#republicans are weak on defense

[tomorrowusa]

Author and presidential historian Michael Beschloss talks about the radical realignment of the Republican Party since 2012 which turned it into a team of servants for Putin.

Ronald Reagan famously warned Americans about the Evil Empire. He'd be disappointed to see the GOP of the 2020s willingly working for a secret police colonel from that Evil Empire.

NATO is now stronger than ever. When Finland joined this year it roughly doubled Russia's land border with NATO countries. Russia's army has proven to be pathetic. A country less than a third of Russia's size has inflicted hundreds of thousands of casualties on Russia, destroyed thousands of its armored vehicles, and has even sunk several of its warships.

Republicans want to throw Putin a lifeline and help him threaten American allies in Europe. This is because Donald Trump is a Putin puppet and because Trump is butthurt about President Zelenskyy not being able to provide him with "dirt" during the infamous perfect phone call.

The border problem with Russia is exponentially worse than any border problem with Mexico. Mexico is just an excuse to enable House GOP members to kowtow to Trump who, in turn, is in thrall to Putin.

[bixels]

Always an experience watching the leftism leave FNAF fans when someone mentions that Scott Cawthon financially backed fascist politicians.

The switch from posting hardline leftist tweets about boycotts and signal boosts and critical takedowns of politicians and celebrities to ‘ohhh, well. everyone makes mistakes. who can blame him, listen he. he donated money to gay charities too. that makes it ok! a millionaire in his forties is allowed to have political beliefs. does it even matter? just let it go!’ is whiplash inducing. The antivaxxer celebrities have got to go, but this one horror dev who quietly handed wads of cash to antivax lawmakers? He’s chill, he can stay.

The charity thing is so funny too because suddenly utilitarian positive-negative point counting is the way to go. Maybe an abacus would help calculate the net good of donating to the Trevor Project minus donating thousands of dollars to Mitch McConnell and Donald Trump. -10 points if I push a kid in a lake but +11 points if I help an old lady across the street, so I’m chill. You can’t judge me. Hey, maybe. Just don’t push a kid in the lake period. How fucking low is the bar when we’re excusing maxing out the possible dollar amount of donations to Mitch fucking McConnell. That should be like. Default you’re a bad person.

[liberalsarecool]

JD Vance is your archetypal Republican spineless goon.

He shits on women, then when called out to his face, he pretends to have no idea and lies.

Trump does this on every topic. I don't know Stormy Daniels. I don't know E. Jean Carroll. I didn't know the comic at MSG.

Such a weak-minded defense. Such cowardice.

Vote Blue.

[vbartilucci]

The republicans are already attacking Kamala Harris pre-emptively on the chance that she'll just step up to take the nom.

If they go with someone else, there will be people upset that they didn't choose to do so. I think there's people in the party leadership that are convinced that the reason (or at least one reason) Hilary didn't win is cause she was a woman, and as such, are gun-shy to try it again, especially at this late date.

ANY change they make will somehow be played as weakness by the Republicans.

To summarize, there's no perfect checkmate move here. I simply don't think there's any magical candidate that can rise from the crop and turn the election.

Vote the party and not the candidate. If Biden has any issues, he can step down after the election. We need democrats controlling the White House and the Congress. They they can make the changes to the Supreme Court to make it more centered.

[jaythelay]

Dump's outta ammo.

1. He tried to start a rumor of Biden coming back. He then, very exceptionally poorly, tried to insert this talking point in the middle of a completely different rally. This, made him look like he has dementia. But make no mistake, the issue was nobody believed him literally instantly, and everyone forgot he even said it the week/day prior because he never built it up. He then immedietely dropped the "Biden's coming back" bit afterwards. Making him look far more dementia riddled than previous.

2. He's trying to claim nobody know's Kamala Harris' last name. Only reason to try this angle is because you're outta ammo and wanted to somehow make her name less recognizable in the moment. But soon after, much like with point 1, he went in too early before it could spread and become common, and thus, had to drop that angle entirely aswell, causing more dementia awareness of himself.

It's like he wanted an instant "her emails" or "his laptop" angle without any time or work at fucking all.

The goal is make shit up til something sticks but it's so old and tired and he's incapable of patience. If it doesn't immedietely work, he jumps to another made up point. Much like with point 1 and 2, point 0 was "Kamala ain't black" which he then, also, abandoned when it didn't immedietly stick.

His cohorts are trying to make it stick but if you call them weird they get reeeeeal defensive and forget what the conversation was, so, the points aren't sticking at all.

3. Him almost getting shot by one of his own party absolutely scared the shit out of him. It's partly why he's sending Vance out. Let him get shot next time, not Dump. Regardless of accuracy on that bit, the fact remains, Republican voters Scared Donald Trump from going to rallies, and Vance is a bodyshield for his weak ass.

4. On top of all this is the stunning double fact: One, is that we all collectively moved on from the republican shooting dump situation, because republican violence is so normalized, and second, his rallies are shrinking Because Even The People Find Them Too Dangerous.

Turns out guns are a problem for republicans. But unlike kids in school, they have the choice not to go to a dangerous republican gathering.

All this to culminate in my theory: R's will drop Dump 2 months in and just accept the losses by replacing him with god knows who probably RFK tbh. They know his goose is completely cooked if he loses, and presently? He's losing. Publically and Loudly.

He's scared as fuck right now and R's eat each other for any social weakness they can create. Dump looks weaker than inch thin frozen piss like my god Cruz has more of a spine now and it may be entirely due to age.

You also have his core fanbae (white supremecists) starting to turn on him. There's leak after leak of stuff he's saying none of it new but desperately old and tried and thus nothing sticks for his fanbase. Every poll has him losing hard, worst of all? To a Bi-Racial Woman. His voters hate her but hate a weak man more. (see how they view trans issues)

He himself will never ever drop out. But his party Absolutely Will Kick Him Out Guaranteed. And we'll see a very bizarre flop in the narrative about Dump from R talking heads. Suddenly when he's gone, they can be honest about him. (Like dems with Biden, literally already, as I called it probably a year ago now)

All this to say, Ya'll if he doesn't have a stroke or some shit, it's either his voter base or cohorts that'll ensure one for him. I kinda feel like most of the political violence that'll come out when Dump loses, will turn inward near immedietely, likely, towards himself.

I mean, they didn't make gallows with a dems name on em, and they did kill some cops, just saying they appear to go after their own when they're in crowds. That and a single gunshot sent them all running, and a single black man completely diverted their attention from their actual goals simply by being black. Literal Toddlers are more successful in any of their goals.

NONE of this is to placate. Vote Kamala, vote Third Party. Just don't not vote. Don't let this opportunity slip away, Dems actually trying is a first in a lifetime, keep that momentum going, and stop allowing bullshit based on party affiliation. God damn RFK the starved brain word dude is considered dem, we deserve better than Biden or RFK, and Kamala/Walz is a hell of a start.

Vote. But ensure you crush R's voting spirit.

We don't need nazis voting for nazis. Ya don't have to sell Kamala/Walz to R's, you need to make R's and Dump appear as weak as they've always been, that's what is working best, because their image is actually everything, we saw it with Rittenhouse and Rogan. Immedietely flip flop because their image was made weak.

That's all a theory, a politic theory. Thank. go now.

[collapsedsquid]

I’ve been toying with a different theory of the president’s woes, one that makes better sense of his peculiar demographic weaknesses: Voters with low levels of trust in society and the political system are shifting rightward. Donald Trump redefined the GOP in the eyes of many, associating the party with a paranoid vision of American life and a populist contempt for the nation’s political system. In response, Democrats rallied to the defense of America’s greatness, norms, and institutions. As the parties polarized on the question of whether America was “already great,” voters with high levels of social trust and confidence in the political system became more Democratic, while those with low social trust and little faith in the government became more Republican. This miniature realignment was apparent in 2016 and 2020, according to some analysts. And there is some reason to think that it may have accelerated over the past four years. If it did, then Biden’s peculiar difficulties with young, nonwhite, and/or low-propensity voters would make more sense, as those demographic groups evince unusually little trust in their government or fellow Americans. 

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Trevor Irvin, Southerland Report

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

October 24, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Oct 25, 2024

Trump’s threat to use the military on “the enemy within,” along with the recent statements of General John Kelly and other members of Trump’s administration who say he is a fascist, have fed growing concern that Trump’s reelection could spark a deadly conflict between MAGA Republicans and those they perceive as their enemies. But there has been far less attention paid to the civil war within the Republican Party.

On the Hugh Hewitt Show this morning, Trump boasted that he had “taken the Republican Party and made [it] into an entirely different party…The Republican Party is a very big, powerful party. Before, it stood, it was an elitist party with real stiffs running it.”

Trump’s analysis of his effect on the party is right. In 2015, the party had been controlled for years by a small group of leaders who wanted to carve the U.S. government back to its size and activity of the years before the 1930s, slashing regulations on business and cutting the social safety net so they could cut taxes. But their numbers were small, so to stay in power, they relied on the votes of the racist and sexist reactionaries who didn’t like civil rights.

Once he took office in 2017, Trump put the base of the party in the driver’s seat. Using the same techniques that had boosted Hungarian prime minister Victor Orbán, he attacked immigrants, Black Americans, and people of color, and promised to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision protecting abortion rights. After his defense of the participants in the August 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, he began to turn his followers into a movement by encouraging them to engage in violence. 

In the following years, Trump’s hold on his voting base enabled him to take over the Republican Party, pushing the older Republican establishment aside. In March 2024 he took over the Republican National Committee itself, installing a loyalist and his own daughter-in-law Lara Trump at its head and adjusting its finances so that they primarily benefited him.

But while older leaders were happy to use Trump’s base to keep the party in power, the two factions were never in sync. Established Republican leaders’ goal was to preside over a largely unregulated market-driven economy. But MAGA Republicans want a weak government only with regard to foreign enemies—another place where they part company with established Republicans. Instead, they want a strong government to impose religious rules. Rather than leaving companies alone to react to markets, they want them to shape their businesses around MAGA ideology, denying LGBTQ+ rights, for example. 

In 2024, those tensions are stronger. Trump’s promise to build a tariff wall around the country contradicts the established Republicans’ reliance on free trade. His vow to deport 20 million immigrants threatens to devastate entire sectors of the economy. Both plans are widely panned by economists. Yesterday, twenty-three Nobel Prize-winning economists warned that Trump’s economic plans would “lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality.” On Morning Joe today, economic analyst Steve Rattner noted that Trump’s plans would cut the gross domestic product in the U.S. by 8.9%, creating a severe recession or a depression. 

MAGA Republicans are fiercely loyal to Trump, but it is not clear how much they offer to those trying to get elected in more moderate districts. Extremist abortion bans have fired up significant opposition to Republican candidates, and that opposition does not appear to be weakening. "My wife…was miscarrying and bleeding out,” John Legend said today on the podcast of Broncos legend Shannon Sharpe. “Her life was in danger, and for the government to say, 'Oh, we need to evaluate this to make sure you're sufficiently dying before you can have an abortion'—that’s what they’re saying in...all these states where they have Trump abortion bans. Not your doctor, not you and your family. The government. No! Stay out of it!... We don’t need the government to be involved in it. And if the government’s involved, that means the police and the district attorney are involved in medical decisions. That's crazy!” 

“He is killing us!” Mika Brzezinski said this morning on Morning Joe. “He is putting us at risk. He is making us afraid to have babies. He is putting our reproductive health at risk and some women have died already because of this…. What’s happening with women right now is real, and it is playing out across America.”

MAGA extremists in the House of Representatives did the party as a whole no favors when they took control of the chamber in 2023 and made it virtually impossible for the Republicans to govern. Party members took weeks to agree on a House speaker and then threw him out, marking the first time in U.S. history that a party has thrown out its own speaker. With MAGA extremists unwilling to compromise on their demands, the Republicans were unable to pass almost any legislation at all, including appropriations bills and the long-overdue farm bill. 

Their determination not to yield an inch continues. A Trump-endorsed Republican candidate challenging a Democrat incumbent in New York could not name a single Democrat she would be willing to work with if she is elected. “These people are not fit to govern,” House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) posted today.

MAGA Republicans are already signaling their intent to expand their power in the House should Republicans retain control over it: Ohio representative Jim Jordan appears to be considering making a bid for House leadership, while others have their eye on committee chairs. Joe Perticone of The Bulwark explored today how “Trump’s Already Stuffing House GOP ‘Normies’ in a Locker” as they feel obliged to defend everything he does, even when his former White House chief of staff says he is a fascist. 

But the struggle between the Republican factions has not gone away in the past few years. Indeed, it appears to be escalating as evidence mounts that Trump will not be able to continue to lead the party. Earlier this month, 230 doctors publicly called on Trump to release his medical records, “Trump is falling concerningly short of any standard of fitness for office and displaying alarming characteristics of declining acuity," they wrote. Today, 233 mental health professionals organized by conservative lawyer George Conway’s Anti-Psycho PAC warned both that Trump “appears to be showing signs of cognitive decline that urgently cry out for a full neurological work-up,” and that his malignant narcissism makes him “grossly unfit for leadership.” 

But if Trump’s grip is slipping, who will take over the party? 

In a new biography of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) by Michael Tackett of The Associated Press, obtained by CNN, McConnell condemned the MAGA movement and blamed Trump for making it hard for the Republican Party to compete. He called Trump “not very smart, irascible, nasty, just about every quality you would not want somebody to have.” He also went after Florida senator Rick Scott for his leadership of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, the party’s campaign arm.

Trump loyalist Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) promptly called McConnell’s comments “indefensible.” Scott said he was “shocked that [McConnell] would attack a fellow Republican senator and the Republican nominee for president just two weeks out from an election.”

Technology elites, including Elon Musk, who is pouring money into Trump’s campaign, and Peter Thiel, who backs Trump’s running mate J.D. Vance, also appear to be making a play to control the Republican Party, challenging both the established Republicans and the MAGAs.

And then there are the Republican voters, some of whom are abandoning the MAGA Republicans who are now openly embracing fascism. Today, Republican state senator Rob Cowles of Green Bay, Wisconsin, who has served for almost 42 years, announced he would vote for Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris. David Holt, the Republican mayor of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, also indicated he would be casting his ballot for Harris.

In 1880, when the Democrats went off the extremist cliff, voters forced it to move to the center.

In 1879, after the bitterly contested 1876 election, voters gave Democrats control of Congress. So convinced were Democrats that the American people backed their determination to overthrow Reconstruction, they refused to fund the government unless Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes pulled the federal government out of the southern states. (They also tried to get a federal pension for Confederate president Jefferson Davis.)

“If this is not revolution,” Civil War veteran House minority leader James A. Garfield (R-OH) said, “which if persisted in will destroy the government, [then] I am wholly wrong in my conception of both the word and the thing.” 

Observers had expected the 1880 election to be a romp for the Democrats, who reiterated their demands in their party platform, but voters backed Garfield’s defense of the country and of Black rights and elected him to the White House. 

The unexpected loss prompted the Democrats to toss aside their former Confederate leaders and shift toward the northern cities. For president in 1884 they backed former New York governor Grover Cleveland, who had broadened Black appointments to office and desegregated the New York City police force, and who had worked closely with New York Assembly minority leader Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, to reform the worst abuses of the industrial system. Cleveland won with the help of significant numbers of crossover Republican voters, dubbed “Mugwumps,” thereby securing the roots of the modern Democratic Party.

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[bambamramfan]

What If They Win

Too much has been written about the horse race of this election, but not nearly enough analysis about how either administration will govern. There's some fearmongering about Project 2025 or courtpacking, but that's propaganda not actual predictions.

(FWIW, I think Trump has this race in the bag, but can understand people who still hope think this is a coin flip.)

If Harris Wins...

Harris has held together a remarkable coalition of people against Trump. Mainstream Democratic politicians, YIMBY pundit technocrats, far lefters holding their nose, and Republican neoconservatives. This is no criticism, it's pretty impressive how they are coming together to defeat a common enemy, and I really really would like them to win.

But what happens to a coalition defined by a common enemy, after they win? Let's assume the best case scenario and she gets a Democratic Senate who confirms her cabinet and some SCOTUS judges.

Who supports Harris in the press, or is vote-corraling for her in Congress? Not those Republicans who hope to turn a page on the Trump era. Not a far left who has decided to hate her as a centrist sell out. Not moderate dems who will run away from any hint of weakness. Maybe a few of those YIMBY pundits who hope she's actually committed to more houses and nuclear power. But that's no political hyperpower.

What would her first major bill be? Who would support it? It will be just one scandal plagued administration with little support from any quarter that makes its ground breaking "first" for subaltern identities a disappointing token. The David Dinkens of the White House.

I predict that President Harris would have the lowest approval rating in her first year of any President we have polling for. It's gonna be brutal, and an easy 2028 win for Republicans (who hopefully won't be running 82 year old Trump.)

If Trump Wins...

This is the interesting one. I've heard a lot of people say that a second Trump term will be even worse than the first because he's fully unleased now and no one can stop him from doing what he really wants. And I think this is partly true.

I just don't think what he wants is "Republican authoritarian rule." Sure, he will probably let the Fed Society still pick the judges (which he never cared about besides thinking they should be loyal to him) and there will almost certainly be a tax cut/extension. But besides that?

In the first Trump term, he had VP Pence, Jeff Sessions as AG, governors like Chris Christie, and three establishment figures at State, Defense, and Treasury making a pact that if Trump fires one they all resign. It was an actual coalition of Republicans and Trumpists who need each other. Even Jared Kushner was pretty establishment friendly (he's the one who approved Pence.)

Jared and Ivanka are gone now, replaced by Eric and Donjr. The VP is a Thiel-acolyte who isn't anti-Republican but sure is "from the blogs." And the endorsers Trump touts are RFK Jr, Tulsi Gabbard, Elon Musk (while more and more mod Republicans endorse Harris.)

This isn't a Trump face over a body of Republicans - this is a Trump leader over all the fringe outsiders of American weirdo culture. I think Trump *actually does* want to appoint RFK to Secretary of Health, and indulge in every conspiracy, organic hippie, crunchy nonsense - which actually has a lot of believers across the country, but extremely little following in DC itself.

I think this will be hilarious beyond our wildest dreams of entertainment. It will not be a functional fascism - it will be closer to Jill Stein and Richard Branson and Andrew Tate. He'll try to pass laws that every kid in America needs to eat healthy and also work in a McDonalds.

[eugenedebs1920]

The situation we find ourselves in is on account of 2 things! Democrats kind hearted, trusting nature, and Republicans lust for relevancy, power and their spinelessness.

Trump should be either, in prison/Guantanamo bay, or on trial heading towards one of those locations.

The corruption is infuriating! I’m no law scholar or a constitutional lawyer, just some dumb plumber, but the fourteenth amendment section 3 CLEARLY states:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President or Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military under the United States or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature,or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemy thereof.

It’s not hard to comprehend what they were articulating. It’s not hard to understand their meaning in some textualism nonsense! Simple! If you, as an American holding federal office, rebelled against or staged a coup, albeit failed or otherwise, violated the oath you took, to protect and defend, the Constitution of the United States, you are disqualified from holding any federal position again! Simple!

To say this Supreme Court isn’t partisan. To say they aren’t corrupt, can only be attested to being deaf blind and dumb, or pure partisan hackery! Shame on them! Shame on Mitch McConnell, and frankly shame on garbage MAGA! It is clear the simple minded loyalty far outweighs the Constitution to them. It is easy to see the sycophancy holds more reverence to them than their nation. The lack of foresightedness to the consequences of their allegiance to one man, one party, one view of the United States has potential to result in its downfall. For when the structures of government are burdened to the ground, in their ashes lie the remnants of democracy, with our republic wafting away like smoke from the rubble.

What will be built upon the heap of a once free and prosperous nation, will be the unqualified craftsmanship of the terrorist responsible for its demise. Raised on the flimsy ground of oligarchs and plutocrats, a foundation reinforce with the same seditionists who oversaw the demolition. With its structure made, not for the people, but for those who seek its exploitation. A decor of fascism and oppression hanging on the walls of tyranny, portraits resembling an illusion of what once was. Above head the autocratic shingles drip the rewards to its inhabitants poured down from the servitude of the constituency. This flimsy construct of a building erected for the benefit of the few, by the many, will find its supports fail time and time again, only worsening the conditions upon those whose labor constructed it.

The whole purpose of the tripartite system, the whole reasoning behind checks and balances, the entire point of the three branches of government was to prevent consolidation of power, not to enhance it! With a minority rule this has been achieved.

In their gullibility Democrats, liberals stood by assuming the structures of our Constitution would hold. Actively watching this demolition take place. Hardly putting forth a struggle against it. Their morality prohibiting the defense of democracy in some self righteous weakness against tactics of corruption not on the same grounds of that in which this code of conduct would give good grace. When one comes to dismantle the very structure of your republic you do not stand as a nail but as an iron beam. Not all can be trusted, not all have a standard of ethical conduct upon which they stand. You cannot win a boxing match when your opponent shows up with a machete.

It is the trust from the left that allowed these attacks on our Constitution to occur as much as it was demonsterous betrayal of it from the right.

[fruitycutie]

Debate thoughts and quickie analysis!

The main reason Democrat and Republican debates have been historically frustrating is because it's always: Step 1: Republican makes outlandish, false claim about democrats or immigrants or what have you! Step 2: The Democrat responds with, "well no, actually, um" and doesn't actually face or address how INSANE Republican statements are in the first place. Step 3: The Republican, having already won, sneers the whole time and controls the conversation. This has been the case for 90% of recent american history. I am glad to see that that is NOT the case anymore. Kamala is actually doing really good, AND the moderators were on point, too. Like, for example, actually asking critical questions to both, and providing fact checks when Trump says that immigrants are EATING YOUR PETS, Substantiating that they already talked to the mayor of Springfield, Ohio and that there is absolutely no evidence found of something that- lets face it- is just one person's brain worms. It spread from one person's probably ill mind, and became a MAJOR REPUBLICAN POINT! It's that easy. And now it's completely gone because of course it is, its a total fabrication and in 2024 those don't fly anymore because we don't live in ignorance of Trump's strategies anymore. This whole thing just shows how desperate, vile and awful they are, that this is ALL they have after all. Honestly though, just seeing the people making bullshit up on the defensive is great! So I enjoyed the debate a lot. That being said, I want to talk about the fact that I was also pleasantly surprised. I expected it to be more 50/50, truth be told. I do think Kamala, like any other Dem, has a little bit of liberal syndrome - which is pretty standard for Democrats, it's just their bread and butter weakness, but she's definitely the best in that regard - which is why she's actually doing well! What do I mean by that? Well, it's simple. Democrats make this mistake of thinking that they're as equally left as Republicans are right - which is only a little bit, in this theory - and we can unite as a people, if we just try. Meanwhile, the reality of the situation is that the Democrats live in the real world, where people matter and policies affect them, while to be completely honest, Republicans live in the AI power fantasy where the Shadow Qabbal Border Tzar Trans Alien Prison Immigrants from Mexico are killing every aspect of the american dream you love and schools are where your Children transition by Force, you can trademark half of those buzzwords if you want. And you damn well know that if it were convenient for them, they'd include Jews in that, too. The point is, that is fundamentally not something you can compromise with. Because to compromise with something, it has to like, already exist in REALITY, right? And their ideas just don't. To summarize I guess, the main mistake Dems make is that they believe they'll get more of the Republican voter base if they move right slightly. BUT THAT NEVER WORKS!!! Because, the people voting for trump are ALL cultists, who are stuck up their own ass about emotional messaging and DO NOT care for empiricism, DO NOT care for results or outcomes, all they care about is being right that trump is their american savior. After all, as soon as Trump lost in 2020- a verifiable fact with NO room for empirical debate without changing the meaning of the word "lose", a shitstorm of false accusations about the election being stolen happened, the Capitol riot happened, not to mention even that Trump keeps promising that if he gets elected, nobody will have to vote again. Like - come on, it's so transparently fascism, to the point where even the most irrationally opposed to the term have to see it. You cannot reason or compromise with people like that, it's just not possible. Kamala has been better about this than all democrats up to her, easily, but she's still not perfect. And I hope this is completely understood by democrats going forward, if the Republican enstablishment doesn't change it's ways.

[boinkingbattlemechs]

King Crab

Designed by Cosara Weaponries in 2741 at the request of General Aleksandr Kerensky for an assault 'Mech that could "cripple or destroy another 'Mech in one salvo," the King Crab is one of the most fearsome BattleMechs to have ever existed. Its primary weapons, super-heavy autocannons mounted in its arms, can strip the armor off of any 'Mech in a few bursts. Its secondary weapons give the slow King Crab the firepower to see off attackers attempting to pick it off at range, and while not sporting the heaviest armor of any assault 'Mech, there are absolutely no weak points to its protection. If there is a drawback to the King Crab, it's the reliance on ammunition for the autocannons, an aspect to consider on extended campaigns with no guarantee of resupply. If it runs out of ammo, most King Crab pilots will withdraw from the field, making it vulnerable to enemy attacks. The only reliable way to destroy a King Crab is with overwhelming numbers of heavy and assault 'Mechs, and casualties will be suffered in the attempt.

While an excellent close-range combatant, the King Crab proved to be less versatile as a command vehicle, a role eventually filled by the Atlas. Later production models eventually had the state-of-the-art communications systems swapped out for common systems more suited for the brawling nature of the King Crab. At the start of the Amaris Civil War in 2767 Cosara's Mars factory was destroyed by Republican forces, although its factory on Northwind managed to escape unscathed. When General Kerensky and the majority of the Star League Defense Force left the Inner Sphere on their Exodus, they brought with them most of the initial production run of King Crabs, including all of the prototype KGC-010 models. The number of remaining King Crabs was further reduced when the Northwind factory was destroyed in 2786, one of the early casualties of the First Succession War. Since the design used few Lostech parts, it was easier to repair than other Star League era 'Mechs. Still, by the end of the Third Succession War a mere handful of King Crabs were still in active service with the Great Houses.

When ComStar initiated the takeover of the Terra system, they were able to repair the King Crab factory on Mars, mothball it, and secretly secure a number of King Crabs in storage. By the dawn of the thirty-first century ComStar contracted Cosara Weaponries to resume production in order to restock their supply, which had begun to degrade with age and was later used to outfit the Com Guards. For the pivotal Battle of Tukayyid the King Crab was among a number of designs upgraded to meet the challenge of the Clans, the so-called "Clanbusters." The success of the KGC-001 model was such that ComStar allowed Cosara to begin general production from their Mars and Northwind factories and sell it on the open market in exchange for a share of the profits.

The Word of Blake brought about a radical shift in King Crab production, first by their own conquest of Terra, then a few years later when they blockaded Northwind, infiltrated and took over the factory in 3069. New variants of the King Crab were now being produced and shipped to the Word of Blake and its Protectorate, forcing ComStar to attempt something unusual for the once-secretive organization. They hired a small mercenary team specialized in corporate espionage and inserted them into the Northwind factory to steal the plans for these new 'Mechs. With the technical information in hand they then went to StarCorps Industries and offered them the chance to begin production of the new KGC-007 models. The company was thrilled at the prospect and accepted, building new King Crabs out of Son Hoa not just for ComStar but the Federated Suns and Lyran Alliance as well.

The King Crab's primary weapons are two massive Deathgiver Autocannon/20s, among the most powerful BattleMech weapons ever created. Each arm carries one of these massive weapons, and they are fed by two tons of ammo split between the side torsos. The firepower of these weapons is enough to destroy a medium 'Mech in one salvo. To protect the autocannons in combat, engineers designed the King Crab with simple hand actuators. In appearance and movement, the actuators are very similar to pincers or claws found on real crabs, a contributing factor to the 'Mech's name. To back up the autocannons, and provide some long-range capabilities, the King Crab carries a Simpson-15 LRM-15 launcher, mounted in the left torso and fed by one ton of reloads in the same location, and an Exostar Large Laser in the right torso. While not the most heavily armored 'Mech, the King Crab is still tough to crack, with sixteen tons of ferro-fibrous armor and CASE protecting its ammunition stores; however, the arms are probably the most susceptible area to receive damage and an internal hit is likely to knock an autocannon out of the fight. The 'Mech is also slow, with a cruising speed of 32 km/h and top speed of 54 km/h, and has been described as a "notorious hangar queen".

[tomorrowusa]

MAGA extremists often rant about the so-called "deep state" which apparently means national defense, security, public safety, and regulatory bodies. The wannabe dictators prefer not to have checks and balances which can prevent them from going full-blown fascist. It's easier to get away with shit when you don't have to worry about accountability.

It's useful to see how such an attitude has already played out in another country.

Israel has been weakened by its own rightwingers who have eroded its security agencies with politics. Prime Minister Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu is the Israeli version of the so-called "Smart Trump" who many Republicans dream about. His rightwing governments have been running Israel for most of this century.

Bibi himself is still technically on trial on corruption charges. This year he and his coalition partners have attempted to strip the Israeli Supreme Court of many of its powers. And those partners, even more extremist than he is, had been dismissing security warnings from defense and intelligence agencies; of course those warnings abruptly turned out to be credible.

What’s happening in Israel now is a disturbing example of what can happen when elected officials use partisan and personal motivations to warp national security. For years, Republicans in Congress have attempted to sabotage what they call the “Deep State.” This includes placing holds on political nominees and castigating diplomats, officers and analysts employed in the government as captives to “Big Woke.” They might see it as political theater, necessary to boosting profiles and fundraising. But as this week shows, there can be a price. Reporting suggests that the hardline elements of Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing coalition were openly hostile to warnings from the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and security agency Shin Bet that settler violence would increase the security threat to Israel. One Likud member of parliament complained: “The ideology of the left has reached the top echelons of the Shin Bet. The deep state has infiltrated the leadership of the Shin Bet and the IDF.” Another Netanyahu coalition member stated, “We see there is confusion as to who is an enemy.”

Attacking Israel's armed forces (the IDF) and its version of the FBI (Shin Bet) for political reasons has not done a lot for public safety there. It's like being mean to your watch dog for barking a warning.

Hamas’ surprise attack has highlighted further national security dysfunction within the Netanyahu government. There are confirmed reports that Egyptian intelligence directly warned Netanyahu that “something fierce will happen from Gaza.” Allegedly, Netanyahu was indifferent to the warning, explaining that the IDF was “swamped” with terrorism threats in the West Bank. Israeli critics have stated that his coalition repeatedly ignored earlier warnings from Arab allies regarding rising levels of Palestinian frustration. Haaretz editorialized this week that, “a prime minister indicted in three corruption cases cannot look after state affairs, as national interests will necessarily be subordinate to extricating him from a possible conviction and jail time.”

Netanyahu's ignoring of the warnings about a potential Hamas attack reminds me of the infamous 06 August 2001 intelligence brief George W. Bush ignored with the title Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US.

Here’s my question: Is Israel a harbinger for the United States? Are we getting a sneak preview of what will happen if Republicans succeed in their effort to exercise more control over the national security bureaucracy?

I think we all know the answer to that. Americans should worry.

The problem comes when elected officials and political appointees decide that in order to achieve their desired ends, they need to reduce entire national security institutions to rubble. And let’s be very clear: In 2023, all of the U.S. partisans engaging in such behavior are Republicans. Former president and likely future presidential nominee Donald Trump has set the tone here. The number of instances that the former president sabotaged U.S. national security while in office and afterwards is too long to recount in detail. There’s the blabbing of secrets to Russian officials in the Oval Office, the tweeting of classified photos, the refusal to return national security secrets once he left office, and the fact that he shared extremely sensitive information about the capabilities of U.S. nuclear submarines to Mar-a-Lago members, who in turn blabbed it to everyone. His behavior was so egregious that multiple former cabinet members — most recently John Kelly, Trump’s former White House chief of staff — have gone on the record to discuss the danger he poses. Back in June his attorney general, William Barr, warned on Face the Nation, “He will always put his own interests, and gratifying his own ego, ahead of everything else, including the country’s interests.”

It's not just Trump but also his sycophants and the wannabe Trumps.

Trump is the loudest but hardly the only Republican willing to sabotage the U.S. national security architecture. Other GOP presidential contenders have expressed an equally strident desire. Vivek Ramaswamy promised to “use executive authority to shut down the deep state.” His plans included firing 75 percent of the federal workforce and dismantling the FBI and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been even more violent in his rhetoric, promising one New Hampshire crowd that “all these deep state people … we’re going to start slitting throats on day one.”

Elon Musk fired 75% (or more) of Twitter staff the way that Vivek Ramaswamy wants to fire 75% of the federal government. We know how that's going.

Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is currently using arcane Senate rules to damage the US armed forces.

The most obvious manifestation of this is Sen. Tommy Tuberville holding more than three hundred military promotions hostage unless the Pentagon stops funding travel for service women to receive abortions. This includes two selections for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Middle East theater commanders for naval and ground forces. [ ... ] Marco Rubio has placed holds on multiple Biden nominees, as has Ted Cruz. The result is that, at present, the United States does not have confirmed ambassadors in Israel, Egypt, Lebanon and Kuwait. There has been no confirmed USAID official for the Middle East for close to three years, nor has there been a confirmed State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism for nearly two years.

Raise your hand if you think it's kinda important to have a State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism. 🙋🏽

Republicans would like to do to US national security what the far right Netanyahu government has done to Israel's.

[mariacallous]

Congress is moving closer to putting US election technology under a stricter cybersecurity microscope.

Embedded inside this year’s Intelligence Authorization Act, which funds intelligence agencies like the CIA, is the Strengthening Election Cybersecurity to Uphold Respect for Elections through Independent Testing (SECURE IT) Act, which would require penetration testing of federally certified voting machines and ballot scanners, and create a pilot program exploring the feasibility of letting independent researchers probe all manner of election systems for flaws.

The SECURE IT Act—originally introduced by US senators Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, and Susan Collins, a Maine Republican—could significantly improve the security of key election technology in an era when foreign adversaries remain intent on undermining US democracy.

“This legislation will empower our researchers to think the way our adversaries do, and expose hidden vulnerabilities by attempting to penetrate our systems with the same tools and methods used by bad actors,” says Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The new push for these programs highlights the fact that even as election security concerns have shifted to more visceral dangers such as death threats against county clerks, polling-place violence, and AI-fueled disinformation, lawmakers remain worried about the possibility of hackers infiltrating voting systems, which are considered critical infrastructure but are lightly regulated compared to other vital industries.

Russia’s interference in the 2016 election shined a spotlight on threats to voting machines, and despite major improvements, even modern machines can be flawed. Experts have consistently pushed for tighter federal standards and more independent security audits. The new bill attempts to address those concerns in two ways.

The first provision would codify the US Election Assistance Commission’s recent addition of penetration testing to its certification process. (The EAC recently overhauled its certification standards, which cover voting machines and ballot scanners and which many states require their vendors to meet.)

While previous testing simply verified whether machines contained particular defensive measures—such as antivirus software and data encryption—penetration testing will simulate real-world attacks meant to find and exploit the machines’ weaknesses, potentially yielding new information about serious software flaws.

“People have been calling for mandatory [penetration] testing for years for election equipment,” says Edgardo Cortés, a former Virginia elections commissioner and an adviser to the election security team at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.

The bill’s second provision would require the EAC to experiment with a vulnerability disclosure program for election technology—including systems that are not subject to federal testing, such as voter registration databases and election results websites.

Vulnerability disclosure programs are essentially treasure hunts for civic-minded cyber experts. Vetted participants, operating under clear rules about which of the organizer’s computer systems are fair game, attempt to hack those systems by finding flaws in how they are designed or configured. They then report any flaws they discover to the organizer, sometimes for a reward.

By allowing a diverse group of experts to hunt for bugs in a wide range of election systems, the Warner–Collins bill could dramatically expand scrutiny of the machinery of US democracy.

The pilot program would be a high-profile test of the relationship between election vendors and researchers, who have spent decades clashing over how to examine and disclose flaws in voting systems. The bill attempts to assuage vendors’ concerns by requiring the EAC to vet prospective testers and by prohibiting testers from publicly disclosing any vulnerabilities they find for 180 days. (They would also have to immediately report vulnerabilities to the EAC and the Department of Homeland Security.)

Still, one provision could spark concern. The bill would require manufacturers to patch or otherwise mitigate serious reported vulnerabilities within 180 days of confirming them. The EAC—which must review all changes to certified voting software—would have 90 days to approve fixes; any fix not approved within that timetable would be “deemed to be certified,” though the commission could review it later.

A vendor might not be able to fix a problem, get that fix approved, and get all of its customers to deploy that fix before the nondisclosure period expires.

“Updates to equipment in the field can take many weeks, and modifying equipment close to an election date is a risky operation,” says Ben Adida, the executive director of the vendor VotingWorks.

Some vendors might also chafe at the bill’s legal protections for researchers. The legislation includes a “safe harbor” clause that exempts testing activities from the prohibitions of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and bars vendors from suing researchers under those laws for accidental violations of the program’s terms.

There is also a funding question. The SECURE IT Act doesn’t authorize any new money for the EAC to run these programs.

“I hope Congress accounts for the necessary funding needed to support the increased responsibilities the EAC will take on,” says EAC chair Ben Hovland. “Investments in programs like this are critical to maintaining and strengthening the security of our elections.”

Meanwhile, the bill’s prospects are unclear. Even if it passes the Senate, there is no sign of similar momentum in the House.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Noah Berlatsky at Public Notice:

The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday held a lengthy oversight hearing to badger Attorney General Merrick Garland and push the GOP’s false narrative about President Biden weaponizing the DOJ against Donald Trump. Even though the hearing was conducted in obvious bad faith, it was in some ways successful, at least in the limited sense that Republicans grabbed a lot of headlines and forced Garland to spend a day on the defensive. Virtually every major news outlet it extensive coverage, ranging from the New York Times to MSNBC to Newsmax.

The hearing meant that for at least a day, everyone talked about whether the DOJ is treating Trump unfairly, rather than about, say, whether Trump should step aside from the GOP presidential nomination given his felony convictions, or whether Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito should recuse himself after an insurrectionist flag was flown over his house. Congressional oversight hearings give Congress a chance to focus the national conversation on what members want to talk about. It gives them a chance to pressure executive branch officials to adopt congressional priorities, or to explain and potentially embarrass themselves. In contrast, Democrats in the Senate have been bizarrely reluctant to use hearings to advance their agenda. Dick Durbin, chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has refused to hold hearings to investigate egregious evidence of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas receiving gifts from far right billionaires, or to demand answers from Alito about his apparent embrace of the insurrection. Instead, he’s posting weak statements on social media meekly calling for right-wing members of the Court to do a better job policing themselves. [...]

Senate Democrats need to get a clue

Democrats have of course decried the House hearings on Garland as nakedly partisan nonsense. Garland himself pushed back forcefully against (baseless) Republican claims that the Justice Department had somehow been behind the successful New York state prosecution of Trump on charges of falsifying business records related to hush money payments. Garland described the claim the Justice Department was involved as a “conspiracy theory” and an “attack on the judicial process itself.”  Forceful rejection of Republican lies is a good thing. But there are limits to playing defense. And Democrats have good reason to launch their own judicial investigations not of the Biden Justice Department, but of the Supreme Court. This year, after an extensive investigation, ProPublica determined that Clarence Thomas has for 20 years received lavish gifts, including vacations and loans, from billionaire Republican donors like Harlan Crow. More recently, the New York Times reported that in the days after the January 6 insurrection, an upside-down flag — a symbol of support for Trump’s coup attempt — was raised over the home of Justice Samuel Alito.

Thomas and Alito have shown clear evidence of corruption and/or bias. The Senate Judiciary Committee is supposed to provide oversight for the judiciary and monitor ethical standards and practices. This seems like a great opportunity to hold hearings on the far right Court and demand accountability. Or so you’d think. Durbin has been weirdly but consistently timid. He has not called Thomas to appear before the Judiciary Committee, claiming that Thomas would just refuse to show up. In the case of Alito, Durbin has called on him to recuse himself from cases involving Trump and the 2020 election — including the Court’s current case on whether Trump has immunity from prosecution from his role in January 6. But Alito has refused to recuse, and Chief Justice John Roberts refuses to meet with Durbin and his committee to discuss the matter. The Court has also failed to adopt even the minimal toothless, unenforceable ethics standards that Durbin has been haplessly pushing for years. So, if Alito and Roberts say they won’t cooperate, is that that?

Of course not. Congress has a lot of power. Durbin could subpoena Alito and Thomas and threaten to hold them in contempt if they don’t appear at hearings, just as the House has threatened to hold Garland in contempt. The spectacle of Supreme Court justices lawlessly rejecting subpoenas to even talk to Congress would in itself be a huge story. It would generate media headlines and bringing pressure to bear on Thomas and Alito to recuse themselves from cases involving Trump. The Senate Judiciary Committee could also subpoena others involved in undermining the integrity of the court. The committee has actually approved subpoenas for Harlan Crow and Leonard Leo, key figures in the Thomas bribery scandal. But Durbin has refused to issue those subpoenas, for unclear reasons. Similarly, the Senate Judiciary Committee could hold hearings on the insurrectionist flags flying outside Alito’s home (yes, there was more than one). Alito claims his wife was responsible for the flags, and he himself had nothing to do with them. The committee could call Alito’s wife, Martha Ann, and ask her to explain why she flew the flag and explain the justice’s involvement. [...]

Why won’t Durbin act?

The advantages of using the power of the Senate, including hearings and subpoenas, is pretty clear. Alito and Thomas have shown themselves to be corrupt, biased, and arrogant. Despite massive conflicts of interest, they refuse to recuse themselves, much less resign. That undermines the integrity of the Court, undermines the rule of law, and threatens the Constitution and democracy itself. If there was ever a case for oversight, this is it. And oversight can be effective. Focusing the media on a huge scandal can lead to more reporting, more revelations, more public pressure, and political gain. The threat of subpoenas, and the exposure of hearings, can force justices to look for ways to defuse criticism — and recusing from cases where they are compromised is a pretty obvious step. Durbin’s sad tactic of just begging the justices to do better has not worked. Why won’t he use the tools he has? It’s unclear; his explanations (like arguing Thomas wouldn’t show up anyway) don’t make a lot of sense. Maybe he’s conflict averse. Maybe he’s leery of undermining the legitimacy of the court. Maybe he’s afraid of GOP backlash.

This Noah Berlatsky column in Public Notice is 100% spot-on: Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Durbin needs to stop acting like a potted plant and start conducting hearings into SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito’s compromised ethics. It is time for the Democrats to play on offense instead of being perpetually on defense.

[theantonian]

FIRST BATTLE OF PHILIPPI, 3RD OCT, 42 BC

The battle was fought between the forces of the Triumvirs Marcus Antonius and Octavian and the Liberators Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus.

The battle would involve the largest number of troops in Roman warfare up to that point. 19 legions of 100,000 men on the Triumvirate side faced 17 Republican legions of 90,000 men. The Triumvirs had a force of 13,000 cavalry and one extra legion stationed at nearby Amphipolis whilst the Republicans had two legions guarding the fleet and a cavalry force of 17,000 on the plain.

Antony ferried his scouting force of four legions under the command of his legate Decidius Saxa across the Adriatic. Octavian did the same, sending another four legions under the command of Narbanus Flaccus, lest the senior Triumvir take sole credit of any success. Cassius and Brutus’ marched towards the west of Philippi, throwing back the advance guards of Saxa and Flaccus; they took up position on either side of the Via Egnatia. Brutus positioned his camp on the right and Cassius on the left wing. They took advantage of two mounds located above the plain of Philippi to make two fortified camps for their legions. Brutus and his eight legions camped at the foot of the mountains and a palisaded corridor was built to connect the two Republican armies. Both camps received additional protection from the Gangites River. The two camps were a significant 2.7 km apart though, which meant the two armies could not easily offer mutual support.

Antony quickly landed his main army of approximately ten legions, positioning them south of Via Egnatia. He concentrated on Cassius’ camp and with typical display of bravery, established his army in a well-fortified camp a mere 1.5 km from the enemy. Ten days later, Octavian’s army of nine legions arrived. He was delayed at Dyrrachium claiming ill health. Even if the Triumvirs had been able to cross the sea with their main force, further communications with Italy were made very difficult by the Republican admiral Domitius Ahenobarbus, with his fleet of 130 ships. Nevertheless, the Republicans had all the advantages of a better supply line and an elevated position so that time was on their side. The Triumvirs would have to take the initiative.

Several early attempts by Antony to draw the enemy down to the plain and out of their defensive positions did not succeed. As a consequence, Antony, while still making a show of troop maneuvers on the plain, attempted to cross the reed marshes undetected by building a causeway from the south and when behind the Republican camps, try to cut their supply lines.

Cassius soon got wind of the strategy and responded by trying to cut off Antony’s advance forces by himself building a transverse wall from his camp to the marshes. Seeing his plan had been discovered, on October 3rd, Antony led a direct assault on Cassius’ wall overwhelming the stunned left flank of the enemy and destroying their fortifications. Then, while the bulk of Cassius’ army was engaged on the plain, Antony went straight for Cassius’s largely undefended camp. As things swung against Cassius’ legions on the plain and when they saw their camp routed a chaotic retreat followed.

Meanwhile Brutus was doing well against Octavian’s legions who, caught by a surprise charge from Brutus’ over-eager advance troops which had necessitated the whole Republican army mobilising in support, were routed in a chaotic battle during which Octavian’s camp was captured. Octavian missed the battle, either pretending or was ill again. He had taken refuge in the marshes and avoided certain capture. On discovering the loss of Cassius’ camp, Brutus sent cavalry reinforcements as Cassius was holding out with a small force on the acropolis of Philippi. Because of his weak eyesight he misinterpreted them as more of Antony’s forces. He sent out one of his officers named Titinius. The cavalry recognised him as one of Cassius’ trusted men as he came towards them, shouted for joy, leaped from their horses and embraced him, while the others went round him with clashes of weapons in happiness.

Cassius, thinking that Titinius was surrounded by the enemy forces said, “My love of life has brought me to the pass of seeing a friend seized by the enemy.” He withdrew into a tent and asked his freedman to kill him.

A little while later, Titinius, crowned with garlands, came back to report to Cassius. But the piteous cries of Cassius’ friend told him that his general had killed himself rather than be captured. He blamed himself for his general’s death, drew his sword and killed himself.

Brutus arrived at Cassius’ camp and learnt of his death. He mourned over the body and called Cassius “the last of the Romans”, prepared the body for burial and sent it to Thasos, in order that the funeral rites might not disturb the camp. An attendant of Cassius, named Demetrius, came to Antony in the evening and presented the robes and the sword which he had taken at once from the dead body.

While all this was happening Antony and Octavian’s reserve troops and supplies under the command of Domitius Calvinus, arriving by sea, were intercepted and destroyed crossing the Adriatic by the Republican fleet. Thus, the first battle of Philippi ended in a 1:1 draw, with 9,000 losses on the Republican side and more than double that figure from Octavian’s army.

Sources: Plutarch's Life of Antony, Brutus

Appian, The Civil Wars

Eleanor Goltz Huzar, Mark Antony

Image: Flemish School, 17th Century, The Death of Brutus and Cassius at the Battle of Philippi.

[detroitpedxing]

In Interviews, Kamala Harris Continues to Bob and Weave

Her media swing showed how she often responds to uncomfortable questions by acknowledging them, yet not fully answering them.

Running an abbreviated campaign in the final sprint before Election Day, Vice President Kamala Harris blitzed the media this week in a series of interviews to speak to voters who say they still don’t know enough about her.

One thing they learned: how she keeps answering the question she wants, not the one that was asked.

Politicians, and presidents in particular, have long treated the ability to bob and weave through uncomfortable questions while remaining on message as a skill to be mastered, like the precise footing required of a carpenter navigating a high-pitched roof.

Bill Clinton’s famous line, “I feel your pain,” was deployed to diffuse an activist’s plea for details on how to end the AIDS epidemic. George W. Bush sabotaged questions about climate change by treating facts as partisan assertions. Barack Obama took his message to social media and largely avoided interviews with White House beat reporters.

This week, Ms. Harris put her own stamp on the art of the dodge.

On “60 Minutes,” she declined to answer a question about whether she considered Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, to be a close ally. She also refused to detail how she would pay for a $3 trillion economic plan.

When asked on ABC’s popular daytime show, “The View,” about accusations from Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida that she had only offered to help with a hurricane as a presidential candidate, she swiftly implicated the criticism as proof of his own partisanship. When Howard Stern asked her on his SiriusXM program later that afternoon if she would select Liz Cheney, the Republican former congresswoman, for her cabinet, Ms. Harris refused to be buttonholed. “I gotta win, Howard,” she said with an air of first-things-first. “I gotta win. I gotta win.”

Her media swing provided a glimpse into how she often responds to unpleasant questions without answering them, questions the very premise of questions she finds unfair and can take it upon herself to reword a query she considers unhelpful.

Ms. Harris, 59, can turn the typically defensive crouch of a non-answer into a bit of verbal jujitsu, as she did in declining the opportunity to identify Mr. Netanyahu as an ally. She can nimbly field a query and quickly lace her reply with trip wire for her opponent, as she did last month in her debate with former President Donald J. Trump.

A trained prosecutor, Ms. Harris is lawyerly, argumentative and fundamentally defensive. She often deflects or sidesteps. She can speak passionately about her values in a way that leaves listeners feeling as if the question had been acknowledged, even if the substance remained unaddressed. To avoid delineating her stance on some issues, she will instead focus on her dedication to progress and inclusion.

Her verbal acrobatics may be contributing to the impression that some voters have that they do not know her or her policy views very well. It has become a key weakness as she rushes to sway millions of undecided voters in the battleground states.

Her opponent is playing a different rhetorical game, maybe a different sport. Mr. Trump continues to shatter the norms of generally accepted practices of political communications. He is known for defending blatant lies. He rambles and reverts to nearly decade-old slogans to avoid answering a question. He regularly sheds a prodigious amount of exaggerations and falsehoods. After two presidential campaigns in which he took pride in ignoring fact-checkers, he has recently refused to participate in interviews or debates that include fact-checking.

The roughly three dozen interviews Mr. Trump has given in the past five weeks have been almost exclusively with conservative outlets or with hosts who are openly supportive of his White House bid. He has declined an invitation for a second debate with Ms. Harris, and canceled an interview he had previously agreed to with “60 Minutes.”

There is no fair way to assess Ms. Harris’s performance while sharing the spotlight with Mr. Trump, an opponent who, earlier this week, insisted he had visited the Gaza Strip, the site of a violent war he has claimed he would end within days of taking office, without any record of him setting foot in that part of the Middle East.

But voters’ lack of familiarity with Ms. Harris means she has little choice but to endure the inequity. In a New York Times/Siena College poll last month, one out of every four voters said they needed to learn more about Ms. Harris — compared with just one of every 10 who said the same about Mr. Trump.

Voters wanting more information about Ms. Harris were primarily young and Black or Hispanic, according to the poll. They typically did not identify with either political party and largely consumed news from social media or online outlets rather than newspapers or cable networks.

Of former President Donald J. Trump’s recent interviews, all but one have been with conservative outlets or with hosts who are openly supportive of his White House bid.

Ms. Harris’s schedule was essentially a media map of those specific demographics.

During her appearance on the “Call Her Daddy” podcast, a chatty entertainment program popular with Gen Z and millennial women, Ms. Harris took aim for the first time at comments made by Senator JD Vance of Ohio, the Republican vice-presidential nominee. She called his remarks about “childless cat ladies” in positions of power “mean and mean spirited.”

It was the 65 minutes she spent with Mr. Stern that was the most personally revealing.

Within the first few minutes alone, she engaged in a debate over Prince’s best album (she said it was “1999,” while Mr. Stern maintained it was the “Batman” soundtrack) and drolly dismissed her husband, Doug Emhoff, as a Depeche Mode fan from her perch as a self-described “hip-hop girl.”

Oct. 2, 2024

David Axelrod, the former Obama strategist who had publicly urged Ms. Harris to engage more deliberately with the media, praised her performance this week.

“Most candidates hone those skills during primary campaigns,” Mr. Axelrod said of Ms. Harris’s truncated campaign. “She was thrown into the deep end of the deepest pool there is 90 days before a general election. And if she isn’t exactly Katie Ledecky yet, she seemed a lot more comfortable than she was a few weeks ago — and the sheer repetition of doing these will help.”

Her appearance on “60 Minutes,” the one traditional news program she agreed to this week, offered some of the clearest examples of her weaving talking points with hints of policy.

Bill Whitaker, the correspondent conducting the interview, asked how she would pay for her $3 trillion economic plan, and Ms. Harris responded by touting the potential benefits for the middle class. When he pressed her, she suggested raising taxes on the highest earners. When he doubted Congress would agree, she said, in not so many words, that she was trying to win an election — not a favorable score from the Congressional Budget Office.

“I cannot afford to be myopic in terms of how I think about strengthening America’s economy,” Ms. Harris said. “Let me tell you something: I am a devout public servant. You know that. I am also a capitalist. And I know the limitations of government.”

In one revealing exchange, she was repeatedly pressed on the war in Gaza and the wedge that conflict had driven between Washington and Jerusalem as Mr. Netanyahu has refused calls for a cease-fire and defied America’s appeals for restraint by invading Lebanon.

Asked if the United States had “no sway over Prime Minister Netanyahu,” Ms. Harris described diplomatic relations with him as “an ongoing pursuit.”

Mr. Whitaker pushed back. Mr. Netanyahu “was not listening,” he said. Ms. Harris responded with a similar answer: The administration was “not going to stop pursuing” an end to the war.

Mr. Whitaker made a third attempt. This time, he asked bluntly whether she considered Mr. Netanyahu to be “a real close ally.” Ms. Harris seized control of the questions.

“With all due respect,” she began, “the better question is, ‘Do we have an important alliance between the American people and the Israeli people?’ And the answer to that question is yes.”

It was a move that at first blush appeared to be an audacious display of chutzpah over what was or was not a “better question.” Instead, it may stand as a historic marker in U.S. foreign policy: The potential 47th president of the United States deliberately declined the opportunity to call the Israeli prime minister an ally. And did so with an artful dodge.