Kamala Harris’s tendency to answer questions with circular, redundant nonsense, known around Ethics Alarms as “Authentic Frontier Gibberish” in honor of “Blazing Saddles'” Gabby Johnson, was mostly left alone during the last four years due to the application of the “Julie Principle.” The Julie Principle comes into play when an undesirable or annoying characteristic or behavior pattern in a person or organization appears to be hard-wired and part of their essence. In judging such a person or entity, it is useful to keep the lyrics of Julie’s song from “Show Boat” (“Can’t Help Lovin’ That Man O’ Mine,” lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein Jr., music by Jerome Kern) firmly in mind, when she sings…Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly…I’ve gotta love that man til I die…Can’t help lovin’ that man of mine! To constantly harp on something the individual can’t change ultimately becomes pointless and cruel, and hence unethical.
When one is a major party’s nominee for President, however, Julie Principle privileges must be suspended. When one is a nominee for President who was spared the vetting, competitive nomination process, debates and primaries every other major party nominee has been required to conquer for almost 200 years, Julie Principle privileges really have to be suspended. And when your strategy is to try to avoid as many unscripted, competent and unbiased interviews as possible before election day so voters will know as little as possible about you, Julie Principle privileges really, really, really have to be suspended.
Thus we must ponder how Harris responded to a question at a National Association of Black Journalists panel discussion yesterday, before an audience strongly inclined to support her. Moderator Tanya Mosley of Philadelphia radio station WHYY asked the elevated Veep where she draws “the line between” Israel’s “aggression and defense” in the Israel-Hamas war.
Harris began by saying there was “a lot to unpack” in the question (Translation: “Huminahumina…”) then said that the Jewish state “has a right to defend itself.” Since Mosley was obviously asking how Harris squares that mantra with her demand that there be an “immediate and permanent cease fire,” she pressed Harris for a real answer. And the real answer was…
“No, no, let me finish! It’s important to put it in context, which is what I’m doing, and I’ll get to that. There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region.”
Oh.
This is called “faking it,” and not very well at that.
Ethics Alarms 
This is called talking in circles so that those inclined to support you believe that you agree with them without thinking critically about what you actually said…which was nothing.
[Removed and placed where it was supposed to go in the first place…]
Was this a reply to Curmie accidentally placed in reply to A M Golden?
Yup. No sure why, but it’s been moved. Thanks.
That’s actually a perfectly reasonable first paragraph of a response, provided there is more to follow. Oh, and ever so coincidentally, there is! It’s almost as if a right-wing website edited the tape to give the illusion that Harris was dancing around the issue. But naw, that couldn’t happen. It’s only those awful lefties who do stuff like that.
Hmmmm…
So I went and watched the unedited version after reading your comment.
If you would, could you give a few sentences to describe what additional useful information you think was omitted that would have made her answer more substantive?
She simultaneously says that Israel was attacked and should defend itself (like we would too!) but that there must be an immediate ceasefire. When pressed on what policies she would enact to help the situation, she says a few words about certain bombs that the US supplies to Israel but again, a ceasefire must happen. That doesn’t answer either the how or the contradiction between “Israel can and should defend itself against an unprovoked attack” and Israeli aggression against Palestinians.
It certainly sounded to me like she does not have a solution but cannot tread on the toes of either Israel- or Palestinian-sympathizers, so we’re left with her ridiculous word salad.
I am open to being persuaded that there was anything of substance in her words besides IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.
I did the same and came to much the same conclusions you did. She did sound less “huminahumina”, but she largely ducked the question with a non-answer.
I trust you have a link to the unedited recording?
The question starts at 14:06.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNgUcwq82yA
Well, as it happens I did read the transcript of this part of the appearance. You can see the video on Real Clear Politics.
What she said was the ‘we need to get the deal done’. She said that eight times. I didn’t really get much of an idea what the deal was, other than Israel out of Gaza and a two state solution. She was asked a couple time how she would get this deal done,, and if she would differ from Biden’s policy — the only thing she actually mentioned was withholding the 2000 pound bombs from Israel.
The one concrete thing I am aware of that Harris has done in this area was to boycott Netanyahu’s speech to Congress earlier this year. She was critical of him at the time, but I really have no true picture of what she’d do in the Middle East.
I applaud Biden for his initial full-throated support for Israel, but he has steadily backed away from that as time passed. My thinking is that, since the Israelis started the ground attack in Gaza, Biden’s rhetoric and (occasional) actions have served to prolong the war and increase civilian casualties.
Honestly I don’t know how much Trump can do, but I can look at his track record. He’s the only president in 30 or more years to have actually gotten something positive done, with the Abraham accords.
We shall see what happens. I look on Israel as the only free society and our only real ally in the Middle East. We shouldn’t toss that aside.
Kamala Harris speaks to National Association of Black Journalists (youtube.com)
Minutes 14-20
I’ve only watched this unedited version, and it appears Ms. Harris still speaks in circles on the issue. To her credit, she has worked on sounding more confident (without the desperate look of affirmation from the audience on her face), but she never did explain how Israel can continue to defend itself with an immediate cease fire in place.
I have to say, Curmie, there is no predicate or continuation that could possibly mitigate how facile and empty “There must be stability and peace in that region, in as much as what we do in our goal is to ensure that Israelis have security, and Palestinians in equal measure have security, have self-determination, and dignity. That there be an ability to have security in the region, for all concerned, in a way that we create stability, and—let us all also recognize—in a way that ensures that Iran is not empowered in this whole scenario in terms of the peace and stability in the region” is. That’s just humming; it might as well be a verse of “Give peace a Chance.” A serious, genuine intellect never says stuff like that, and we should never accept that kind of crap from any elected or aspiring public figure. Israel won’t be “secure” as long as an entity that has pledged to destroy it is right next door. The Palestinians can’t be secure until they demonstrate that their ultimate mission to destroy Israel has been believably rejected. Saying we must “ensure” peace and stability for both Israel and the Palestinians was meaningless before Oct. 7; after it, the statement is useless and intellectually dishonest, or just plain stupid.
Jack, if we separate the statement from the person saying it, the statement itself is fine. It’s a statement of the ideal outcome. Beginning with the end in mind is one of Stephen Covey’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. We want people to stop fighting and build trust. I think that’s a good outcome to work towards. What outcome did you have in mind?
It is likely that the pressure to avoid alienating either side forced Harris to acknowledge both Israel’s right to defend itself and Palestine’s need for dignity and self-determination, but it did need to be said. We want good outcomes for everyone, except perhaps for Hamas. She would have done well to emphasize that most of our problems can be solved once we stop assuming good outcomes are mutually exclusive.
I have serious doubts as to whether she knows how to recognize a deal that either side can trust, let alone facilitate the negotiation of one, but I’d be happy to see some indication that I’m wrong.
Baby fish mouth!
Megyn Kelly referred to Harris’ word salads as being akin to Bruno Kirby yelling “baby fish mouth” during the game of Pictionary in “When Harry Met Sally.” And now it’s all I can hear any time Harris opens her mouth.
It would be interesting to see her opinion of the sabotaged-pager attack that just happened. You would think this would make the critics of Israel happy. Israel sabotaged Hamas-purchased pagers (if you are a terrorist organization, perhaps forgo the discounted price on the large bulk purchase) and triggered them to all go off simultaneously. In doing so, they targeted only Hamas militants and minimized civilian casualties. Instead, there seems to be outrage.
Well, now they blew up the DStar radios.
Her answer should have been: “We need to win Michigan. We will sell Israel down the river to win Dearborn and Michigan. Thank you.”
Perceptive…and probably 100% accurate.
The Bee nails it: Rashida Tlaib Uninjured After Her Pager Mysteriously Explodes | Babylon Bee
Thank God for good satirists.
I’m billing the Bee for the cleaning of my keyboard and monitor.
Her handlers, who are actually running the country, have instructed her how to non-answer any number of questions. She seems to be following instructions these days. And she’s not demented. The perfect candidate.
Just was three, THREE “Republicans for Harris” signs on a house in our neighborhood. WHAT?
Ooops. “Saw” not “was.” Clean up on aisle five.
I heard one commentator, I think on Sky News Australia, describe Harris’s extemporaneuos speaking style as being like Bart Simpson giving a book report for a book he hadn’t read.