Matter settled. Harris can hold her own in an interview. Last night she was clear, articulate and substantive.
Kamala Harris was fine in her interview last night with CNN’s Dana Bash. She certainly contrasted well against Donald Trump, whose gibberish-saturated communication style lends itself to concerns about his cognitive decline.
Harris was forthright, articulate and direct. What I’m picking up the most is that her economic plan won’t be a continuation of Joe Biden’s approach, which has successfully tamed inflation, created jobs, lowered unemployment and brought good news, via the stock market, to the 55% of Americans who have retirement portfolios.
What will make Harris’s approach different? Biden’s economic programs were macro in scope, intent on stimulating the economy by creating projects. I’m thinking specifically of The American Rescue Plan and the American Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Harris seems to be more focused on creating opportunities for individuals and families by, for example, providing tax credits to new home buyers, extending child tax credits and expanding earned income tax credits.
You can argue all you want about the viability of Harris’ proposals, but you can’t complain about her not having a plan in mind.
Last night’s interview provided her with the opportunity to get these points across, and overall she did well. I particularly liked her refusal to engage in identity politics by answering “next question” when the subject of Donald Trump’s comments about her race came up.
Her change of heart on fracking (she used to be against it, now she’s ok with it) was mentioned, and she did at least a so-so job of talking her way through it, saying it will be possible to create a clean energy plan without banning fracking. I’ll buy it, but let’s face it, this is a political flip-flop. At worst it confirms that she’s a politician, at best it indicates a willingness to change her mind when confronted by facts that merit new sets of options. Take your pick.
Her VP choice Tim Walz was also pretty good, but didn’t add much substance to the interview in terms of the policy issues. He did spend more time than he probably wanted to on his military service, reiterating his pride in the 24 years he spent in the National Guard.
I appreciated it, but as a combat vet (I was a Marine Corps radioman at the DMZ in Vietnam from ‘66-’68), I’m still a bit put off by his now famous claim that he carried a gun in war even though he was nowhere near a combat zone. Last night he made the lame excuse that the utterance was a grammatical flub, which I think is baloney. If he’d just come out and say, sorry, I overspoke and I apologize to the actual combatants who have served this country, he’d be done with this thing.
Walz’s kerfuffle notwithstanding, though, I’m still all in for the Harris-Walz ticket, and I’m not saying that on the basis that Harris (seen above in a public domain image posted on wikimedia commons) is the lesser of two evils. She’s got the smarts, she’s got a plan and she represents the future. Nothing evil here. She’s just the greater of two candidates.
Last night’s interview should have sealed the deal with anybody who likes her but still has some lingering doubts.
John Tsitrian is a businessman and writer from the Black Hills. He was a weekly columnist for the Rapid City Journal for 20 years. His articles and commentary have also appeared in The Los Angeles Times, The Denver Post and The Omaha World-Herald. Tsitrian served in the Marines for three years (1966-69), including a 13-month tour of duty as a radioman in Vietnam. Republish with permission.
