As much as I’d like to not advertise any single media source, CNN scored the sit down interview so it is what it is.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/harris-walz-trump-election-08-29-24/index.html
It’s live right now, will be interesting to see what people think!
More:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/politics/kamala-harris-tim-walz-cnntv/index.html
It’s a comment about appointing people from the other side of the aisle. They posted an example of trump appointing a registered Democrat. There’s plenty of criticism about it which is valid, but being literally shocked is a bit of a melodramatic overreaction
It’s his literal daughter. She’s not “on the other side of the aisle”. There is absolutely no one with a smidgen of intelligence that thinks this was in some way evidencing bipartisanship or a concession to the left.
That’s my point. “I will appoint a Republican” does not necessarily mean “I will reach across the aisle to the opposing politicians who are ruining America”.
It could very well mean “I will appoint old friends from law school and the private sector, even if they happen to be registered Republicans.” People like Bob McDonald.
No, “I’m a Democrat” means that.
I’m with Zaktor on this one. NOBODY thinks Trump appointing his kid was comparable to this Harris promise or other historical examples. Sure, you technically made a factuql observation. But, it seems like a bad faith argument in this discourse.
Or maybe some people really believe that Ivanka Trump (hang on, I’m laughing) is a Democrat.
I’m still confused why 'it’s normal to appoint old friends from the private sector" is being tossed around as if it’s a defense of the practice.
Because presidents, like everyone else, prefer to hire people their team knows and trusts.
I understand why you’re saying it’s normal, i’m questioning why ‘it’s normal’ is being used as if it’s a defense.
Her appointing a republican could be fine, sure, but it could also be exactly as bad is people are interpreting it. The way the question was posed in the context of working and compromising with republicans certainly seems to favor the latter interpretation, and the way she responded certainly doesn’t dispel the concern over it.
She could have said, “I’ll select the best people for the job that are aligned with our administration’s goals, regardless of party affiliation”, but instead she laughed about it and dangled it like a carrot. That’s not a comforting response.
She went a step further, and said she wanted “different views” in her cabinet. In other words she implied she will intentionally seek a Republican.
On the one hand, I think this was a calculated political move. She wants Never Trump Republicans to vote for her, and this may reassure them.
On the other hand, I think it is meaningless. If she simply seeks out the best people, like other presidents, then she would likely end up with a Republican in her cabinet.
In other words, I think she found a way to make political hay out of something unremarkable. Kind of like, “I will make our military highly lethal!”, it sounds really good to some yet it’s actually not promising much. But it is a good political strategy.
Idk, if the goal is more progressive governance I don’t think welcoming conservative perspectives is a good strategy.
If the goal is simply to win… sure. But still a cynical turn away from the left. Maybe they should have asked if she planned on appointing any progressive or pro-palestinian people on her cabinet, that’s a question I’d be curious to hear her response to.
She doesn’t have to welcome conservative perspectives.
She has to make conservatives think she will welcome conservative perspectives. And she can do this for free by pointing out that there will likely be a Republican in her cabinet.