Kamala’s CBS editors made her sound semi-coherent
We now have have the unedited footage of Kamala Harris’ 60 Minutes interview.
It’s about what you’d except. Instead of relatively succinct – although nevertheless vague – answers, we have meandering, lengthy, vague and often meaningless responses. Plus, some of the worst ones were left out. CBS edited the interview to make her look better, but even then she didn’t look good.
Here’s an article that describes some of the cuts.
And here’s the original:
Here’s an example of her answering the “why do you want to be president?” question:
C-BS ‘News’ employs garbage people paid to lie for the Democratic Party. So do the other networks. It wasn’t exactly on the square in 1979, but it did employ actual reporters who were not extensions of the DNC press office.
I was kind of underwhelmed, wasn’t really seeing anything in the unedited CBS interview that matched her really word-salady stuff. Sure, she bloviated, meaningless generalities, but nothing outside one standard deviation for Senators. She wasn’t crisp, that’s for sure.
how close we were
“1988: Journalistic Malpractice: The Need for a Professional Standard of Care in Defamation Cases”
https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1752&context=mulr
If intentionally and gravely misleading the public in a Presidential election doesn’t demonstrate the need for a criminal charge of Journalistic Malpractice, then what would qualify? And if the media is permitted to lie without consequence, then what public service do they provide?
End all public funding for NPR and PBS until such a rigorous standard is passed into federal law.
End all public funding for NPR and PBS
until such a rigorous standard is passed into federal law.Yes, end ALL funding!
Including what some media are / were getting via USAID!
Art Deco: C – BS LOL where the “C” stands for Criminal? Confused? Coniving? etc. ?
For the legal eagles: is there any way to bring suit for this type of result by analogy to prosecutors hiding exculpatory evidence? Libel and slander may be hard to “prove”, but this looks very premeditated. Then again, the best protection against incorrect speech is corrective speech – if/when you can get it out there in time. 12 plus weeks after the interview and the election is not “in time”.
News organizations give judges scads of good press for their ‘landmark’ decisions. The Warren Court reciprocated with the Sullivan decision, which made American media nearly untouchable from defamation suits. The British media seem to function without this absurdly tilted playing field. (Mark Steyn has also noted that he’s been a party to law suits in British, Canadian, and American courts and that for politicization and sheer soddish inefficiency American courts cannot be beat). Technological innovation since 1995 has wrecked the media’s revenue streams, so now they have quite limited manpower to do actual reporting and act as handmaidens for politicians. In re federal politics, I’m recalling an amusing story from around 2012 running down a list of prominent journalists paired to a list of Obama officials who were sharing their beds or who were close relations.
End all public funding for NPR and PBS
==
End all federal, state, and local government grants to every kind of corporate body aside from inter-governmental agencies, foreign governments, and subsidiary governments. The circumstantial exception to that rule should be limited to disaster relief. As for government contracting, with few exceptions contracts should be awarded consequent to sealed bids and government contractors should be carefully monitored to detect bid-rigging. (And were there any auditors looking for cr!p like USIAD’s Politico subscriptions?).
==
As for remittances to individuals and households, employee compensation aside, they should go for welfare provision. Persons with institutional addresses need not apply. In re the federal government, that would be Social Security old age, disability, and survivors benefits; unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, Medicaid, Medicare; vouchers, cash, insurance, and scholarships distributed by the Veterans Administration; vouchers, insurance, and cash distributed by FEMA; and some scholarships for niche clientele. In regard to state and territorial governments, that would be Medicaid, unemployment compensation, workman’s compensation, and some supplementary benefits for the disabled and for disaster relief. In re local governments, it should be limited to school vouchers, payments to foster parents, and vouchers for commuter transportation.
==
As for inter-governmental agencies, it might help if we had ‘sunset’ laws which required us to withdraw from an organization unless they passed a set of reviews by auditors outside the State Department undertaken at six year intervals and unless there was a specific presidential executive order maintaining our membership subsequent to such reviews. How many of our memberships are maintained due to sheer intertia?
==
In our dealings with foreign governments, the provision of services, equipment, and credits to buy equipment should be the order of the day, with cash transfers atypical except for rental payments.
==
Federal grants to local governments should be limited to disaster relief, indemnities for federal regulations which require capital expenditures, and payment-in-lieu-of-property taxes on federal real estate. Federal grants to state and territorial governments should be limited to those items (bar the property tax payments, which should go only to territorial governments). Medicaid, unemployment compensation, Interstate highway maintenance, and an unrestricted general grant. Grants to local governments from state and territorial governments should be limited to disaster relief, payment-in-lieu-of-taxes on state government real estate, an unrestricted grant to county government, and an unrestricted grant to school districts; state governments might also re-imburse philanthropic agencies for any property tax payments they made to local governments. Grants from county governments to municipal governments should be a single unrestricted grant. Unrestricted grants should always have a formula of distribution which includes recipient units’ resident population and per capita income as arguments.
==
Restore the independence of the philanthropic sector and of subsidiary governments. End the government patronage mill.
Sister Toldjah at Legal Insurrection points out this morning that it isn’t just Harris that looks bad in the unedited clips. In the portions never aired Whittaker often looks like he’s trying to coach Harris into giving more coherent answers. Her example is an off-camera exchange where he’s trying to get her to provide some sort of fake plan to pay for the spending she’s advocating but she just winds up confirming that taxes will go up.
Neo, this is very minor, but typo alert: you have “except” in the second sentence of the post instead of “expect.”
Thats unpossible of course the same cbs pulled the opposite trick 16 years earlier with sketchy editing and leading questions to get biden and obama over the line
Even in the edited version, Kamala comes across as a stupid, ignorant moron.
I still do not understand how any sentient human could have cast their vote for such an incredibly dumb and ignorant individual; and over 49% of voters did exactly that.
It’s interesting to hear all the reasons, supplied by democrats, why Kamala lost the election. You will note that not one commentator states the obvious; that she is just plain stupid and ignorant.
It is really frightening that someone of her “intelligence” could garner such a significant percentage of all the popular votes.
In the first words Kamala utters, just after Whitaker finishes his question, her delivery sounds almost, but not quite, slurred. The words are clear enough to be understood and well separated, but there is some “mush” there.
I think it was Gutfeld’s show where someone first pointed towards her be a bit drunk during Q&A. While I suspect that these most powerful pols can and do throw their weight around and ignore advice when they feel like it, my guess is that there are a selection of drugs administered by doctors that these politicians often use.
@ Art Deco > “Restore the independence of the philanthropic sector and of subsidiary governments. End the government patronage mill.”
(1) As always, your comment on restructuring the government is clear, carefully thought-out, and should be forwarded to Congress for action.
However, it trips up on your last sentence.
Too many legislators are benefitting from that mill, in addition to the government employees and NGO and contractors receiving the patronage, and everyone they deal with.
“it might help if we had ‘sunset’ laws”
(2) It would certainly help IF they were adhered too.
There are myriads of example where the Congress just rubber-stamps extensions of laws and institutions instead of actually investigating their actions and whether they are fulfilling their purpose.
See point one above.
(3) A rapid and deep scouring of the Augean Stables is the only thing that has any hope of success, and IMO that will be transient unless Congress can be persuaded to pass more laws like FOIA, putting mandated transparency on a permanent footing.
And extend FOIA to force publication of anything legitimately NOT national security related (and severely narrow that exemption), so that requests for documents are not even needed to see how our tax (and borrowed) money is being spent.
Relevant to the need for Art Deco’s proposal on restructuring government agencies and programs is this post that Hubert linked on the Open Thread for 2/7.
Kunstler hits enough nails on the head to play a symphony.
https://www.kunstler.com/p/how-it-worked
I think something is wrong with her. She should see a neurologist. This is past dumb, it’s incoherent. She talks like someone on psychedelics.
I think something is wrong with her. She should see a neurologist. This is past dumb, it’s incoherent. She talks like someone on psychedelics.
==
Harmeet Dhillon, who was acquainted with her 30 years ago, said she did not used to be like this. Possibly the unhappy effects of aging. Possibly excessive imbibing or excessive use of prescription drugs.
I don’t know what it is or what caused it, but Harris looks like a broken person to me.