The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Going into the interview I had some concerns, even though I have great confidence and faith in Brett Baier to ask the hard questions, that he might go a bit light on Vice President Kamala Harris, or even allow her to close question segments with the final word with no clear rebuttal.

He didn't do that. He challenged her on claims. He presented her former and current positions and gave her the opportunity to explain the contrast. He presented polling outlining voter sentiment on a variety of issues that are not favorable to Kamala Harris on the economy, the border and other issues and point blankly asked her why, if she has a better path forward, the majority of the American people seem to be indicating they disagree with her.

Look, I am going to give Kamala Harris at least some credit for sitting down with Brett Baier. She easily could have said no, and I am sure that she was prepared to be in an interview situation that would be unlike anything that she would ordinarily be accustomed to.

But she didn't pass the smell test. She didn't answer the questions, and I think a lot of her combativeness during the interview was more to stall it, present less time for real questions, and control the interview than to display a sense of command.

What she ultimately did was spend the bulk of the interview taking shots at Donald Trump and dismissing the dismal results of the administration she was part of for the past four years, taking no responsibility, acknowledging no mistakes, yet at the same time trying to distance herself from Joe Biden.

As you would expect, Harris was armed with an arsenal of talking points, and she wanted to get them all out in rapid-fire as best she could.

In the end, I don't think the interview did any good for the Kamala Harris campaign, but at the same time I am not sure if this close to the election, it changes any minds either. But it did present a glaring example of why a Kamala Harris presidency poses more danger to the American people than she wants to claim a Trump administration would be.

Again, we have results to go by. We have Trump's first four years, and we have Biden's last four years, and she is correct to point out that there is a stark contrast between the two choices, only all of the problems that have happened in the last four years were partially under her command.

Over and over again she lobbed accusations against Trump about the dangers he poses, from threats to democracy to weaponizing the military against the American people, yet at the same time completely dismissing the fact that 79% of the American people in polls say that we are headed in the wrong direction as a country.

That's her problem to own and explain, by the way, because Trump wasn't there to steer the country anywhere. And actually, Harris' attempt at an answer to the question why was actually a bit bizarre, if you ask me. "It's Trump's rhetoric for the past decade," she tried to assert. But as Brett pointed out, "You were in the White House. Not Trump."

The bottom line is that we are in the final throes of this election. I think we have all the information we, as voters, need in order to make a final decision. I tend to believe that decision is Trump. But of course, it's hard to tell when the media seems to want to point us in a different direction. 

Like I have said before, I think any popularity or lead Harris has ever had has largely been driven by media spin much more than voter sentiment. Will the race be close? Who knows? It shouldn't be. But again, who knows?

All in all, I am going to give Brett Baier a thumbs up for a hard hitting, on point interview that I think touched on key issues and questions that gave us a better picture of the real Kamala Harris, unfettered by the usual media drooling over her or the left that we are used to.

We got to hear the right questions asked, and the American people got to see her unable to answer them with any conceivable substance. The left wing media will of course say Brett attacked Kamala Harris or was rude to her. But I'll just say that's because he didn't ask her what her favorite color is or what she plans to serve on her table at Thanksgiving.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL OF THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into a Deer In Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

Axelrod Says Biden May Have Worse than 50/50 Chance of Winning in 2024

I am no fan of David Axelrod, Obama's former campaign guru, but I agree with him when he recently publicly said that he feels Biden's chances of winning in 2024 are not only basically 50/50, but more likely much worse.

Granted, neither Biden nor Axelrod are fans of each other. Biden publicly called Axelrod a prick once. Either way, you have to at least give Axelrod credit for knowing a thing or two about elections and campaigns. 

Besides, I think one would actually have to be a fool to even consider Biden has any chance at all—despite who he is obviously running against and all the baggage that has been placed on Trump—if you use past history as any indication of what should happen here.

I mean, the guy's had a worse presidency than the worst president of all time, Jimmy Carter for Heaven's sake. It's been a literal disaster for the last four years. I think even many democrats, although they'd not be willing to state it out loud, would even admit things were much better when Trump was around than with Biden mucking the place up.

Nothing's working. That's the bottom line. And Biden's just not liked. Many don't even believe he's pulling the freaking reins here. So, who is? Who knows?

Either way, the country is going to hell in a handbasket and the people who vote simply can't ignore it. Beyond that, even while polls are often terribly unreliable, the polls are showing very strong leads by Trump in key swing states—states that are critical to win in any general.

Why do I find the polls a little bit more reliable in this case?

Two things to observe here. Polls are traditionally heavily weighted to side with democrats and many Trump supporters won't necessarily be openly vocal about their support for him.

So, if the polls are showing Trump leading, you have to run away with the thought that the numbers may be even bigger in support of Trump than the polls could even possibly demonstrate. I mean, I'm not going to call it now and say Trump might win by a landslide in 2024.

But I think Trump is going to win by a landslide in 2024.

Okay, okay. You caught me. I said that about Trump against Hillary in 2016 and that wasn't exactly a landslide. But it was an undeniable strong lead against her even if she ultimately beat him by 2 million votes in the popular vote.

You have a couple of things happening here. One is that Trump's popularity has only gained the more the democrats and the media have gone after him, and really, when you get down to the brass tacks here, there's simply nothing positive for Biden to even run on.

Sure, he can go out there and tout all those jobs he "created." But most people understand those were simply returning workers from the shutdowns. Not new jobs. He can go out there and talk the economy up. But Americans on both sides of the aisle can see their utility bills. They can see the final price at the gas pump higher than it was when Trump was president. They feel the reality of the economy any time they walk into a grocery store and fill their carts.

No matter which side you happen to be on, you have eyes, and you have a brain, and people can see and understand right in front of them that things aren't nearly as peachy as is being painted.

Not only that, but one has to wonder. Is Biden outright lying to us? Or is he just stupid? Maybe it's a little bit of both, actually. Again, who knows? Biden's a liar anyway, and he never did seem too bright. So, it could be anything.

The bottom line here is that it's not just David Axelrod ringing the alarm bells. Even when you look at approval ratings, it's just clear that practically no one thinks Biden is doing a good job. A recent poll also showed that more than 70% of those polled believes Trump is better equipped to handle the economy than Biden is.

And let's face it. The economy is sort of what Biden seems to want to be running on.

He simply has no solid ground to stand on. He can try to sell unicorns and rainbows, but nobody's actually buying it.

Speaking of polls, what's telling as well of Axelrod's rather grim prediction, is that not only is Trump beating Biden in nearly all of them. So are Trump's top 2 rivals. And they aren't small numbers there either. 

Both Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley beat Biden by several percentage points according to most polls.

Now, there is yet another dynamic to consider as well. That's the never Trumper or anyone who will simply not vote for Trump under any circumstance. This actually puts votes right in Trump's pockets. I mean, look at where RFK Jr. is. He doesn't beat Biden. Not by a longshot. But if he gets 2% or 3% of the vote?

It's curtains for Biden even if Biden has any chance at all without someone contesting him. And yet another poll, among democrats only, says 54% would prefer a different candidate than Biden.

For whatever it's worth, I think it is very clear (even if it still too early to tell) who will be president in 2024. And while I won't say it will be Trump, I can say it won't be Biden. But of course, I have a brain too, and so I think we can all agree it will actually be Trump who takes the win.

David Axelrod may be a prick in the eyes of Joe Biden. But in the eyes of the American people, Biden's a loser.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or follow me on Twitter (X) @jimbauer601. 

Free Stuff Ain't Free, Folks

With the democrats getting going in their "race to the White House," we are of course hearing the beginnings of all sorts of promises they are making that are supposed to make your life better, and perhaps in some ways more prosperous even.

But, it's "free" stuff they are mostly chattering on about, folks.

Free college tuition, free healthcare, and even one of the contenders, a businessman by the name of Andrew Yang, is talking about just simply cutting every single citizen over the age of 18 a guaranteed monthly check for $1,000 to help boost your bottom line and supposedly, level the playing field.

But the reality is that nothing that is government funded is actually government funded. It is taxpayer funded.

The reality is, folks, that at the end of the day SOMEONE has to pay for all of this stuff that the government wants to "give" you. Remember, the government DOES NOT operate as a FOR PROFIT organization. EVERYTHING the government takes in in revenue comes directly from you...the TAXPAYER.

The government is not out there opening up a few McDonald's franchises to take in a few extra bucks. They are getting every single dime of what they take in from the people who pay taxes.

So what is a free college tuition? It is a tuition that you will ultimately actually pay for anyway. And depending on how things go, your children and grandchildren, and even your great grandchildren will have to pay for as well.

What is a free $1,000 per month? It is basically taking from Peter to pay Paul. You give the government your tax dollars, and they give it back to you in the form of a guaranteed monthly payment.

Anybody should be scratching their head at that.

Beyond that, you might be saying hey, there are enough of those evil millionaires and billionaires out there who can pay more into the system certainly to help to cover all of this free stuff. So then, if that were the case, it is actually free, right?

But hold on a minute here. Here's a little fact that you need to know.

Even if you literally confiscated every single dime of every single millionaire and billionaire in the country, you would not even come CLOSE to covering the amount of money needed to pay for all of this free stuff, let alone make a dent at all in the deficit NOR the debt itself.

And eventually, the money would run out. No matter how you look at it, the only way any of these programs stands a chance to be viable, everyone would have to pay something. Ultimately, the tax code would have to be rewritten to now find ways of getting more money from the hands of even those in the 50% who don't technically pay any taxes at all.

By the way, it should be noted that if you paid $5,000 in taxes but got a refund check of $7,000, you are part of that 50% that does not pay any taxes at all.

Paying taxes is NOT sending the government a check, or having them pull money out of your paycheck. Paying taxes is either getting less back than you paid in, or owing more than you paid in.

If I paid the government $5,000 and got a refund for $2,000, I paid taxes. They kept $3,000. Catch my drift?

I only bring these examples up since many people think they are taxpayers just because they send some of their money to the government. But unless you get less back than you paid in...you are not a taxpayer.

Look, the main point here is that nothing in this world is ever free. Everything ultimately must be paid for by someone. And there is not enough money, believe it or not—but it's the truth—to cover the expenses of everyone in the country when it comes to just college tuition and healthcare alone, let alone anything else the government may want to promise to hand out to you.

Free is not free, and the more you take, ultimately the less you will get in the end.

No one ever got ahead from a handout. Anyone on welfare or food stamps has not gotten rich from that money. Nor has anyone who collects social security alone ever get ahead.

As the democrats get up on their podiums and start making promises to give you this and give you that, keep in mind that what they are actually giving you is something you have already, or will eventually have to pay for one way or another.