Staff Reports
Dana Bash has managed to stir the pot yet again, but not in the way she might have hoped. The CNN host recently sat down with Kamala Harris and Tim Walz for an interview where the Vice President’s evasive responses raised eyebrows—and not just among conservatives. In the world of political discourse where candidness is analyzed down to the last syllable, it seems Harris came up short, leaving even Bash wondering what was going on.
On the heels of her recent book launch, “America’s Deadliest Election,” Bash’s interviews are drawing scrutiny from all sides. Instead of facing questions head-on, Harris appeared to be in a state of perpetual dodgeball, perhaps feeling the pressure from not just her own constituents but also Bash, who noted the Vice President struggled to provide solid answers throughout the discussion. While it’s clear from Bash’s comments that she attempted to elicit direct responses, the result was a rather pathetic display of political finesse—or lack thereof—from Harris.
Dana Bash gives a damning review of her interview with 'evasive' Kamala Harris and Tim Walz:
Dana Bash: "Once you ask once, fine, twice, fine, three times, if you don't get a clear answer, that's kind of your answer."'Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me'… pic.twitter.com/hlZLY41cvr
— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) September 8, 2024
It’s ironic that Bash has encountered so much hostility in her public appearances lately. Just days before this interview, she was harassed by radical protesters who labeled her as “Bloody Bash” over her coverage of global events. These protesters, apparently carrying on the trend of drama that seems to follow Harris and others in the Democratic Party, seem to believe that the only way to make a point is through chaos and intimidation. It begs the question: how can a party that warns against “misinformation” allow its leaders to run from tough questions?
During a recent Press Club interview, Bash seemed to echo the sentiments of many on the right. With each passing question that went unanswered, it became clear that Harris and Walz were not equipped to handle the spotlight. Bash’s recounting of the interview highlighted how they often provided responses that seemed to sidestep the inquiries completely, leading to an impression that they were more interested in controlling the narrative than engaging in honest dialogue. In the end, the political platitudes did little to satisfy anyone looking for concrete policy details.
Even Bash’s admission that she had to repeat questions to obtain clarity only serves to underscore a growing concern among many Americans: If the Vice President isn’t ready to defend her positions in a controlled interview setting, how can she possibly expect to do so on the campaign trail? The electorate deserves better than vague answers designed to evade accountability. And as Harris and Walz continue down this path of unclear communication, they may want to consider the ramifications it has on their political futures.
While the mainstream media might try to play it cool, the writing is on the wall. With leaders fumbling over basic questions, it’s no wonder that many voters are searching for alternatives. The longer Democrats allow evasions and chaos to define their messaging, the harder it will be for them to reclaim any shred of credibility. As the election cycle heats up, one thing is certain: with interviews like Bash’s, the facts surrounding Kamala Harris’ performance will not be easy to ignore.
