Sunday, September 15, 2024
spot_imgspot_img
Sunday, September 15, 2024

Milwaukee Press Club 'Excellence in Wisconsin Journalism' 2020 & 2021 Award Winners

Yes, Kamala Harris’s CNN Interview Was a Total Train Wreck [VIDEO]

spot_img

Kamala Harris and her emotional support governor, Tim Walz, sat down for her only interview during the campaign. We watched all 26 minutes and 38 seconds of the pre-recorded CNN interview so you don’t have to, although, if you want to, we’ve put the full videos at the end of this story.

Was it a train wreck? Yes, because the interview gives Harris’s foes a lot of legitimate fodder, reminds voters that, oh yeah, she’s currently in office now, and didn’t help her overall. So that hurts her. Harris, the vice president in an unpopular administration, wasn’t able to sever herself from the Biden-Harris agenda in the interview (because it’s the Biden-HARRIS administration). She called it “transformative” and essentially supported “Bidenomics.” This also hurts her. She’s been able to dishonestly reposition as the “change agent” when she’s not asked questions about the past four years. That changed tonight.

In one of the most disastrous moments for Harris, interviewer Dana Bash asked whether she has any regrets about not leveling with the American people about Biden’s obvious cognitive challenges sooner. Harris said, “No, not at all.” That’s a devastating answer since we all know what we saw. She lied to us, and she’s okay with that.

She then rambled on about Biden’s personality before trashing former President Donald Trump. Bash missed the obvious follow-up questions: “Then why did Biden step down from the campaign?” And: “How severe are Biden’s cognitive challenges exactly?” And: “How can Biden be competent enough to serve as president right now if he’s not well enough to run for president or be criminally charged?” And: “When did you learn about his cognitive challenges – specifically – and what did you do about it?” And “Will he resign to make you president before the election?” Instead, Bash allowed Harris to babble on about making pancakes and doing a puzzle. And so it went.

Harris’s other worst moment came when she was asked about fracking. It was one of the rare times that Bash did her job. Harris said she would not ban fracking and claimed she “kept my word, and I will keep my word” but had no real answer when Bash asked why she said in 2019 that she was in favor of banning fracking. “My values have not changed,” she responded. This answer will hurt her in Pennsylvania, and it was slippery and dishonest. So your values haven’t changed but your positions did? Sounds like you’re either lying or you sold them out. Which isn’t a great value. She then rambled about climate change.

Harris’s central problem is that she is trying to run from her own administration’s record and her past values (she was ranked the most liberal senator in the country in 2019, which Bash did not ask her about).

The optics were also a problem. Harris wore gray, looked very tired, had circles under her eyes, seemed to ramble at times, looked down a lot, and hunched over. Overall, she did not project energy or confidence, and this matters on TV. The setting was blah and looked like a boring office conference room. Having her sit next to Walz made her look small. No one will watch this interview and think, “Wow, she should do more of these. Can’t wait for her to square off against Putin.” They will think, “Yeah, don’t do more interviews. And why was Tim Walz sitting there again?” Even Democratic operatives hopped on TV to claim she didn’t move the needle. That’s the best they could do.

Remember: THIS WAS CNN with a biased interviewer and that was the best they could do.

Harris sounds even worse in snippets of the interview, which will be shared endlessly on social media. Her comments on Israel will likely further enrage the pro-Gaza left AND Jewish voters (she’s for a ceasefire and wants a “deal” she never fully explained but won’t stop weapons shipments to Israel.)

Like any good emotional support puppy, Walz sat there as Harris uttered generality after generality. But he was awful on the few questions he did get, blaming his lies about carrying weapons IN war on his wife and poor grammar. “I speak like they do. I speak candidly. I wear my emotions on my sleeves,” he said, adding later that his wife told him “My grammar’s not always correct.”

That’s a new one. It’s sort of his version of Clinton parsing the word “is.” Maybe every liar should try that. “I wasn’t lying. It was just poor grammar!” Yeah, right. Bash could have asked him about other lies, but when 95% of your air time is spent sitting there like a potted plant or being asked about your lies, it’s not good.

Bash didn’t ask enough follow-up questions overall, and the interview was too short. CNN officials must explain to the American people whether they edited anything out and release the full transcript and outtakes.

Kamala harris cnn interview
Kamala harris cnn interview with tim walz.

Harris seems to forget she’s in office now. Harris was asked what she would do on her first day in office even though she’s already in office. She said people are ready for a “new way” forward. She commented that she wants to turn the page on the “last decade,” prompting Bash to point out that she’s been in office for a third of it. Ouch.

Asked why the Biden-Harris administration hasn’t fixed the economy yet and why prices for groceries and housing are so high, Harris largely blamed the pandemic, but that old dog will no longer hunt. She then admitted that prices for groceries are too high and the border is a problem.

There were some word salads. In response to the “What would you do on your first day in office” question, she said, “Well, there are several things I will tell you – first and foremost one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class.” This went on for some time. The word salads strike us as a verbal crutch that buy her time to think. Which isn’t confidence-inspiring.

Her interview was filled with such platitudes – I want a deal, I want to help the middle class, I want to reduce costs. But the American people are crying out for specific solutions. In contrast, Trump’s speeches are so long and specific that he threatens to drown people in the details.

Harris mentioned extending the child tax credit three times and investing in the “American family around affordable housing.” Take that, childless cat ladies.

She claimed that she and Biden have brought inflation down. Americans know what they pay for groceries. Denying a reality we all see and feel isn’t going to work, and polls show Americans are most concerned with the economy.

In that light, Bash reminded people that Harris supported the Green New Deal, which would decimate farmers and the American economy. As the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty put it, the “Green New Deal would cost Wisconsin families over $40,000 per year” and “cripple” the agriculture industry. Harris linked climate change to the Inflation Reduction Act, which will completely lose most viewers.

Bash failed most miserably on questioning about the border crisis, allowing Harris to shift a question on the record number of people illegally crossing to Trump getting Congress to kill a border bill.

Bash did not ask the obvious follow-up questions about specific actions taken by Biden-Harris that caused the surge. Nor did she remind people what was actually in that border bill. It’s not good, according to the Heritage Foundation.

If the American people are reminded what’s actually in it, they will applaud Trump for getting it killed.

Also notable was what Bash did not ask about. She didn’t get into Ukraine or Afghanistan. Bash did not ask Harris about the prosecutions of Trump, the attempt to practically bankrupt him, or Harris’s past comments advocating censoring his speech on Twitter. Nor did Bash ask Harris about the DNC’s despicable efforts to kick the Green Party, Cornel West, and (until recently) RFK Jr. off ballots. For that matter, she didn’t ask her about RFK Jr. throwing his support to Trump or about the assassination attempt. Bash also did not ask Harris about big tech censorship, including Mark Zuckerberg’s letter admitting that the Biden-Harris administration sought to censor Americans.

Look for a desperate attempt by the Harris campaign to find a way out of the upcoming debate. It was that bad.

This is an opinion piece.

derrick van orden

Derrick Van Orden, Tom Tiffany Demand Answers From Dane County Sheriff

Reps. Tom Tiffany (WI-07) and Derrick Van Orden (WI-03) sent a letter to Dane County...
Project 2025

The Project 2025 Lie VS. Rules for Radicals

Democratic candidates and campaign ads often cite “Project 2025” as the outline for a future...
UWM encampment

UW-Milwaukee Chancellor Mone Greenlights Harassment and Intimidation on Campus [COLUMN]

Flunking Yet Another Leadership Test This is an opinion piece by Shale Horowitz Another semester, another leadership...
uw-madison Administrators at UW Schools

Rep. David Steffen Questions Number of Administrators at UW Schools

(The Center Square) – A state lawmaker wants a full accounting of how the University of Wisconsin System has thousands of more administrators now than it did 30 years ago, despite having fewer teachers.

State Rep. David Steffen told The Center Square on Wednesday the UW system has hired 6,000 administrators over the past 30 years.

“What are the students and the taxpayers getting as a result of that investment?” Steffen asked. “That becomes very difficult, especially when you dig deeper to realize that it really isn't an increase in the faculty, the in-classroom personnel. These are all ancillary, secondary, non-essential type of additions to the head count.”

Steffen pointed to a memo from the Legislative Fiscal Bureau that showed in the 1992-93 school year, the UW had 26,360 full time employees. In the 2022-23 school year, the UW’s headcount grew to 33,538.

The additions are all out of the classroom. The LFB’s memo shows the faculty headcount in 1992-93 was 7,181. That number fell to 5,729 in 2022-23.

“How are all of these ancillary and secondary staff positions providing a better product?” Steffen asked.

Staffen said he is pressing ahead with his questions because the University of Wisconsin is asking for nearly $1 billion more in the next state budget.

Steffen said lawmakers and taxpayers need to know how the university is spending the $7.5 billion it currently has before lawmakers can give the school more money.

“So, we have an entity that obviously has not applied the same amount of effort to providing better services at a lower cost with less people. They are the only entity in the world that appears to have taken that approach,” Steffen said. “And that's unfortunate for the taxpayers, especially when you are looking to make an ask at the same time for $855 million dollars more in your upcoming budget.”

University leaders say they need the $855 million more to avoid a tax increase, and to keep the university competitive with other colleges and universities.

Gov. Tony Evers is expected to include the university’s request in his proposed budget.

Steffen said he’s shared the LFB information on the rise in administrative staffers with other lawmakers, including the legislature’s committees on higher education, and the Legislative Study Committee that is looking into the UW’s future.

“This is the sort of issue that needs to receive a tremendous amount of attention. I'm glad that we have this now in September, so that for the next four or five months before the governor's budget is presented, we can begin that communication with the university to make sure that it's clear to them we need better justification for your existing funding in any new funding increases,” Steffen added. “No longer can the response be ‘Give us the money because we're the UW system. Period.’.”

SHIELD Act

Rep. Bryan Steil Proposes Bill to Prevent Illegal Political Donations Ahead of Election

(The Center Square) – Following nearly a year of investigations into political donation platform ActBlue, Republican Rep. Bryan Steil has introduced legislation he says will increase transparency and prevent illegal straw donations in online political donations.

The Secure Handling of Internet Electronic Donations Act, or SHIELD Act, would prohibit political campaigns from accepting contributions from gift cards or other prepaid credit cards, and require them to obtain and verify the CVV of all online credit and debit donations. It would also require political campaigns to get the affirmative consent of donors before they make a recurring contribution.

“American elections should always be free from foreign interference,” Steil said Monday. “The SHIELD Act will take a crucial next step in blocking foreign funding in our elections and certifying that every political contribution received is actually coming from the individual whose name is on the contribution. By passing the SHIELD Act, we will increase integrity and American trust in our elections.”

Steil launched a probe into ActBlue’s donor verification policies last year amid his concerns the organization was allowing foreign and fraudulent contributions.

Accusations of ActBlue violating or skirting federal campaign finance laws included laundering foreign contributions through prepaid gift cards, and accepting hundreds of donations for $2.50 from the same individual. Unlike many other online fundraising platforms, ActBlue does not require a CVV number for all donor transactions.

In its response to a November letter from Steil, ActBlue revealed it manually reviews contributions that indicate a foreign country in the address information, uses an external fraud prevention tool on its website, and requires CVVs for some transactions.

“Traditionally, CVV numbers have addressed fraud in transactions where material goods or services are provided in order to prevent chargebacks for stolen goods, which is not the case with political contributions,” the organization said. “Still, we currently require and use CVV on many transactions across the site, and have been in the process of increasing coverage of CVV to improve the donor experience.”

kamala harris

FACT CHECK: In Presidential Debate, Harris Deflects on Border Record

During the presidential debate on Tuesday night, Vice President Kamala Harris deflected when answering questions on the ongoing border crisis.

When asked “why did the administration wait until six months before the election to act” on the border crisis, and if she would have done anything differently from President Joe Biden, Harris didn’t answer the question. She deflected by repeating the claim she’s previously made that she prosecuted transnational criminal organizations when she was the attorney general of California from 2011 to 2017.

“I'm the only person on this stage who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns drugs and human beings,” she said.

She also repeated a claim that she would sign a U.S. Senate border bill that went nowhere in the Democratic controlled Senate.

“Some of the most conservative members of the United States Senate came up with the border security bill which I supported,” she said. “That bill would have put 1,500 more border agents on the border to help those folks who are working there right now overtime trying to do their job.”

While a U.S. senator, Harris opposed increasing funding to hire thousands of new Border Patrol and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and advocated for eliminating ICE detention facilities, which house the most violent criminals, The Center Square reported. She has also more than once called for abolishing ICE altogether.

The Senate border bill would have expanded current failed policies, critics claim, codify mass migration and nullify state sovereignty.

Harris also repeated a claim that former President Donald Trump “got on the phone, called up some folks in Congress, and said, ‘kill the bill.’ And you know why? Because he'd prefer to run on a problem instead of fixing a problem.”

The bill failed because many Senate Democrats didn’t support it and their campaigns began distancing themselves from Biden-Harris border policies, which the majority of Americans oppose, according to numerous polls.

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, also said it was dead on arrival. He called on the Senate to pass what he, and others say, is the strongest border security bill, HR 2, which the Senate refused to consider.

When asked about being appointed “to address the root causes of migration,” she did not cite one example of a root cause or what she did to address it, fix it or remedy it.

Nor did she address the record more than 12.5 million foreign nationals who illegally entered the country under her watch, including two million who evaded capture. They total more than the individual populations of 45 states. If illegal border crossers were a state, they’d be the sixth most populous state ahead of Illinois, The Center Square reported.

Nor did she address the record number of known or suspected terrorists who’ve been apprehended attempting to enter the U.S., more than 1,700 since fiscal 2021, the greatest number in U.S. history.

When asked about her flip-flopping on issues like building a border wall, she repeated the claim that “her values haven’t changed.” This is after The Center Square and other news outlets fact checked her opposition to border wall construction and funding for years.

At no point during the debate did she outline her plan for border security, deportation of violent criminals, or express condolences to Americans whose families have been murdered and raped by criminal foreign nationals who were released into the country under her watch. Biden-Harris parole programs have been directly linked to violent criminals who illegally entered and remained in the country who then went on to commit violent crimes against Americans, The Center Square has reported.

Earlier this year when endorsing Trump for president, the brother of Maryland resident Rachel Morin, who was raped and murdered by a Venezuelan illegally in the country, said, “My sister's death was preventable. The monster arrested for killing Rachel entered the US unlawfully after killing a woman in El Salvador. Joe Biden and his designated ‘border czar’ Kamala Harris opened our borders to him and others like him, empowering them to victimize the innocent. Yet to this day, we have not heard from Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. They never apologized.

“When Rachel was killed, President Trump called my family to offer his condolences. He wanted to meet with us. He cared. That is leadership. And we need real leadership back in the White House.”

Houston angel mom mother Alexis Nungaray, who also endorsed Trump, said she never heard from Harris even after she came to a Houston fundraiser after her daughter was strangled to death by two Venezuelan men illegally in the country. They were released into the country because of Biden-Harris policies, she said, which had to change.

“We're losing very innocent people to heinous crimes that shouldn't be happening in the first place."

trump won debatee

Trump Won the Debate on Policy & That’s What Really Matters

This is a WRN analysis piece. Arguably, Vice President Kamala Harris won the debate on expectations...
debate bingo

Trump vs. Harris: PLAY DEBATE BINGO!

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are squaring off in their first,...
hartford union high school students

Hartford Union High School Students Plant 2,977 Flags to Remember Sept. 11

By Madeline Mazur, Hartford Union High School student On Sunday, Sept. 8, high schoolers at Hartford...
trump debates harris

As Trump Debates Harris, the Economy Remains Top of Mind in Wisconsin

"Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" This is an opinion piece...
reagan movie review

Reagan Movie Review: Why the Elite, Snobby Film Critics Are Wrong

Was Ronald Reagan perfect? No. But he was the perfect man for the time. Was...
kamala dnc

How Kamalanomics Trickles Down [Up Against the Wall]

First, I have to say a word to President Trump. Dude, the next time you’re...
prairie du chien police

Suspected Venezuelan Gangster Attacked Wisconsin Juvenile, Prairie du Chien PD Says

A suspected Venezualan gang member who is not a U.S. citizen now has an ICE...

Communicating With Gen Z [Up Against the Wall]

This is an opinion column. I do feel kind of bad for Gen Z. They’ve had...

Milwaukee Police Respond to Call That Rioting Students Took Over a School

Milwaukee police responded en masse after a caller stated that rioting students "have taken over"...

BREAKING: Milwaukee Police Search for Suspect in Serious Hit & Run of 2 Pedestrians

Milwaukee Police are looking for a suspect wanted for recklessly endangering safety and hit &...
Rebecca Cooke

We’ve Recovered Leftist Political ‘Consultant’ Rebecca Cooke’s Deleted Website

Thank goodness for the Wayback Machine. It's captured the political website that leftist Wisconsin Congressional...
green bay packers brazil

Green Bay Packers Should Refuse to Play in Brazil in Support of Free Speech: State Rep

Wisconsin state Rep. John Macco is calling on the Green Bay Packers to move Friday's...

Report: Unions Pursue Law Changes to Boost Membership

Unions see a clear path through the legislature to boost membership after several legal challenges saw workers leave in droves.

This, according to a new report released Wednesday that grades public sector labor laws across the nation. The data was compiled by the Commonwealth Foundation, a policy group that focuses on fiscal conservancy.

David Osborne, senior fellow for labor policy at the foundation, said during a media briefing that government privatization, changing demographics and a 2018 Supreme Court decision, Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, have caused membership rates across the nation’s four largest public sector unions to fall more than 320,000 over the last five years.

The decline represents $106.8 million in annual dues and fees, according to the report.

“The overarching theme is that the unions have really responded to the membership losses since JANUS to drive up union membership,” Osborne said.

In the JANUS decision, courts held that unions could no longer collect “fair share” dues from non-members who benefit from collective bargaining agreements. Follow-up litigation has challenged the cumbersome process many former members had to overcome to leave the union and recoup dues improperly withheld.

In the report, states known as union “strongholds” scored lower than others that have enacted collective bargaining reforms.

Illinois, Michigan and Maryland stood out for unprecedented reforms that, in some cases, have constitutionally rooted union protections and tipped the scales in favor of executives, according to the report.

Illinois, for example, enshrined collective bargaining rights into the state constitution, which extended unionizing rights to every workplace, including those once considered inappropriate. Osborne said the “experiment could have really disastrous implications,” such as raising taxes to fund “outrageous” union demands.

He pointed to recent collective bargaining negotiations with Chicago Public Schools, during which leadership asked for abortion care access, affordable housing, homeless shelters in schools and all-electric bus fleets.

“The legislature wouldn’t have any opportunity to overrule that behavior,” Osborne said. “It would take a constitutional amendment to correct that balance.”

California, Pennsylvania and Vermont have considered similar amendments – the latter two more seriously, he added.

In Michigan, which slipped from a “B” to a “D” over the last two years, lawmakers repealed the“paycheck protection” law – which prevents public payroll systems from deducting union dues and political contributions – as was the state’s Right to Work provision. The state also gives unions access to employees’ personal information.

Some 13 other states give unions the same data collection power. In Hawaii, unions even store Social Security numbers to verify workers’ identities. The report says the practice leaves information vulnerable to ransomware attacks – like one that happened earlier this year in California.

Maryland, Delaware and California also offer tax incentives for union membership as way to boost recruits. While Delaware’s labor laws earned a "D" in the report, Maryland and Delaware – along with Illinois, Oregon and Washington – earned an “F” grading.

The nation’s four largest public sector unions – the American Federation of Teachers; the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the National Education Association; and the Service Employees International Union – collectively represent 6.6 million workers.

AFSCME, according to records submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, has lost 7.5% of its members since 2017, outpacing the other three unions between 2.8 percentage points and 4 percentage points.

“I do think JANUS is playing a big role in this,” said Andrew Holman, a policy analyst at the Commonwealth Foundation. “And I think after the decision, people are becoming more and more aware of what their dollars are being put toward and are saying, 'I don’t want to be a part of this.'”

Osborne said 60% of membership fees, albeit funneled through outside organizations, support political causes. Even though members may be aligned ideologically, many feel “uncomfortable” with resolutions that take positions on issues like the war in Gaza or abortion rights.

Unions have refuted this claim in the past, such as the Pennsylvania State Education Association, which is under review by several state agencies for alleged funneling of union dues to support Gov. Josh Shapiro's 2022 campaign. The state's labor laws scored a "D" in the report.

“None of the issues seem to relate to what it is to be a teacher, for instance, so many of the members come home feeling like my union has really taken a stance on these political matters that have divided the workplace rather than united it,” Osborne said.

Of the highest-ranking states, Florida “sets a new gold standard,” according to the foundation. The most impactful reform, Osborne said, requires unions to run for “recertification” once membership drops below 60%. This means workers can decide whether to keep representation.

“We’ve seen a bunch of unions fail to file for reelection because they know they’ll lose,” Osborne said. “This ends up removing a union that never had majority support to begin with.”

Wisconsin and Iowa also require recertification. Unions in other states – like Pennsylvania, Illinois, New York and California – have never run for “reelection” since organizing in the 1970s.

full rfk jr video

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Files Lawsuit to Remove His Name From Wisconsin Ballot

(The Center Square) – Former Independent party presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. filed a lawsuit against the Wisconsin Election Commission to remove his name from the state’s ballot this November, part of his ongoing battle to exit from races in swing states.

The case argues that, absent a compelling reason, different treatment for third party candidates violates the Equal Protection Clause and Kennedy’s First Amendment rights. It claims the different deadlines for ballot withdrawal for Democrat and Republican candidates versus third-party candidates–September 3 for the former and August 6 for the latter–are unlawfully discriminatory.

“Third parties can’t be treated differently and they can’t be discriminated against. Yet that’s what happened here. The Republicans and the Democrats have until today at 5 p.m. to withdraw their nominees and replace them with someone else,” the lawsuit argues. “But those rules don’t apply to independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr…He has not been treated fairly or equally with the other presidential candidates who declared and ran for the presidency and have since wanted to withdraw.”

In its certification of presidential candidates last week, the WEC voted 5-1 to put Kennedy on the ballot, despite his withdrawal and endorsement of Republican nominee and former president Donald Trump. Following the decision, county clerks were authorized to begin printing ballots.

But Kennedy has argued his request is not unreasonable since Wisconsin election law already provides exceptions for candidate removal post-certification, including in the case of candidate death or for personal and health reasons–provided the Democrat or Republican candidate meets the September 3rd deadline.

“Kennedy has (like President Biden) decided that for associational and expressive reasons, he does not want to run for President anymore. The deadlines prevent him from withdrawing, even though the Democratic and Republican Parties (at least in theory) could provide a different nominee to the Commission today,” the case says, arguing this proves “The Commission cannot claim any compelling state interest in forcing Independent candidates to file paperwork a month earlier.”

Due to these reasons, the lawsuit requests a stay on the WEC’s ruling and for Dane County Circuit Court to issue an order barring the agency from placing Kennedy’s name on the ballot.