Kamala Harris’s Hail Mary: No Joy, Lots of Pain
The vice president’s demeanor throughout the brief interview was defensive, combative, and even imperious at times.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s decision to sit down with Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier on Wednesday evening was never a good idea.
How did it go? Well, it depends on whom you ask.
The headline about the interview in the Daily Beast read, “Harris Shuts Down Bret Baier as He Plays the MAGA Hits.” On the contrary, Baier’s tough but fair questioning – and Harris’s angry, defensive, and disingenuous responses – may have “shut down” her path to the presidency.
Before the event was even over, Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey posted the following on X:
Wow, wow, wow. I didn't think it was going to be THIS bad.
— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) October 16, 2024
Shortly after the interview ended, David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the Harris campaign, took to X to say it had been “an ambush,” which was absolutely false. It was merely the first time a real journalist had ever asked Harris serious questions.
Kamala Harris (strong) handled an ambush Fox interview light years better than the hash Donald Trump (unstable) made of the Fox pep rally disguised as a town hall.
— David Plouffe (@davidplouffe) October 16, 2024
It was tense from the get-go. Baier, who had traveled to Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, to speak with Harris, told colleagues afterward that the interview had been scheduled for 5 p.m. and was expected to run for about 25 to 30 minutes. Harris, he said, arrived 15 minutes late and Baier was quickly informed that she would only sit for 20 minutes.
INTERVIEW MELTDOWN 🧵: Kamala Harris showed up 15 minutes late and cut the length of the interview in half. This is not a serious candidate. pic.twitter.com/XBoZGGI0KQ
— @amuse (@amuse) October 16, 2024
The vice president’s demeanor throughout the brief interview was defensive, combative, and even imperious at times. Right out of the gate, we saw a return of the obnoxious remarks we recall so well from her 2020 debate with then-Vice President Mike Pence: “I’m speaking” or “I’m not finished.”
Harris dodged and weaved and filibustered. Her answers were weak, incomplete, evasive and sometimes absurd. When cornered, she always found a way to redirect the discussion back to former President Donald Trump whom she (repeatedly) claimed was unhinged, unstable, a fascist, and a threat to our democracy.
Their interaction was contentious from the start with the two often speaking over each other to make their points.
Baier began the interview by asking how many illegal immigrants the Biden-Harris administration has released into the country. She refused to answer the question. In a condescending tone, Harris said, “Bret, let’s just get to the point. We have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired.”
She told Baier that the first bill she and President Joe Biden “offered Congress … the first bill was a bill to fix our immigration system,” a talking point she recites every time she is questioned about the border crisis, perhaps her most vulnerable topic.
Baier countered that this legislation, the U.S. Citizenship Act of 2021, was essentially an amnesty bill for 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. He noted that Democrats controlled the White House, the Senate, and the House at the time, yet Congress never brought up the bill. In fact, six Democrats opposed it.
“We have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired”
– Current Vice President – pic.twitter.com/jolrnK1a7Y— Anna Hoffman (@shoesonplease) October 16, 2024
Although Harris expressed sympathy for the families of the young women who were brutally murdered at the hands of illegal immigrants, she refused to take responsibility for allowing them into the country in the first place.
Bret Baier REPEATEDLY asks Harris if she'd like to apologize to the families of Jocelyn Nungaray, Rachel Morin, and Laken Riley.
She REFUSES. pic.twitter.com/SGzzTj3wH9
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) October 16, 2024
Baier asked Kamala if she still supported the radical positions she embraced during her campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination. When she replied “that was five years ago,” Baier reminded her that Tim Walz, her running mate, “signed all of those things into law” as governor of Minnesota.
Baier: In 2019, you supported allowing illegals to apply for drivers' licenses, qualify for free tuition at universities, and get free healthcare. Do you still support those things?
Kamala: "That was five years ago"
Baier: You're running mate signed all those things into law.… pic.twitter.com/1fB4EIKeC2
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) October 16, 2024
Baier questioned the logic behind her campaign promise to “turn the page” given that she and Biden have been running the country for nearly four years. Ridiculously, she replied, “Well first of all, turning the page from the last decade in which we’ve been burdened with the kind of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump that has been designed and implemented to divide our country and have Americans literally point fingers at each other.”
He noted that 79% of Americans currently feel the country is on the wrong track. “If you’re turning the page, you’ve been in office for three and a half years.”
Harris said, “And Donald Trump has been running for office since – ”
Baier interrupted to say, “But you’ve been the person holding the office.”
BAIER: More than 70% of people say the country is on the wrong track…If you're turning the page, you've been in office for 3.5 years
KAMALA: "And Donald Trump has been running for office, since"
Baier: "But you've been the person holding the office."
— Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) October 16, 2024
Harris never failed to turn their conversation back to Trump – even when it made no sense. Following yet another round of her incessant Trump-bashing, Baier asked her when she had “first notice[d] that Joe Biden’s mental faculties appeared diminished.”
She appeared stunned by the question and stubbornly refused to acknowledge the truth that had become obvious to the entire nation after Biden’s disastrous debate with Trump in June. The president was no longer fit to serve. This was the reason she had replaced him as the nominee three weeks later. Still, she would not admit there was a problem.
When Baier pressed the issue, Harris cut him off saying, “Bret, Joe Biden is not on the ballot. And Donald Trump is. …”
And on it went. By the time it was over, the stories of extremely high staff turnover both during her vice presidency and her prior service in statewide offices made complete sense. Her unlikability and deceptive nature were on full display.
The vice president has been slipping in the polls over the past couple of weeks. Although sitting for an interview with Fox was a risky move for Harris, she had hoped that a strong performance might help jumpstart her campaign and even bring back some of the joy and good vibes she had going over the summer.
Unfortunately for her, it’s unlikely that she attracted many – or even any – new supporters on Wednesday evening – and may even have driven some independent and undecided voters away.
All in all, not a good night for Harris.
The full interview can be viewed below.
Elizabeth writes commentary for The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation and a member of the Editorial Board at The Sixteenth Council, a London think tank. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Just what you’d expect from Donald Pfluffer.
Sorry… DAVID Pfluffer.
I can’t wait until after the election and the media begin a painful forensic look back at how the Dims got to this point
however, as ridiculous as it is for the Dims to have Kamala as their candidate, it is a horrible outlook for our country that 47-48 % support her
I’m not sure how any country comes back from the division that seems to haunt this country at the moment
No one supports Harris. What we’re seeing is 47%-48% who hate Donald Trump with the intensity of a 1K burning suns….and honestly, that 47%-48% would have been there, probably just as energized, against ANYONE the GOP would have nominated.
We’re in the sectarian era of American history where it’s no longer possible for decisive swings of the political pendulum, the kinds of swings we saw in 1964, 1972 & 1984. This is a dangerous dynamic in any country.
Proportion, Integral and Derivative are the three factors involved in control
The pendulum swing gets worse because the Derivative is forcing the Proportion to follow the Integral….the result drives the correction amount according to the amount of time the correction needs.
In layman’s terms…society is killing itself through too many corrections too quickly.
If you are a pilot it is classic PIO.
This is engineered hate. The right is even influenced subconsciously by it.
I agree on the polarization and/or sectarianism. Slight disagreement on realignment b/c we have been seeing a gradual shift among formerly core d/prog voters towards the GoP. Particularly ‘black/brown’ male voters and more than a few Jewish voters. This trickle could become a flood. If the GoP pulls 40%+ of the ‘hispanic’ vote and cracks 25% of the ‘black’ vote the d/prog can’t win. There’s another undercurrent at play as well with a growing divide between voting patterns of men and women. The old saw about the d/prog being the ‘mommy’ party and the GoP being the ‘daddy’ party seems to be solidifying in a general sense, obviously it doesn’t apply across the board.
Just to clarify, what I’m getting at is for most of American history, presidential elections decided by 10-points or more were reasonably routine, common even. Through 2020, 46% of presidential elections were decided by 10-points or more. But, the most recent election when that happened was in 1984 (9.72-points). The US Electorate previously had the capacity to swing decisively from one party and then back to the other party in the next one or two campaign cycles depending entirely on how the incumbent party was perceived to have performed. This is the norm in more homogeneous cultures.
Whatever improvement the GOP manages to garner w/minorities this year, it’s unlikely we’re going to see a GOP presidential nominee getting to 55% or more. Why? Well, we’re not sure if this improvement with minorities will be durable or if it’s a dynamic driven by the larger-than-life personality of Trump himself, in the same way that only Arnold could win as a Republican in California. Of course, DeSantis in 2022 was a hopeful sign that there is broader support from minorities moving in the GOP’s direction. BUT, historically, new immigrants have not embraced the GOP, instead preferring Democrats and their government largess. It wasn’t until the 2nd or 3rd generation of those immigrant’s descendants that we saw those demos become more amendable to a small-government approach. This is the path followed by Germans, Italians and Irish immigrants of the late 19th century/early 20th century. And some – like the Scandinavian settlers found in the upper Midwest – never embraced the GOP. We’ll have to see if that trend continues. If it does, the GOP is looking at headwinds in 2030 and beyond considering how many immigrants we’ve absorbed the last four years.
That should have been ‘amenable.’ I have no idea why my iPad always changes amenable to amendable. Drives me mad. Is amendable even a word?
the idea that the left and their supporters, the MSM, are just gonna mothball the hate machine that they have been perfecting for decades after Trump leaves the scene is preposterous
in four years, you will see that it had nothing to do with Trump. The demonization of Vance will begin full force after election day
hate and spite fuels the left and it will always need a target
Two minute hate existed for a reason…
Correct. If past performance is any indication, the divisiveness embraced by the left is only going to deepen.
Behind the Big News,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmKiiY_HqsY
I watched for about five minutes before she started shrieking like a psychotic spinster school marm from hell, “LISTEN TO ME!”, then I switched over to something else while I was making dinner. Her “Hail Mary” became a “Hellatious Moron”.
Leftists double down on stupid. There will be no “course correction”.
A lot of that is party loyalty. People will vote for a burlap sack of dead cats if there is a D (or R) by that sack.
if the D burlap sack had Hedy Lamarr inside
well, I’d be all in
That’s “Hedley”!
1) You are assuming that the MSM have any intention of allowing any forensic look back that does not praise the Party and the Left.
2) There is no guarantee that there will be a come back.
Subotai Bahadur
It is a direct function of the brainwashing that occurs in school, reinforced with the propaganda that people get from the state media.
You can tell the type: lots of certainty in their statements, but nothing to back it up.
“Harris never failed to turn their conversation back to Trump – even when it made no sense.”
One of Gary Larson’s finest.
Another perspective, after reading some comments elsewhere and taking into account what Brit Hume and Bret said after the interview.
Here’s a comment from RCP posted by “varadonici”:
Even Bret Baier acknowledged and said that Kamala Harris appearance was effective. I quote: “She had a mission. She wanted to go after Donald Trump to create a viral moment helping her. She may have gotten that.” Another FOX Colleague Brit Hume: “She was combative and energetic and certainly landed some blows on Donald Trump”. It speaks volumes about the Trump supporters here who ignore that. She never wanted to reach you. She simply used to speak to a audience of conservative viewers and not all of them are die-hard Trump supporters ort Harris-haters.
So consider. Why do an interview on FOX? She and her people knew it wouldn’t be softball. Frankly the questions were irrelevant, right? She had zero intention of answering them. She came on to hammer Trump. And kept doing it.
But why Fox? Well, she knows Fox has a different audience. Granted the vast majority of viewers will be Trump supporters. But not all. And some fox viewers who are extremely put off by Trump might be fertile ground for her Trump bashing.
I think that’s wishcasting. Voters want politicians to engage them. This is done by answering questions – questions that often directly reflect their concerns – rather than dodging them or ignoring them. The biggest questions voters have are on the economy, crime & immigration with several cultural issues – like transgender policy – being particularly important in the Battleground states. Harris WHIFFED on all those questions and instead chose to attack Trump. That’s not persuading anyone, not even people who are on the fence about Trump.
But, don’t take my word for it. Look at JD Vance’s approval ratings. When he entered the race YouGov showed his approval rating in the low 20s. This week, their latest poll is at 44%, a 20-point improvement which is remarkable. Why the change? Because Vance has been everywhere, engaging reporters – almost all of whom were at least as direct has Baier was with Harris – and answering their questions substantively. THAT is what moves voters, not what Harris did. This interview did nothing for her and likely hurt her with undecided voters.
UNDECIDED VOTERS. That’s who she should’ve been reaching out to. After almost a decade of TDS attacks on DJT there are still the three camps. Pro, anti and undecided.. Serving up red meat to fellow TDS’ers on Fox wasn’t a win, not by any means. This interview was an unmitigated disaster, to the point her corner desperately threw in the towel.
They clearly threw in half the towel before she ever showed up to start.
“She was combative and energetic and certainly landed some blows on Donald Trump”. It speaks volumes about the Trump supporters here who ignore that.
It does? What “volumes” does it speak?
She never once outlined any of her positions or policies.
She constantly interrupted and talked over Baier (combative? Or a$$holish? You be the judge).
She fully exhibited the same “But Trump” crap that our resident idiot JR espouses. Trite and tiresome.
She attempted (and to a large extent succeeded) to run out the clock with flatulent word salads.
I did not tune in to watch “combative and energetic” or to watch her “land some blows on Donald Trump.
I tuned in to see if she would openly outline and discuss her policies, and to see if she could handle a possibly contentious interview.
I was fully disappointed on both counts.
For this to be true, one would have to think that the Trump-haters a) don’t hate him enough b) need more reasons to hate him and/or c) need to be motivated to go to the polls.
Well, perhaps. But the Trump haters one sees and hears seem to be in the tank for Ms. Harris. Is there more ‘fertile ground’? Not sure I see any.
But she wasn’t there to land blows on Trump. She was there to answer for her record in office and what her policy positions are. She didn’t do that and it was apparent for anyone to see.
@bev That is also the least bad answer she could give to her positions on loser issues, such as the open border and transgender wierdos in women’s spaces. There were no good answers, so why not ignore the question and blast Trump?
The Harris campaign really thinks that she can appeal to conservative Fox viewers because of the endorsement of Liz Cheney and the like. The Harris campaign strategy is to leverage the widespread distrust of DJT rather than promote to conservative Fox viewers the principles for which VP Harris stands.
She will benefit from the usual editing and cherry picking that is characteristic of the Democrat fraud machine.
You can see her emphasis on Pres. Trump, and her mindless repetition of the talking points she was rehearsed with.
Too bad she came off as insincere, ignorant and bitchy.
Start late. Finish early. Filibuster and talk over the other side.
Kamala couldn’t defend her record and sounded dumb, again. Not sure how that gets her votes in purple states.
He should have started prefacing the questions with: “without mentioning Donald Trump…” But part of the point seemed to be to put her TDS on blast. Bret even alluded to her having her full say on Donald Trump at the expense of not fully presenting herself to the audience. But the interview turned out to be an accurate presentation of herself anyway. A vacuous, mean spirited, unaccountable, lying fraud. Her extreme sense of entitlement, coupled with her inability to control her anger makes her dangerous to the same people who would seek to control her presidency. They are probably about to cut bait with this clown show and prep for 2028.
This interview was Exhibit A on why 90% of her staff has quit.
Bret is not a tough interviewer and Kamala is no Obama. He could fillabuster a question easily while she can’t..
Crone-harlot-dunce, Harris, is an utterly vile, noxious, obnoxious, entitled, arrogant, narcissistic, witless, mendacious and contemptuous harridan.
She’s been a part of the Dhimmi-crat power structure for the past three-plus decades, as a corrosive, incompetent, ruinous and unaccountable apparatchik.
Don’t sugarcoat it! Say what you mean!! 😉
I’m pretty convinced 85-90% of the American populace isn’t buying what the MSM has been selling re: Kamala.
When you control the message the response doesn’t show for 90 days.
Low information female voters will count this a total Harris victory. She slapped down the nasty mansplaining baddie. Sickening but true. Welcome to the new world.
Yeah, they don’t watch Fox, and they weren’t voting for Trump ever.
Yeah, well they get a filtered, biased version with a clip or 2 from their lowbrow sources. This enthuses them enough to yuck it up with their mindless bimbo friends who just might be persuaded to vote rather than get their nails done.
Fetterman… lest you think he’s sane
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2024/10/17/fetterman-harris-saying-you-own-what-happens-in-your-administration-doesnt-apply-to-her-on-the-border/
You win some and you lose some with this guy 🤷♂️
You have to make allowances for the fact that after all, he’s still a Democrat.
fox will now be more heavily investigated and have to give up another piece of freedom like they were when forced to fire carlson
Kamala says trump is not “mentally staple”.
lol
Don’t say “stable” around Walz. It would leave a bad taste in his mouth…
Running against President Trump is only half a strategy. It’s not enough for most people. She can’t give anything for people to vote FOR. That is a losing strategy.
Not to nitpick, but the moron called our country “a democracy” and we are NOT a democracy, we are a REPUBLIC!
I doubt this will move the needle at all and that was what she desperately needs at this point. Yelling about “threat to democracy” has become so worn no one is paying attention. The people that think that already won’t vote for Trump, she needs the Independents. If they tuned in to hear what her policy positions are they were very disappointed. “I’ll follow the law” and “Trump is a threat” is not a policy position.
Without the Ave Maria it’s just Bach’s Prelude #
#1 in C minor (something terminated the comment entry)
Which is hard enough in itself. I think adding another voice in the right hand for piano will be very hard.
Does this refer to the article?
Kudos to Bret Baier for his high intelligence and his dogged professionalism.
Baier allowed Harris to show us who she is when she is not hiding: a conventional leftist, not terribly bright, clumsily deceptive and contemptuous of the rest of us. Perhaps she thinks that those features are attractive. They recall the worst of Hillary, who was even more unlikeable.
At this point, most Democrats are voting for their party, just as they did when they supported Biden in 2020, despite his obvious senescence.
In this interview, Harris may have encouraged her supporters, but I doubt that she gained any new voters.
Just answer the question Harris! She has the most annoying voice of any woman that I have ever heard. Like a bad ball bearing. She talks through her sinuses.
Somewhere between Fran Drescher’s “Nanny,” (sorry, Doug!) and Lily Tomlin’s “Ernestine” without the charm.
I wonder if she wanted to do it and everyone else told her it was a bad idea.
Wait..silly me, I’m actually giving her credit for having a bold, independent thought.
She kept saying “we will follow the law. THEY DON’T FOLLOW THE LAW NOW!!!!! WHO IN THE F BELIEVES THEY WILL FOLLOW IT GOING FORWARD?
Even when they aren’t breaking the law they subvert it by doing things like sending the #3 at DOJ to help prosecute DJT in NY!
Follow the law LMFAO!
Wake up people these radicals will never follow the law.
quote:
We have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired.”
well, guess WHO broke it? Dopey Joey began “fixing” it by tearing down Trump’s wall and throwing the gates open. They hen followed that bad plan by recruiting endless NGO money (sourced from FedGov) to coddle, house, feed, support, maintain, the hordes that began invading in six and seven figure numbers.
Its just how they roll….. right over the top of the rest of us. The ONLY suitable fix is to get rid of the current goon squad and get Trump back who will quickly rebuild the wall and work toward sending the twenty or more millions of the illegal invaders back to somewhere else.