changed — her values had not. Now, Harris has a platoon of seasoned media people — and this answer was surely war-gamed on multiple levels before deciding to deploy it as pseudo-rationale for flip-flopping on a handful of key issues.
But as an “answer” it doesn’t really get to the issue at hand.
Why the changes? The “values” answer doesn’t absolve her from the abandoned positions.
While campaign wise man Joe Klein spends most of his time trashing Trump in his latest Labor Day Reset post, he points out the looming dangers for Harris:
The open question remains: Who is Kamala Harris? What are those values that, she claimed, haven’t changed?
How will she answer the tough questions, especially about social issues, that will inevitably come?
How will she handle the unexpected? How fast on her feet is she? Her danger comes not from Trump, who is predictable, but from the moderators.
My first thought upon hearing the Harris answer was that while the “values have not changed” answer bought some time, it invites dangerous, unpredictable lines of inquiry — not just in the upcoming debate — but from local and national reporter alike, and voters themselves.
The matter of values will be explored.
As someone formerly accustomed to dealing with candidate gaffes, attempts to change the subject, cleaning up “misspeaking” incidents, and the like, my antennae sprang to attention when the word “values” was uttered — harkening all the way back to 1988 and Mike Dukakis.
While not 100 percent analogous by any means, Harris saying her values had not changed reminded me, tangentially, of the fateful Dukakis claim that his race against George H.W. Bush wasn’t “about ideology” — it was about “competence.”
The rest of that “discussion” unfolded in brutal manner for Dukakis following the Democratic convention. Team Harris surely calculates here that if Trump wants to have a debate about “values” — bring it on. But I keep hearing alarm bells for Harris on this front as she may have opened a Pandora’s Box of vulnerabilities.
Trump is defined — a discussion of the Vice-President’s “values” (raised herself) will be fresh and new, and has the feel of a target-rich environment.
“The media is unfair”
The GOP traditionally “works the refs” by complaining and lambasting “the media” for bias and unfair coverage. Yes, I’ll concede it’s generally true — and in the case of Trump vs. Harris thus far, it’s been pretty much one-sided.
But out on the campaign trail, I’ve always seen “the media” and any string of unfavorable reporting and coverage as just another negative variable to overcome. It’s not like Republicans don’t win races. They do — despite the media. You just have to deal with it — not cry and whine about it.
In truth, I’ve always viewed media bashing as more of a tactic in the playbook arsenal — not the primary “go-to” off tackle right, off tackle left “three yards and a cloud of dust” plays that grind the opponent down by the 4th quarter when well executed.
The national media is shark-like when there’s blood in the water. Everyone and everything is fair game. I also believe too many Republicans spend an exorbitant amount of time complaining about the media as opposed to focusing on their candidate’s electoral rationale, and doing the hard and fast contrast work against opponents.
Excess complaining, in my experience, is the last refuge of those running a weak communications effort and a shitty campaign.
So here we are in September — the outset of trench warfare.
Let’s see how things fare for Harris/Walz in the coming weeks as we’ve recently learned there was no Democratic convention bounce, battleground state polls show a slight Harris lead but basically deadlocked within the margin or error, and where Semafor’s Dave Weigel rightly notes:
For the third time in three campaigns, Trump is heading into September at a slight disadvantage — but it’s slighter than it was in those previous races.
If I’m the Trump folks — and I have no inside knowledge — my primary concern is the candidate’s ability to stay focused on the fact this is a ‘change’ election, and that immigration and the economy are the preeminent issues at hand.
While plenty of Republicans will continue to sit on the sidelines and complain, the professionals in the Harris camp know the “values” questions — among others — have just begun.
So, too, the mistakes — and the subsequent media and Trump pile-on. It’s gonna be ugly.