Kamala Harris’ media strategies expose her lack of qualifications for the presidency
Once again, Kamala Harris is in the spotlight.
An interview with Kamala Harris exposes her tendency to avoid direct questions.
It seems she lacks substantial responses to offer.
In an interview with a Pennsylvania ABC affiliate that garnered over 5 million views, the vice president failed to provide clear answers to questions about policies.
Reporter Brian Taff’s direct questions were met with recycled sound bites and excerpts from previous speeches.
She veered off into anecdotes from her childhood, like talking about people being proud of their lawns, in an attempt to fill time.
As for her promise of an “opportunity economy,” Harris simply reiterated her plans to offer financial support to small businesses, parents, and homebuyers without offering any new insights.
How does she set herself apart from Joe Biden?
Her response was simply, “I am a different person. . . . I’m obviously not Joe Biden.”
Questionable ‘fact-check’
How does she appeal to Donald Trump’s supporters?
She claims, “People want a leader who brings us together,” and cites the endorsement of Liz and Dick Cheney to support her statement!
This interview is likely her last for a while.
Seems like it’s back to the Biden basement strategy for the aspirant leader of the free world!
Nevertheless, this interview sheds light on how much she benefited from ABC’s bias in the previous week’s debate.
Read up on The Post’s coverage of the debate
The network denies the accusation of leaking questions to Harris beforehand, but questions linger.
These doubts arise because ABC moderators tilted the scales in Harris’ favor during the debate with a biased “fact-checking” approach that targeted Trump.
Harris was shielded with selective questions and the moderators failed to press for details or challenge her false statements.
New evidence suggests that the debate was designed as a trap to trap Trump and embarrass him in front of 67 million viewers.
It seems more like a political ploy than genuine journalism.
Moderators David Muir and Linsey Davis accused the former president of giving false or misleading answers on multiple occasions.
However, Davis’s post-debate interview with the Los Angeles Times revealed a premeditated bias.
She mentioned that the live fact-checking idea was born from a previous debate between Trump and Joe Biden on CNN.
This paints a picture of a deliberate effort to fact-check Trump live, while having planned corrections based on his anticipated responses.
Essentially, the questions were crafted to catch Trump making statements that could be declared false.
This seems more like interference in an election than journalistic integrity.
Set-up against Trump
Davis shared some details of the entrapment plan with LA Times writer Stephen Battaglio.
She stated that she and Muir spent weeks planning scenarios where they tested questions and anticipated responses.
According to Battaglio, they were ready for Trump’s erroneous abortion claim and challenged him on it during the debate.
When asked about his views on abortion access limits, Trump referenced a former Virginia governor’s controversial statement supporting the allowance of certain infant killings before and after birth.
These actions by ABC moderators raised questions about their impartiality and whether they were influenced by a desire to discredit Trump.
Initially successful, they managed to portray Trump as misleading and Harris as truthful, despite both candidates having made factual errors.
For instance, Harris incorrectly accused Trump of praising neo-Nazis without mentioning his full statement condemning them.
There were also instances where she made false claims about the military presence, which went unchallenged by the moderators.
The biased approach of ABC affected the fairness of the debate and cast doubt on the objectivity of the network.
