Strategies for Harris to Secure Victory and Analysis of Times Pogrom-Pusher
Conservative: A Times Pogrom-Pusher
Natasha Frost “remains employed at the New York Times,” despite “a scandal beyond reckoning,” thunders National Review’s Jeffrey Blehar. “Invited to a private WhatsApp support group for Australian Jewish creatives — professionals in a community whose politics are overwhelmingly anti-Zionist,” the Times journalist “hovered in the background as a member.” After publishing a “rather milquetoast piece” about “fiercely anti-Zionist” Australian “woke cause célèbre Antoinette Lattouf,” she then “gave the entire 900-page record of the WhatsApp group’s conversations — featuring many participants, all Jews, saying how unhappy they were about Lattouf — to Lattouf herself.” She then “promptly leaked it to pro-Hamas activists,” who “immediately began chasing store-owners out of town, stalking people with photographs of their children, and harassing schoolteachers at work.” Now the Times has “removed Frost’s contact information from its website.”
Elex desk: What Harris Must Do To Win
Despite the strong momentum she’s gathered in recent days, “polls point to clear vulnerabilities” for Dem nominee Kamala Harris, argues Douglas E. Schoen at The Hill. To mitigate them, she “needs to tell voters where she stands and how she will address the issues that will determine the election.’ That’s especially true since polling shows that “voters generally prefer Trump’s policies and approach,” with a 7-point lead for the former prez on the economy and a 17-point one on the border. Since “voters trust Harris the least on immigration and the border, foreign policy, the economy and crime,” she “must stake out — and clearly articulate — a centrist agenda that not only defines her” but also addresses these gaping vulnerabilities.
Liberal: A Coup Shadow Over the DNC
“Top Democrats are bristling with resentments even as they are about to try to put on a united front” at the Democratic National Convention, since “a coterie of powerful Democrats maneuvered behind the scenes to push” President Biden out, explains The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd. “Even though it was the right thing to do . . . it was a jaw-dropping putsch.” “When the polls cratered, Democratic mandarins decided to put the welfare of the party — and the country — ahead of the president’s ego,” and “Biden went from looking ‘forward to getting back on the campaign trail’ to gone in one weekend.” Meanwhile, “Kamala can’t be thrilled that Obama, Pelosi and Schumer hesitated to endorse her because they wanted more moderate rivals to compete in an open mini-primary.”
Eye on Mexico: AMLO’s Bid To End Pluralism
In his final month in office, warns The Wall Street Journal’s Maria Anastasia O’Grady, Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador hopes “to pass a set of radical constitutional amendments,” “annihilating legal certainty and the separation of powers” along with replacement of the entire judiciary, with his Morena party effectively choosing the new Supreme Court. Indeed: “His close intellectual ally, sociologist Armando Bartra, says the package of reforms is similar to constitutional changes Hugo Chávez promoted in Venezuela.” This would make the country again “a one-party state, such as it was during the most repressive days of the 71-year rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party — only worse.”
Libertarian: Nyet to Kamala’s Price Controls
“When you’ve caused a problem, deflect,” snarks JD Tuccille at Reason of the strategy chosen by Vice President Kamala Harris. She has “presided over a growing mismatch between Americans’ pay and the cost of living.” Now she “wants to fix the problem she helped cause by restricting those prices.” Harris pretends that Americans’ “cost concerns are a result of mean corporations rather than bad policy.” Oy! “From the Code of Hammurabi to former President Nixon,” fury over high prices has been spun “by clever politicians” into claims that people are being ripped off and need government intervention.” Such pols, like Harris, “won’t admit is that it’s their own policies that put the public in distress to begin with, and that their latest schemes, if implemented, will make matters worse.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
