XPost: or.politics, seattle.politics, ca.politics
XPost: alt.law-enforcement

from https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/sep/4/kamala-conundrum-medias-love-hate-relationship-wit/?utm_source=newsshowcase&utm_medium=gnews&utm_campaign=CDAQxpSN9K3ezs0lGPH5yN31_5TIlwEqKggAIhBcERswRnPnLkaJ3_gLN8OaKhQICiIQXBEbMEZz5y5Gid_4CzfDmg&utm_
content=rundown

The Kamala conundrum: The media’s love-hate relationship with madam VP Harris' substance-free campaign wearing thin, even with Democrats

The New York Times and news media's relationship with Kamala Harris illustration by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times
The New York Times and news media’s relationship with Kamala Harris illustration by Alexander Hunter/The Washington Times more >
Print
Commentary
By Joseph Curl - Wednesday, September 4, 2024
OPINION:

Ah, the media. One minute, they’re your best friend, and the next,
they’re ghosting you like a bad date.

Vice President Kamala Harris knows this roller coaster ride all too
well. After President Biden decided he’d had enough of the 2024
campaign, the liberal media turned into Ms. Harris’ personal
cheerleading squad. They pumped out so much praise you’d have thought
she was already living in the White House.

But that was before her Pollyannaish speech at the Democratic National Convention. It turns out that even her most loyal fans can only take so
much. The New York Times, usually a bastion of liberal adoration, took a
sharp U-turn. An opinion piece published the day after the speech was
headlined “Joy Is Not a Strategy.”

Ouch.

Patrick Healy, the newspaper’s deputy opinion editor, went as far as to
say he cringed when former President Bill Clinton called Ms. Harris the “president of joy.” Mr. Healy wondered aloud how exactly “joy” would help millions of struggling Americans.

Fair point. Also, why hasn’t Ms. Harris held a single news conference
since Mr. Biden stepped aside? Mysteries abound.

It gets better. The Times didn’t stop at one opinion piece. It published
a guest essay by conservative commentator Rich Lowry, who didn’t hold
back. He called Ms. Harris “weak and a phony.” According to Mr. Lowry,
she has failed at everything from securing the border to tackling inflation.

“She doesn’t care if her tax policies will destroy jobs,” Mr. Lowry wrote. “She has been part of an administration that has seen real wages stagnate while minimizing the problem because the party line matters to
her more than economic reality for working Americans.”

Then, financial journalist Roger Lowenstein piled on with another essay, slamming Ms. Harris’ economic policies. He accused her of proposing
outdated price controls that could lead to shortages and higher prices.
It’s like watching a roast without the laughs.

“Forget that her proposal addresses a problem that no longer exists. …
More dismaying was her seeming ignorance that price controls, almost
without exception, have led to shortages, supply chain disruptions and eventually higher prices,” he wrote.

And it’s not just The Times. The Wall Street Journal and The Hill have
joined the fray. In The Journal, senior commentator James Freeman asked,
“Are You Willing to Pay $5 Trillion for Kamala Vibes?” Mr. Freeman
asserts that Ms. Harris has done more harm than good in her stint as
vice president, particularly when it comes to the economy.

“She deserves more than her share of the blame for providing the crucial tie-breaking Senate votes for the spending schemes that fueled
inflation,” Mr. Freeman wrote. “And now she’s promising to impose destructive new tax hikes on our slow-growth economy.”

Meanwhile, on The Journal’s “Potomac Watch” podcast, commentators described Ms. Harris’ convention speech as “tired” and criticized her
for having no clear policies.

The jabs kept coming. Bill McGurn, former speechwriter for George W.
Bush, called her speech lackluster, and Kim Strassel joked that the campaign’s strategy seemed to be keeping everyone in the dark about her plans.

“I have no doubt that the Kamala campaign would be absolutely thrilled
to have you say, ’I have no idea what any of that means.’ That’s their campaign strategy, to make sure that nobody has any idea about what she
is actually going to do,” Ms. Strassel wrote.

Not to be outdone, The Hill featured conservative writer Derek Hunter
calling Ms. Harris an “empty pantsuit” basking in unearned positive
media coverage. He even pointed out that she’s the first nominee who
hasn’t had to win a single vote or delegate in the primaries.
“Historic,” indeed.

The Hill’s Merrill Matthews also asked what “Kamalanomics” actually is, noting that her campaign website is more focused on merch than policy proposals. Does anyone need a Harris-Walz hat?

Gerard Baker, The Journal’s former editor in chief, capped it off by suggesting Ms. Harris’ campaign was so light on substance that it could
float away on clouds of hype. But now, with the media starting to ask
hard questions, it seems the honeymoon is over.

And there are still more than 60 days until the election. Buckle up,
folks. It’s about to get ugly.

• Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at josephcurl@gmail.com and on X @josephcurl.

Copyright © 2024 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint
permission.

Please read our comment policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)