Truncated quotes from both sides now: “with a swipe of my pen”
Please watch this ad:
?HOLY SMOKES?
This is the single-most devastating ad for Kamala Harris.
Career ending.
— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) October 26, 2024
Horrifying, right? As far as I can tell, about 90% of the ad is factual; Harris did arrest and prosecute some parents of truant children in California – twenty in all. In addition:
However, as the San Francisco District Attorney, Harris sponsored a state Senate bill — SB 1317 — that was introduced by state Sen. Mark Leno, who is also from San Francisco. The state bill was modeled on her truancy initiative in San Francisco, and did result in some parents being jailed.
So it’s not that part of the ad I want to dispute – it’s the interspersion of a speech Harris gave about “with a swipe of my pen.” You can see that part from 1:19 to 1:55. I had read about that “swipe” speech some time ago, and it occurred to me that it actually might have been a speech about the dangers of prosecutorial powers (it’s from 2019). And sure enough, when I looked it up, I discovered this sort of thing:
We found that rather than bragging about her prosecutorial power, Harris was discussing the importance of leaders using power responsibly because of the potential for harm if power is misused. She said that it was something she realized early in her 20s when she started work as a prosecutor.
In her 2019 speech, Harris sought to describe then-President Donald Trump as using his power irresponsibly. The viral clip ends before a crucial part of her speech.
“And I was just a lowly deputy DA,” she went on to say to laughter from the audience. “Yet we have a person in the White House who holds the office of president of the United States, who does not fully, or even partially, understand what it means to have power,” she said of Trump. “When you truly understand what it means to be powerful, you understand that the greatest measure of your strength is not who you beat down, it is who you lift up.”
You don’t have to agree with Harris’ comments about Trump to understand that her speech was meant to be a caution about power, and that in the ad it’s the right using the technique of the truncated quote in order to mislead. This is something the left does constantly and all-too-effectively, in particular against Trump but also against any other GOP candidate they see as vulnerable to it. The right uses the truncated quote much less often, but it still uses it at times.
It’s wrong to do it when anyone does it, but once one side uses it, what’s the other to do? “We can’t play by Marquess of Queensbury rules” and all that. “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its boots.”
So how do you fight such techniques – or any other duplicity – effectively if you play by the rules against an opponent who doesn’t? Must you fight fire with fire? Does airing the truth really work? Isn’t the truth always just getting its boots on?
I actually think that this particular ad would work nearly as well with just the truancy evidence, and that there’s enough footage of Kamala saying awful things without the need to use the “with a swipe of my pen” quotes. But the “swipe” footage intensifies the rest, and it must have felt like a nearly irresistible temptation to make use of it.
“truncated quote” or not — ‘With the Swipe of my Pen’ – is a great description of just *ONE* of the many issues involved with living under the Rule of Law. Excellent ad, IMHO!
Thanks for the clarification, but Biden and Harris are leading lawfare, and colluding with state AG to do exactly what she describes – against not only Trump, but Pro-life advocates, and the J6 political prisoners. Only Trump has the $ to fight, us normies are shix-outa-luck.
Shoot, they nailed Generals and Trump’s Lawyers with this tactic.
Karmi:
I agree that it very effectively highlights the extraordinary power welded by prosecutors.
neo’s integrity here is one of the reasons I read her. I saw the ad and did not notice the interspersed material…
As for the truncated out-of-context quote, you go looking for this you will find it everywhere, on the Left and on the Right, and you will find this is not the first time it was done on the Right (as neo acknowledges).
Honestly, isn’t it a better strategy to attack Kamala Harris for her overall soft-on-crime policies than her sometimes tough-on-crime actions as a prosecutor? I see the right trying to have it both ways these days.
Good ad, best in her own words.
MAHA definitely took the “swipe of my pen” statement out of context, but when you realize how conscious she is of a prosecutor’s power and then you see how she chose to use it, isn’t it even worse?
Some, or any substantiation, of the claim made by The Professor would be refreshing. The Professor goes beyond what neo said, implying that Republicans are no better than the left when it comes to lying by misdirection.
But of course The Great Orange Whale is a known faschist and Nazi, so whatever it takes to save “our democracy” is indeed necessary.
I’ll feel bad about the right taking quotes out of context when the Democrats and MSM acknowledge that Kamala and Biden have spent the last seven years slandering Trump about his Charlottesville remarks.
And even if her “swipe of the pen” comment is contextualized, it still highlights how she acted, and will act, as opposed to what she said in that instance. The ad shows how she used her discretion against those families, just because she could, and laughed about it. The “concern” she expressed in the “swipe of the pen” comment only highlights what a phony she is.
It’s an excellent question; how does the side playing by the rules respond
to the opposing side that does not play by the rules?
If one basketball team abides by the rules and the other side plays basketball as if rugby rules prevail, should the “honest” side just continue as if all is OK and thereby claim the moral high ground?
Recall that the millions shoved into Hitler’s gas chambers had the moral high ground.
The only choice is to fight fire with fire. To do otherwise is suicidal.
One could argue that in the end, the “honest” side will prevail, thus one should not stoop to the dirt bag level of the opponent.
The problem with this approach is that “in the end” could be many, many years into the future and/or the only party left standing are the dirt bags.
The dumbpublicans need to fight just as dirty as the demonkrats, but they generally do not. This is one reason the dumbpublicans repeatedly get their ass kicked.
Except she had pledged to neutralize the second amendment and other steps by fiat,
The trump eo were firmly based on statutes, whereas say obamas are crafted from thin air
@John Tyler:It’s an excellent question; how does the side playing by the rules respond
to the opposing side that does not play by the rules?
It’s an old problem, traditionally solved by communication accompanied by credible threat as deterrence, and where necessary reprisals, similarly to how the norms against chemical and biological warfare and mistreating POWs are enforced.
I will enjoy the Left and its media adjuncts explaining at length why taking something Harris said at one time and sticking it in at another time pretending it’s part of the same statement, like they just did on 60 Minutes and defended, is wrong.
In the meantime, the Left screaming “no fair it’s out of context” at THIS ad will ensure that it gets seen by many more people, which is a strategy they have followed deliberately themselves. And they can say well AKSHUALLY Harris only said the part about using her gang and homicide staff for arresting parents and putting them in jail, instead of gangs and murderers.
For every anti-Trump ad they apply their newfound scruples to, we can edit one of ours accordingly.
“she had pledged to neutralize the second amendment and other steps by fiat”
If she is ‘declared’ the winner, she may issue her fiat and then experience what happens when she orders it to be enforced.
As Orwell pointed out long ago, “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”
Immature ‘adults’ who deny reality and play with ‘fire’ will sooner or later get burnt and the deeper the denial, the more intense the resulting ‘fire’.
“The Cheating Begins: Massive Electoral Fraud Uncovered in PA”
https://thenewamerican.com/video/tv/the-cheating-begins-massive-electoral-fraud-uncovered-in-pa/
I agree with the condemnation of taking statements out of context for polemics. But: Biden has, with the swipe of a pen, severely damaged the energy sector, wiped out any vestige of border control, and “forgiven” debts which he had no power to forgive. Kamala, when asked, said that she couldn’t think of anything she would have done differently. So the “swipe of the pen” criticism isn’t too far off.
@Shadow:Honestly, isn’t it a better strategy to attack Kamala Harris for her overall soft-on-crime policies than her sometimes tough-on-crime actions as a prosecutor? I see the right trying to have it both ways these days.
There’s “crime” as represented by gangs and violence and illegal immigration, and there’s “crime” as represented by parents whose kids miss school or don’t want their kids getting sexual reassignment surgery or those who pray outside abortion clinics.
No one on the Right is criticizing Harris for the gangbangers she locked up. She took people off gang crime and put them on parents of truant children, that’s what we’re criticizing her for.
We’ve already seen in the UK how the government cracks down hard on nice middle class people for Facebook comments or public silent prayer and lets real criminals get away with everything. The Soviet Union classified criminals as “socially friendly elements” and let them occupy privileged positions in prisons and camps, where they could prey upon the political prisoners.
It’s an old tactic of repressive governments, and it’s safer for the cops, too.
So the left isn’t playing with the same set of rules? Their rule is Whatever it takes to win. See Harry Reid and Mittens.
IIRC the left really didn’t like it when McConnel used the rules, changed by the Democrats, against leftist policies. Karma is a …..
But this time they want to zap the first three amendments to the constitution (the last just in case)
Robinson called out the travesty of rotherdam and rochdale, so of course hes a target of the dhimmi state
She had the power, and she used it. Why is she using an example of her own abuse of power to attack Donald Trump?
It underscores that you have to examine everything. Nobody, no party, can be exempted from being held to account for what they say, what they represent. Misrepresentations for the sake of arguing a point – like this one, with the ‘stroke of the pen’ comment being taken out of context – must always be identified and held to account. Whoever wins this upcoming election: the oversight and pushback are just beginning.
@Christopher B:Why is she using an example of her own abuse of power to attack Donald Trump?
She didn’t. It was two different speeches. In one speech she bragged about cracking down on parents as a prosecutor. The other speech she said her experience as a prosecutor showed her how easy it would be for Trump to abuse his power. neo is pointing out, citing Politifact, that the two speeches were combined together to create the impression she was talking about parents the whole time.
Unfortunately Politifact can’t seem to say Biden and Harris were wrong to say Trump called Nazis “fine people” without a lot of throat-clearing and yes-buttery–all they are willing to do is “present context”, but they don’t come out and call it a lie. (I can’t find where they fact checked it and rated it “false” if they ever did; their search function is terrible.)
@Aggie:It underscores that you have to examine everything.
I totally agree: you can’t outsource your obligation to think to Team Red or Team Blue. Too many power-hungry sociopaths and grifters out there…
My favorite example of someone realizing that someone on their team that they trusted turned out to be a grifter:
Doesn’t she enjoy her position of power? Not rhetorically, but genuinely?
If she does, the ad is true to the facts.
Some problems require immediate attention, arterial bleeding (aka the Brandon/Harris junta) other problems are chronic and won’t be immediately fatal (the Republican Harris stroke of a pen ad). If you can’t tell the difference God help us all.
If the order of the clips were reversed, with a voice-over in between saying something like, “That was Harris, warning about the dangers of unbridled prosecutor’s discretion. Is she a hypocrite? Here she is, discussing prosecuting parents using a law she proposed. You decide.”
What’s the difference?
Yes, it does sound like Harris is warning against abuses of government power, rather than celebrating it, but she speaks with such zest that one has to wonder if perhaps she does find joy in throwing her weight around. Remember Paul Begala’s “Stroke of the pen. Law of the land. Kind of cool.” It’s possible to get that vibe from what Harris is saying. She wouldn’t be the first lawyer to celebrate winning cases that didn’t deserve to be won. The ad is deceptive, but so much of what Harris and Walz and their ads have said has been deceptive that they little ground to complain.
@buddhaha: What’s the difference?
What’s the difference between
a) copying someone else’s words without attribution
b) copying someone else’s words, adding quotation marks and attribution
a) is plagiarism, and b) is not plagiarism. It’s similar here. Had they said it was two different occasions, there’d be nothing to complain about. (To be fair she is wearing different clothes and in a different room, I wasn’t observing closely enough to notice this the first time.)
Of course neo is right about the principle involved. I’d like to live in a world where everyone followed that principle. But instead I, and neo as well, live in a world where one side of the aisle gives themselves a license to do it whenever they want while screaming about “principle” when it’s done to them.
Nothing is going to change until they understand why the principle is there and appreciate it. They defended that tactic when 60 Minutes did it to help Kamala Harris and they defend it every time it’s done to hurt Trump or any other Republican. They need to understand why living in a world where people do that to you sucks.
The only way out is through.
It might be out of context, but in context its warning of the dangers of the very acts she has in fact committed. It shows hypocrisy – I know its dangerous to misuse my power but I just don’t care.
JohnTyler on October 28, 2024 at 5:58 pm said:
“It’s an excellent question; how does the side playing by the rules respond
to the opposing side that does not play by the rules?”
That is why I have added a corollary to the Golden Rule, from tit-for-tat from game theory: “Do unto others as they have done unto you, … until they stop.”
Niketas’s reply at 6:23 pm works, too. Especially his citing of the potential for a Streisand effect to propel this ad wider than MAHA might have originally hoped.
If we all trusted Kamala not to continue the lawfare against us, we might be shocked and appalled at the dishonesty of taking the “power” speech segments out of context. However, knowing the context does not actually diminish the power of the ad. It makes it more chilling in a way—she did what she did to those “truant” parents with full knowledge and destructive intent. The context of the “power” speech segments doesn’t absolve her in the least: it almost makes it worse. I’m rating this post “half-true—but the true half doesn’t matter.”
Contrary to the spirit of this post, I’m heartened to see evidence that someone on our side has the killer instinct of a young Lee Atwater.
But WHO (and/or WHAT), in the end, will actually be “counting” the “votes”??
(Make that “tabulating”…to paraphrase one of history’s—apparently—more popular monstrosities….)
– – – – – – – –
In addition, I continue to marvel at the assumption (or usage) that Kamala Harris is actually “a thing”, in the sense that she’s the one making any decisions—any decisions—in this Borg-like group that the Democratic Party has become.
(Perhaps the fact that she’s well aware of her puppetness is the reason for her—exquisite—propensity for word salad…)
she’s one of those wind up toys, with a very short string, maybe as harmeet dillon says, she was once a formidable debater, well there should be some proof somewhere, maybe she she got lazy, in a one party state, one doesn’t have to work too hard, it is instructive, she has never run again for the same office, her dem adversaries were nearly as hapless as she was, fazio and the like,
she has wielded extraordinary power, take the mother she tried for truancy, because her daughter was sick, the whole daleiden affair, where a journalist was jailed for recording the trade in fetal body parts, by a company called stem express,which is something out or a Robin Cook novel, other subterfuges involve where she was on January 6th, most of the press is like the proverbial dead parrot sketch, it’s pining for the fjords, no it’s not, it is no longer a live thing, its more like those reanimated zombies by the voudoun witchdoctors, the hougan
I gather that the context of the pen swipe clip was something like …
“How terrible it would be if Donald Trump were to do to us what we have been doing to him and his followers!”
… And, apparently to parents of truant students.
Seems valid to include it in the abuses ad with or without a context disclaimer.
That she said it in 2019, before they really got to work on Trump and followers makes the irony of it even more crunchy.
“…once a formidable debater…”
Indeed, a MASTER debater: that “Oh c’mon you KNOW what I’m talking about” is a brilliantly unassailable position.
“No, actually I don’t…”
“DO!”
“Don’t.”
“DO!!”
“Don’t.”
“DO!!!”
“Don’t.”
“DOOOOO….”
A stunning example of the 21st-century version of the Lincoln-Douglas debates…?
The problem with the sports analogy – one side playing by the rules while the other doesn’t – is the referee. In a game, if the referees enforce the rules against one team but let the other break the rules with impunity, the virtuous team is at a severe disadvantage.
However, that’s not the case in a democracy. The referees in a democracy are the voters. We are not the audience, who is powerless in a game. We make the calls, although it’s a collective decision.
If I catch you lying once, I’ll know you’re a liar and I will not trust your future statements. Lying to match your opponents’ lies doesn’t make you a tough guy doing whatever it takes to win. It weakens you. It lets all the referees out there say, well, they both lie. That leads to an abandonment of reason (If everyone lies, why think through their positions?) and an embrace of emotional decision making.
Which is where we are as a nation, I suppose.
Who is the referee? If the press feeds the referees (voters) false and biased information is it really ever a fair match?
Arterial bleeding versus a paper cut. Both involve blood. Fairness indeed.
I guess I missed something germane, but I cannot find who sponsored the ad.
My first take was that it was clumsy.
The single Black mom that lost everything is powerful enough to negate other arguments about the vid.
And, who among us was incapable of heading out the door to” go to school” and making a detour to join our ner-do-well friends down at the beach, the park, the pool hall or bowling alley?
Oft repeated anecdote: Friend, petite single mom, finds out 200 pound high school athlete son has skipped school, yells at him, slaps him a couple of times.
Son is overheard by teacher at school laughingly telling his friends about it.
CPS called, mom ends up forced to attend anger management classes and gets occasional surprise visits from CPS.
“with the swipe of my pen . . .I get to change someone’s life” cackle, cackle, cackle.
Sounds like the trailer for a horror/thriller movie – that should send chills down anyone’s spine.
@Niketas Choniates
While the timing may matter to a degree in the ad, I think my question still stands.
Donald Trump was President for four years if I am not mistaken (Harris at times seems think he’s been President far longer). Plenty of time for him to have abused his power in the White House. Why is she using a power that she evidently abused as an example of what *might happen* if Donald Trump is *reelected* rather than identifying an instance where *he* abused his power?
Christopher B:
Their argument – and whether or not you or I buy it, I believe a lot of Democrats do – is that this is Trump’s 2nd term and he is “unleashed” to be the Nazi/tyrant he really wants to be. Plus, because of what THEY did to him (although they leave that part out), he’s out for revenge.
1. The Democrats have initiated and sustained a civil war in the US—officially since the 2016 Russiagate hoax foisted upon the country by Hillary Clinton and Obama—and propagated enthusiastically by the morally bankrupt media—and unofficially with Obama’s pledge to “transform” the country.
2. Trump, if he becomes president again, will be a “With malice towards none, with charity for all” President.
3. Besides, if he does become President again, he’ll be far too busy trying to bring the country back from the brink of destruction, to which the Democrats have brought it.
+ Bonus:
NYC Mayor Adams shows why “Biden” has decided that Adams MUST be kneecapped…
“Mayor Adams scolds media for asking about Trump-Hitler comparisons: ‘Enough of this’”—
https://www.foxnews.com/video/6363944990112
@ Charles: “Sounds like the trailer for a horror/thriller movie – that should send chills down anyone’s spine.”
Perfectly suitable for a Holloween celebration. But that’s it??!! Holloween as the October Surprise(TM) ??!!
Well, that is pretty lame. Or to borrow a great phrase from Mr.BZ, “not at all crunchy…!!”
om,
Yeah, I’m not saying both sides have lied the same or making any kind of moral equivalence argument. I’m making a pragmatic argument that lying can backfire and destroy the reputation of the liar. This is why trust in media has collapsed; they’ve been caught lying too many times. Even Bezos has come out to say most people don’t trust the WaPo so they have to start doing things differently.
I’m somewhat surprised that no one did a Flash-Back to the Past of the Obama Era: (one post from each side of the aisle, unless Reason is considered to be IN the aisle)
https://www.npr.org/2014/01/20/263766043/wielding-a-pen-and-a-phone-obama-goes-it-alone
https://reason.com/2016/11/14/ive-got-a-pen-and-ive-got-a-phone-obamas/
“The dangers of unchecked executive power: ‘I’ve Got a Pen and I’ve Got a Phone’: Obama’s Executive Overreach Becomes Trump’s Executive Overreach”
Except he didn’t. Their panicked present tense headline “becomes” instead of the proper future tense “could become” was a bit of predictive over-reach.
Biden Inc, however, deserves their appellation as Obama’s Third Term for using weapons-grade pens.
And surely Neo’s remark about “Their argument – and whether or not you or I buy it, I believe a lot of Democrats do – is that this is Trump’s 2nd term and he is “unleashed” to be the Nazi/tyrant he really wants to be” is a projection based on Obama’s past propensities.
Lots of articles are still available on Google (a censorial oversight, or just old news?).
I chose this one, from before the TDS of National Review’s writers, because it showcases why some Republicans were gobsmacked that the Democrats went after Trump in 2016 for being a Russian puppet.
We still remembered 2012.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/03/obamas-flexibility-doctrine-charles-krauthammer/
And yet, so many of the pundits who saw this so clearly from 2012-2015 still readily jumped on the Democrats’ Never Trump bandwagon in 2016 (and are still on board).
That’s what gobsmacked me.
Thanks AF. Excellent comment (and much-needed reminder).
Even in context, I’m not convinced that the ad is that misleading. Given the context–that she is warning how Trump can misuse power–establishes that she knows how certain powers can be misused. I do think the bit about the woman prosecuted because her daughter was not in school should have (and would’ve been more effective had it) followed rather than preceded the clip about power.
In context, the discussion of power is aimed at Trump, but the prosecution example points out that, even in context, her discussion of power applies to her actions even more than to her alleged fears re Trump.