CSotD: Soiling the Nest

Michael Ramirez (Creators) offered a curious take on CNN’s candidate interview. It appeared the morning after, but that likely means it was drawn before the interview aired.

He assumed, then, that Harris was incapable of answering questions without Walz to save her.

Now, judging it in retrospect, it’s clear from the transcript that absolutely nothing of the kind happened. Walz was asked a few questions about his military service, the confusion over what sort of artificial insemination he and his wife used and about the response to his son Gus.

Dana Bash also invited him to weigh in on the softball “first day in office” question, and, like Harris, he responded with a softball answer. That was it: He never added anything to a Harris answer, either to clarify or defend her.

Again, Ramirez likely drew his cartoon before the interview, so he couldn’t have known that Harris wouldn’t need Walz to protect her.

But that leaves the question of why he thought she might?

Ann Telnaes addressed the issue on the Washington Post editorial section the next day, not simply responding to Ramirez but to others who had questioned why Harris and Walz were appearing together for the debate.

She wasn’t exactly plowing new ground: The issue had been brought up days before, and this photo array appeared often enough that it was snatched for use here before the interview happened.

However, the question Ramirez and others raise turns that set of photos into the old Sesame Street song, “One of these things is not like the others.”

It doesn’t seem racial. Obama didn’t need Joe Biden to bail him out in that interview. And Hillary Clinton didn’t require the help of Tim Kaine, so it’s not sexist.

Meanwhile, anyone who saw Senator Harris eviscerate Brett Kavanaugh and John Cornyn should realize that the former prosecutor is fully capable of making her points clear and her opponents look foolish.

The only explanation I can come up with is that the pro-Trump partisans are relying on some very old, outdated, refuted concepts of capability. Nothing about Harris’s race, sex or past performance suggests a reason why she couldn’t go into an interview without a big strong man’s protection.

Jen Sorensen addressed this approach without reference to the CNN interview, because it was being floated in these various forms earlier in the process.

I particularly like the way she portrays these critics as being civilized, rational and logical in their foolish, contradictory statements.

I also like her suggestion that we should ignore them, but that seems futile. The question before us is whether there are enough low-information people trapped in ancient prejudices to swing the election in favor of ignorance and prejudice.

Of course, there remains the possibility that solid, rational voters will weigh the policies of the two candidates and make a choice based on their vision of … okay, sorry. I can’t even pretend.

But I will suggest that the CNN interview was a collection of predictable questions and predictable answers and a good example of why several observers said that these interviews were a waste of candidate time and a sop for a media with an overinflated opinion of its standing in forming public opinion.

That’s not just my opinion. Mark Jacob came down on the point hard, as did Will Bunch.

As the man said, “Your old road is rapidly aging; get out of the new road if you can’t lend a hand.”

Meanwhile, over on the other side of the ballot, the Arlington Cemetery debacle is not going away. For one thing, it’s too rich a topic for cartoonists like Bill Bramhall.

And it matters.

The woman who was roughed up by Trump’s camera crew has declined to press charges for the assault. KJ Lamb offers an explanation for why private citizens might be reluctant to come forward.

The danger is real. Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss, the Georgia election workers slandered by Rudolf Giuliani, suffered a barrage of threats and harassment from MAGAt lunatics, and yesterday some screwball attempted to assault reporters at a Trump rally.

If you’re waiting for Kristallnacht to begin, look around you.

Dave Brown, watching from the UK, indicates that “Private Bonespurs” is tangled in his lies and has one foot in the grave.

It may not be so simple. It’s interesting that Trump has among his advisors the man who directed the lies of the Swiftboat Veterans that helped sink John Kerry’s candidacy.

Chris LaCivita has turned from lying about a decorated combat veteran to helping a draft-dodger by attacking the bona fides of a 24-year veteran.

Again, the question is not whether it is fair or honest or in the best interests of the nation. The question is whether it will work, because the goal is power.

The only goal.

And, as David Horsey points out, the whole world is watching.

Juxtaposition of the Day

Cathy Wilcox

Greg Kearney

Metaphorical poisons are not the only toxins we need to worry about, and it’s a grim sign of things that Wilcox cites the PFAS issue from Australia while Greg Kearney mentions a crisis in Maine.

Here in New Hampshire, these “forever chemicals” have been detected in well water, which indicates how pervasive they are in the overall environment. As Wilcox says, it’s realistic to assume that we’re ingesting the stuff, here, there and everywhere.

What to do about it? Maine is promising a clean-up at Brunswick Landing, but who knows how effective that can be?

The next question being if there are any other airports anywhere in the world that use firefighting foam and the answer being “Who are you trying to kid?”

But why bother to ask? The Department of Health and Human Services here in New Hampshire lists some of the ways you can be exposed to PFAS chemicals:

People are most likely to be exposed to PFAS by drinking or eating something that contains PFAS, such as:

• Drinking water contaminated with PFAS;
• Eating food that may contain high levels of PFAS (e.g., fish and shellfish);
• Eating food contaminated by packaging materials containing PFAS (e.g., popcorn bags, fast food containers, pizza boxes); and
• Hand-to-mouth transfer from surfaces treated with PFAS-containing stain protectants, such as carpets, which is thought to be most significant for infants and toddlers.

As the man said: