Tag: al-smith-dinner-snub

A few months ago, when the Dem Party leaders selected Harris as the nominee, I asserted that her political policies were extremely far to the left, and if the public were aware of them, she would lose in a landslide. According to multiple media reports, at the outset of the campaign some 70% of the voters were unclear as to her policies and voting record. Consequently, for most of the campaign the polls have reported the race to be extremely close, virtually a dead heat. l suggested that in order to win her election strategy should be to endeavor to keep these policies hidden. Therefore, her overall strategy should adhere to the following principles:

1. Say as little as possible.
2. When forced to speak to the media only do so with friendly journalists who would not press her or ask follow-up questions.
3. Limit her speeches to scripted comments and speak in generalities, rather than specifics.
4. Rely on the friendly media to cover up, omit or alter any faux pas.
5. When all else fails attack Trump and blame him for everything.

Conversely, Trump’s winning strategy was to somehow make the public aware of Harris’ far left policies. I believe that this strategy has been somewhat successful as more voters have become cognizant of Harris’ policies. The question is, is it enough.

For the most part Harris’ strategy was successful until recently. In the last week, however, it was becoming apparent that Trump had seized the momentum, which is very significant in elections. The Harris campaign had come to realize that she needed to change the narrative in order to regain the momentum. It decided that she should grant more interviews, including one with Fox News. It was a gamble, but it was one she had to risk. A few days ago, she participated in a one-on-one interview with Fox’s Bret Baer. Baer had a well-earned reputation of being fair but tough. Harris would have to be on her “A” game.

In a nutshell, she was not, not even close. Basically, she “laid an egg.” She was exposed before a huge audience. For many of them it was her first exposure to them. Rather than attract undecided voters, she turned them off.

My analysis of the interview is as follows:

1. Parts of it were painful to watch. From the outset Harris appeared to be uncomfortable, defensive and argumentative.
2. Baer was professional and respectful, but he did not let her get away with vague, general, non-responsive, and incomplete answers, which normally are her staple. Whenever she tried that he challenged her and asked follow-up questions in order to elicit an appropriate answer. Clearly, her inexperience with probing questions showed. She was not used to being challenged, and she didn’t handle it well.
3. The interview was short – only 26 minutes. At some point, Baer realized that the point of her rambling, “word-salad” responses was to “run out the clock.” He began to interrupt her answers in order to elicit meaningful information. In some cases, she snapped back a retort like “may I finish responding, please? Many times, they ended up interrupting and talking over each other.
4. There were several contentious topics, including immigration, the economy, relationship with Israel and Iran, and her relationship with Biden, among others.
5. Regarding immigration, she continually dodged questions regarding the Biden/Harris policies. She did not accept any responsibility for the disaster at the southern border. She failed to explain her failure as “border Czar” to solve resolve the “root causes” or even visit the border until it became apparent that the issue had become a major negative. She stubbornly declined to concur that halting construction of the border wall or terminating Trump’s “remain in Mexico” policy were mistakes. She tried to deflect blame onto Trump for Congress’ failure to pass a comprehensive bi-partisan immigration bill, which she had championed. Baer interjected to explain that the bill would have made matters worse by giving the current policy the force of law and providing a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal immigrants presently in the US. That comment sparked one of the angry exchanges referred to above. She couldn’t or wouldn’t even disclose how many illegal immigrants had entered the country under her watch.
6. She refused to elaborate on the controversial matter of Biden’s competence, such as what did she know and when did she know it.
7. She offered no cogent plans on how to fix the economy, inflation or crime.
8. Many times, she went to her default answer, which was to blame Trump. At one point, she characterized him as “unstable and unhinged” and questioned his “mental competence to hold office.”
9. In a related matter Harris declined to attend the annual Al Smith Dinner. This is a non-partisan event hosted by the Catholic Diocese of NY. The goal is to raise money for various Catholic charities. Normally, it is attended by a cross-section of prominent politicians, wealthy executives, donors and members of the media. Attendance is considered a “must” for presidential candidates. Failure to attend is perceived as a “slap in the face” to Catholics. In the 90-year history of the event only one presidential candidate has ever declined to attend. That was Walter Mondale, the Dem candidate for president, in 1984. Coincidentally or not, in the ensuing election Mondale only won one state. Harris claimed she was campaigning, but the truth of the matter is she was already on thin ice with Catholics. She and her far left base are hardcore pro-choice and have been very critical of pro-lifers who have investigated and criticized what they considered to be Planned Parenthood’s “barbarism” toward women who choose to seek alternatives to abortion.

CONCLUSION

It was not a good week for Harris. Her campaign aides and allies in the media will likely try to spin it, but by any objective analysis her attempt to use the Bret Baer interview to widen her appeal had the opposite effect.

Likewise, Catholics will perceive her spurning the Al Smith Dinner as an insult.

All that said, the polls released in the last couple of days did not show any discernable movement. The race is still too close to call. Most everyone agrees it will be determined by the turnout for each candidate.

GET OUT AND VOTE!