On the “border czar” canard, Dems should not overlook the opportunity to turn this claim against the Republicans, and not be only defensive. That is, not only was she not border “czar,” as noted, but in America we don’t have czars, we have a system of shared government in which legislatures are largely responsible for enacting policies into law. That is exactly what was on-track to happen, with a bi-partisan immigration bill, until Trump blew it up for purely personal political gain, so he could have a campaign issue rather than a bi-partisan solution.
I'd like to see the phrase "Lankford Bill" trend again. It's powerful ammunition to talk about the fact that this was a job for Congress. Biden-Harris worked they way GOP says it wants, and then they tanked it to serve Trump. Get rid of that albatross and let Harris serve the public interest instead of self interest.
Thanks Dan - this is great. My "canary in the coal mine" is my sister in Spokane. Two of my other siblings are Trumpers, and come at her with all kinds of BS about everything. She calls me to sort it out, so this really helps. I send her links about stuff that debunk their BS, and it helps. I really love the "she's with us" take because I'm afraid "I'm with her" and HRC still carry baggage. Also going with the new mantra - Harris should be "unburdened by what was". Before folks come at me - I was all in for Hillary.
Maybe it’s just me, but I am really greatly impressed at the improvement in her stump speech, her presence, and that she seems so much more comfortable in her own skin.
I thought she was okay 4 years ago, but she is head and shoulders the best campaigner in the race today.
We can all use these tips to help her, but that’s a nice job to have, rather than explaining away real flaws in what had become Pres. Biden’s communication challenges.
Tom I agree. She has grown as an advocate for good policies. So much better now than 4 years ago. She’s learned a ton. Imagine someone humble enough to keep learning and not pretend they know everything like the gop candidate
I also thought The Wilderness episode this week with the swing state voter focus groups was helpful. As a Californian who remembered when she dated Willie Brown (BRIEFLY and that will totally come up, I'm sure), I forget how little she is really known in the rest of America. And maybe this can be a good thing, if we can get in front of defining her and why she's the best choice for voters. My husband joined the White Dudes call last night and I think it's only to the good that we can get more people invested in talking about why she's the best candidate. I shared this to my FB and am hoping some folks will read it--thank you.
Thank you Dan - another great piece! I hope to be forgive for a reply that is a bit off topic -
There has been some criticism of Biden’s “lateness” in dropping out, however the more I think about, the more it strikes me as a huge plus:
1. Had he been earlier the DNC/Dem part may have (IMHO) really screwed up the push forward by taking way too long to figure out how to structure a primary, implement it and we would have spent weeks trying to figure out who should be next.
2. Any candidate would be “toughened” by the process, but also weakened – in that they’d roll into a general election being hammered by fellow dems – all good advertising for the Republicans.
3. If Harris didn’t come out on top, the new candidate would be starting fro a severe name (probably) and funding disadvantage
4. The coalescing and exceptional focus/support/drive for Harris or any candidate would not exist as supporters of the candidates who were cast off may be luke warm.
5. The Trump campaign would have had more time to prep and pivot to a new candidate. It’s delicious that they are struggling because of the short time frame AND Biden’s persistence and statements that he was staying.
6. Trump probably wouldn’t have picked Vance if another candidate had already been on the trail
I was thinking of that today - in a time when we have such gnat like attnetion spans, it's rather ironic that campaigns are getting longer - essentially 4 years out for POTUS. If keeping in synch with our fragmented media environment a short, foucesed campaign makes far more sense
For a quick tutorial on the Freedom talking points, I highly recommend watching the clip of Pete on the White Dudes for Harris call last night. It was something we could all deliver, very relatable and clear. A perfect model!
Dan: I appreciate the piece. A couple of follow-ups:
1) Do you have any thoughts on how to reassure less enthusiast people within our circles that she isn’t too far to the left?
2) Can you break down the difference or distinction between a Border Czar vs. being the Root Cause person? I, and other more centrist or right-leaning sources, are a little confused, including some of your friends at The Bulwark. If she was supposed to address the Root Cause of the border crisis, and people think the Biden Administration failed at that, the term “root cause” seems like she was an integral part of all of that.
Would it be better to emphasize that her role was limited, and wasn’t much more than an ambassador to some countries? Or does that just emphasize that Biden didn’t trust her with more responsibility?
My test-case is my father-in-law, a non-college educated white with a middle class office job who voted for Trump in ‘16 but Biden in ‘20. And he constantly quips about Mexicans rushing over the border.
She was given the responsibility of dealing with the leaders of certain Latin American countries to correct those conditions that caused mass emigration from those countries. She never had any responsibility for any part of the day-to-day border operation.
Maybe the issue is the term “root cause” - it makes it sound like she was responsible for, even if not in charge of, stopping immigration at its roots before they even got to the border. Which, is going to be interpreted as “she was in charge of stopping the cause of the border crisis”.
There are many of us who worked with manufacturing, information technology, or, really, any process-based operation, who are so used to the term root-cause analysis and how it differs from correcting an individual problem or error, that we instinctively think the difference is apparent to all. Clearly it isn’t. So maybe your idea of calling it something else is the best answer.
But she never had the responsibility of stopping immigration. Her job was dealing with foreign leaders to get them to address the conditions in their own countries that were causing mass emigration. Those problems were often somewhat intractable and she often directed US foreign aid to help those foreign leaders solve those issues, according to contemporary news accounts.
Of course the biggest issues behind all this are two: the U.S.’s insatiable appetite for street drugs—that illicit money has spawned narco gangs that outnumber all police and effectively govern regions of many of these countries. The second issue is guns: American guns are sold and smuggled into these countries on a massive scale. Some estimates put the income from gun sales that eventually end up smuggled at 30% of gun-maker profits.
Somehow the MAGA GOP can never admit that half the problem is ours to own. That’s a root cause analysis that never gets mentioned.
Instead of "root cause" say "keeping people in their country" She was talking with leaders to understand how the US can help them help their people so they don't feel the need to flee. Emphasize that this is by nature a long term task but that her work will inform good policy.
FACT: Vice President Harris was never the border “czar.” Her role was focused on addressing the root causes of migration.
PolitiFact labeled Trump’s claim that Harris was in charge of border security as “false.”
Border city mayors just announced their support for the VP, citing her tireless work of delivering for their communities and solutions at the border
Vice President Harris visited the border shortly after taking office.
FACT: Under the Biden-Harris administration, border crossings are falling. Donald Trump is lying about border crossings and migrant crime.
Migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under the Biden-Harris administration.
Axios: The myth of a U.S.-Mexico “open border”
PolitiFact: “The border is not open.”
Politico: “The number of migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has plummeted 40 percent since President Joe Biden clamped down on asylum earlier this month, administration officials said Wednesday.”
Washington Post: “Illegal crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined more than 50 percent in the six weeks since President Biden used emergency measures to curb asylum access, the White House said Tuesday, highlighting the drop ahead of a Republican National Convention evening program whose planned focus was crime and security.”
FACT: Trump sided with drug traffickers and criminals to kill a bipartisan bill to make our borders more secure – all because he thought it would help him politically.
This agreement would have made our country safer, made the border more secure, and treated people fairly and humanely – and was supported by the Border Patrol Union – which endorsed Trump’s campaign for president twice – and the Chamber of Commerce, as well as ⅔ of Americans.
After Trump demanded Republicans block the strongest border security bill in decades, the Biden-Harris administration took executive action – resulting in border crossings falling to 2020 levels.
FACT: The Biden-Harris administration seized more fentanyl last year than any other administration in history, while Trump’s record is defined by him making the opioid crisis worse and siding with drug traffickers.
DEA: “In calendar year 2023, DEA seized more than 77 million fentanyl pills and nearly 12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder. This is the most fentanyl seized by DEA in a single year.”
NPR: “Researchers also say fentanyl has continued to spread fast, despite interdiction efforts, contributing to more overdose deaths in the western United States where the synthetic opioid had been scarce. In December [2019], the Government Accountability Office issued a report blasting the [Trump] administration for failing to come up with a coherent national opioid strategy as required by law.”
Just last week, the Biden-Harris administration captured two of the most notorious and dangerous drug lords in Mexico.
Click on that USAToday link - it explains everything, including the difference between her role and that of Secretary Mayorkas, what went on at the border, how Trump stopped the bipartisan deal and how Biden dealt with that.
I love, love, love, the freedom theme and have been obsessing about it ever since the Tea Partiers came on the scene. The right doesn't back up liberty "for all," WE do. (Or at least we keep trying, but that's another discussion.)
Here's one of my go-to lines that can help shift the perception of who "owns" the freedom frame:
Conservatives have been beating the freedom & liberty drum forever, but judging by their actual policies, they have an obvious pecking order for whose liberty matters most: Rich, white, straight, gun-totting, Christian men on top. Everyone else, get in line, just like the olden days.
People can't help but start to visualize where they sit in the Right's pecking order. It's real and increasingly terrifying.
Sadly, people like my parents (whom I love dearly) have been fully red-pilled. I know Dan is referring to persuadables...but it is incredibly frustrating to have every fact based, cogent arguement for Harris batted away as a "lie" etc. My non-political sibling live in a MAGA environment and default to the same response. It is so bad, that despite my 25 years in the federal government (US Coast Guard), with my final three as the Commanding Officer of a multi-agency intelligence unit, my parents trust what Fox has to say about our intelligence services over my words. So trying to talk to anyone in my family about VP Harris....oy...
Not sure why the Republican ad was picking on her assertion that we should have the conversation about felons voting since the top of their ticket is a felon? But I guess they’ve never been particularly self-aware…
Since her primary bid, I'd always struggled with Kamala's "authenticity". My turning point came after listening to Ezra Klein's excellent interview with the Atlantic's Elaina Plott Calabro. Its dives deep into a long list of barriers to authenticity that she was forced to contend with and left me both empathetic to her experience and genuinely excited for what she will bring to the Presidency.
Excellent post, Dan. Freedom will be the central concern going forward -- the statue atop the Capitol is a female allegorical figure of Freedom. A striking sculptural symbol of a core differentiating principle of these candidates. Would it be possible to embrace its image for the Harris campaign?
Good distillation of talking points.
On the “border czar” canard, Dems should not overlook the opportunity to turn this claim against the Republicans, and not be only defensive. That is, not only was she not border “czar,” as noted, but in America we don’t have czars, we have a system of shared government in which legislatures are largely responsible for enacting policies into law. That is exactly what was on-track to happen, with a bi-partisan immigration bill, until Trump blew it up for purely personal political gain, so he could have a campaign issue rather than a bi-partisan solution.
I'd like to see the phrase "Lankford Bill" trend again. It's powerful ammunition to talk about the fact that this was a job for Congress. Biden-Harris worked they way GOP says it wants, and then they tanked it to serve Trump. Get rid of that albatross and let Harris serve the public interest instead of self interest.
Good points! TY.
Thanks Dan - this is great. My "canary in the coal mine" is my sister in Spokane. Two of my other siblings are Trumpers, and come at her with all kinds of BS about everything. She calls me to sort it out, so this really helps. I send her links about stuff that debunk their BS, and it helps. I really love the "she's with us" take because I'm afraid "I'm with her" and HRC still carry baggage. Also going with the new mantra - Harris should be "unburdened by what was". Before folks come at me - I was all in for Hillary.
Maybe it’s just me, but I am really greatly impressed at the improvement in her stump speech, her presence, and that she seems so much more comfortable in her own skin.
I thought she was okay 4 years ago, but she is head and shoulders the best campaigner in the race today.
We can all use these tips to help her, but that’s a nice job to have, rather than explaining away real flaws in what had become Pres. Biden’s communication challenges.
Tom I agree. She has grown as an advocate for good policies. So much better now than 4 years ago. She’s learned a ton. Imagine someone humble enough to keep learning and not pretend they know everything like the gop candidate
Very useful. The most important point -- She's For Us.
I also thought The Wilderness episode this week with the swing state voter focus groups was helpful. As a Californian who remembered when she dated Willie Brown (BRIEFLY and that will totally come up, I'm sure), I forget how little she is really known in the rest of America. And maybe this can be a good thing, if we can get in front of defining her and why she's the best choice for voters. My husband joined the White Dudes call last night and I think it's only to the good that we can get more people invested in talking about why she's the best candidate. I shared this to my FB and am hoping some folks will read it--thank you.
Thank you Dan - another great piece! I hope to be forgive for a reply that is a bit off topic -
There has been some criticism of Biden’s “lateness” in dropping out, however the more I think about, the more it strikes me as a huge plus:
1. Had he been earlier the DNC/Dem part may have (IMHO) really screwed up the push forward by taking way too long to figure out how to structure a primary, implement it and we would have spent weeks trying to figure out who should be next.
2. Any candidate would be “toughened” by the process, but also weakened – in that they’d roll into a general election being hammered by fellow dems – all good advertising for the Republicans.
3. If Harris didn’t come out on top, the new candidate would be starting fro a severe name (probably) and funding disadvantage
4. The coalescing and exceptional focus/support/drive for Harris or any candidate would not exist as supporters of the candidates who were cast off may be luke warm.
5. The Trump campaign would have had more time to prep and pivot to a new candidate. It’s delicious that they are struggling because of the short time frame AND Biden’s persistence and statements that he was staying.
6. Trump probably wouldn’t have picked Vance if another candidate had already been on the trail
A campaign as they ought to be, forever more: SHORT, fresh, exciting! How did we manage to create the endless slog of a U.S. political campaign?
I was thinking of that today - in a time when we have such gnat like attnetion spans, it's rather ironic that campaigns are getting longer - essentially 4 years out for POTUS. If keeping in synch with our fragmented media environment a short, foucesed campaign makes far more sense
For a quick tutorial on the Freedom talking points, I highly recommend watching the clip of Pete on the White Dudes for Harris call last night. It was something we could all deliver, very relatable and clear. A perfect model!
He's been framing the D vs R debate in terms of "freedom" for 5 solid years now; I'm so glad to see it finally taking root. 💕
Here it is! Pete comes in at about 20:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnnKXuYcDU0&t=1425s
Great watch ! TY.
Dan: I appreciate the piece. A couple of follow-ups:
1) Do you have any thoughts on how to reassure less enthusiast people within our circles that she isn’t too far to the left?
2) Can you break down the difference or distinction between a Border Czar vs. being the Root Cause person? I, and other more centrist or right-leaning sources, are a little confused, including some of your friends at The Bulwark. If she was supposed to address the Root Cause of the border crisis, and people think the Biden Administration failed at that, the term “root cause” seems like she was an integral part of all of that.
Would it be better to emphasize that her role was limited, and wasn’t much more than an ambassador to some countries? Or does that just emphasize that Biden didn’t trust her with more responsibility?
My test-case is my father-in-law, a non-college educated white with a middle class office job who voted for Trump in ‘16 but Biden in ‘20. And he constantly quips about Mexicans rushing over the border.
She was given the responsibility of dealing with the leaders of certain Latin American countries to correct those conditions that caused mass emigration from those countries. She never had any responsibility for any part of the day-to-day border operation.
Maybe the issue is the term “root cause” - it makes it sound like she was responsible for, even if not in charge of, stopping immigration at its roots before they even got to the border. Which, is going to be interpreted as “she was in charge of stopping the cause of the border crisis”.
There are many of us who worked with manufacturing, information technology, or, really, any process-based operation, who are so used to the term root-cause analysis and how it differs from correcting an individual problem or error, that we instinctively think the difference is apparent to all. Clearly it isn’t. So maybe your idea of calling it something else is the best answer.
But she never had the responsibility of stopping immigration. Her job was dealing with foreign leaders to get them to address the conditions in their own countries that were causing mass emigration. Those problems were often somewhat intractable and she often directed US foreign aid to help those foreign leaders solve those issues, according to contemporary news accounts.
Of course the biggest issues behind all this are two: the U.S.’s insatiable appetite for street drugs—that illicit money has spawned narco gangs that outnumber all police and effectively govern regions of many of these countries. The second issue is guns: American guns are sold and smuggled into these countries on a massive scale. Some estimates put the income from gun sales that eventually end up smuggled at 30% of gun-maker profits.
Somehow the MAGA GOP can never admit that half the problem is ours to own. That’s a root cause analysis that never gets mentioned.
Instead of "root cause" say "keeping people in their country" She was talking with leaders to understand how the US can help them help their people so they don't feel the need to flee. Emphasize that this is by nature a long term task but that her work will inform good policy.
Senator Chris Murphy has a Twitter (I refuse to call it otherwise) thread with some interesting material for you. https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1816850542208876756
This is excellent! TY. (I’ll only call it Twitter, too. )
I can't find the campaign's version, but I see this content accompanied Harris new immigration ad yesterday (there are source links in the original post from Simon Rosenberg, https://www.hopiumchronicles.com/p/vp-harris-in-command-encouraging?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-d1a3456c-0809-4479-8330-1e391c01de21):
FACT: Vice President Harris was never the border “czar.” Her role was focused on addressing the root causes of migration.
PolitiFact labeled Trump’s claim that Harris was in charge of border security as “false.”
Border city mayors just announced their support for the VP, citing her tireless work of delivering for their communities and solutions at the border
Vice President Harris visited the border shortly after taking office.
FACT: Under the Biden-Harris administration, border crossings are falling. Donald Trump is lying about border crossings and migrant crime.
Migrants were more likely to be released after a border arrest under President Trump than under the Biden-Harris administration.
Axios: The myth of a U.S.-Mexico “open border”
PolitiFact: “The border is not open.”
Politico: “The number of migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border has plummeted 40 percent since President Joe Biden clamped down on asylum earlier this month, administration officials said Wednesday.”
Washington Post: “Illegal crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border have declined more than 50 percent in the six weeks since President Biden used emergency measures to curb asylum access, the White House said Tuesday, highlighting the drop ahead of a Republican National Convention evening program whose planned focus was crime and security.”
FACT: Trump sided with drug traffickers and criminals to kill a bipartisan bill to make our borders more secure – all because he thought it would help him politically.
This agreement would have made our country safer, made the border more secure, and treated people fairly and humanely – and was supported by the Border Patrol Union – which endorsed Trump’s campaign for president twice – and the Chamber of Commerce, as well as ⅔ of Americans.
After Trump demanded Republicans block the strongest border security bill in decades, the Biden-Harris administration took executive action – resulting in border crossings falling to 2020 levels.
FACT: The Biden-Harris administration seized more fentanyl last year than any other administration in history, while Trump’s record is defined by him making the opioid crisis worse and siding with drug traffickers.
DEA: “In calendar year 2023, DEA seized more than 77 million fentanyl pills and nearly 12,000 pounds of fentanyl powder. This is the most fentanyl seized by DEA in a single year.”
NPR: “Researchers also say fentanyl has continued to spread fast, despite interdiction efforts, contributing to more overdose deaths in the western United States where the synthetic opioid had been scarce. In December [2019], the Government Accountability Office issued a report blasting the [Trump] administration for failing to come up with a coherent national opioid strategy as required by law.”
Just last week, the Biden-Harris administration captured two of the most notorious and dangerous drug lords in Mexico.
Click on that USAToday link - it explains everything, including the difference between her role and that of Secretary Mayorkas, what went on at the border, how Trump stopped the bipartisan deal and how Biden dealt with that.
Right. Who stopped immigration reform? It was not Dems.
I love, love, love, the freedom theme and have been obsessing about it ever since the Tea Partiers came on the scene. The right doesn't back up liberty "for all," WE do. (Or at least we keep trying, but that's another discussion.)
Here's one of my go-to lines that can help shift the perception of who "owns" the freedom frame:
Conservatives have been beating the freedom & liberty drum forever, but judging by their actual policies, they have an obvious pecking order for whose liberty matters most: Rich, white, straight, gun-totting, Christian men on top. Everyone else, get in line, just like the olden days.
People can't help but start to visualize where they sit in the Right's pecking order. It's real and increasingly terrifying.
Pointing to the future - such a fantastic point. Let's ride that perspective to the ballot box!
Sadly, people like my parents (whom I love dearly) have been fully red-pilled. I know Dan is referring to persuadables...but it is incredibly frustrating to have every fact based, cogent arguement for Harris batted away as a "lie" etc. My non-political sibling live in a MAGA environment and default to the same response. It is so bad, that despite my 25 years in the federal government (US Coast Guard), with my final three as the Commanding Officer of a multi-agency intelligence unit, my parents trust what Fox has to say about our intelligence services over my words. So trying to talk to anyone in my family about VP Harris....oy...
Not sure why the Republican ad was picking on her assertion that we should have the conversation about felons voting since the top of their ticket is a felon? But I guess they’ve never been particularly self-aware…
Since her primary bid, I'd always struggled with Kamala's "authenticity". My turning point came after listening to Ezra Klein's excellent interview with the Atlantic's Elaina Plott Calabro. Its dives deep into a long list of barriers to authenticity that she was forced to contend with and left me both empathetic to her experience and genuinely excited for what she will bring to the Presidency.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/05/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-elaina-plott-calabro.html
Yes!! Thank you, Dan!
Already posted the border link to my Instagram and sent it to my mother.
Absolutely love the message “we’re not going back”. I think it is so effective and really helps women understand the stakes in this election.
That Trump ad sucks. Boring. No offence to the Trump team.
Excellent post, Dan. Freedom will be the central concern going forward -- the statue atop the Capitol is a female allegorical figure of Freedom. A striking sculptural symbol of a core differentiating principle of these candidates. Would it be possible to embrace its image for the Harris campaign?