I too am frustrated by nationally read pundits who keep asserting that Harris is not offering enough details on her policy plans. Dean points out that she has in fact made her position clear on the issues most important to most voters. By contrast, my local paper here in tiny Easton, MD reprinted an AP story about Trump's speech yesterday in North Carolina focusing on women. Here's what Trump said: "“I will protect women at a level never seen before. They will finally be healthy, hopeful, safe and secure,” Trump said. “Their lives will be happy, beautiful, and their lives will be great again. So women, we love you. We’re going to take care of you.” It goes on to say "The former president said women won’t have to think about abortion because decisions about regulating it are now left to the states." So, Trump asserts that women will be better off if he is elected. How? Why? Via what specific policies? The AP story does point out those problems. So, Peggy Noonan and your fellow pundits, will you write op-eds asking those questions? Any woman who walks away from that speech feeling reassured about a second Trump presidency is incapable of rational thought.
I just finished reading the NYT opinion page this morning. Todd Purdum writes, "Kamala Harris is great at asking questions. Answering them, not so much." Ross Douthat writes, "Harris avoids specifics."
Hi again, John, Thank you for alerting me to these two pieces. I know where Douthat is coming from and disagree with him about almost everything, so I tend to discount his views. However, I had never heard of or read anything by Todd Purdum although I read the Times daily, so I looked him up. Turns out that this is one of their "guest essays." A search reveals no earlier pieces published in the NY Times. Purdum either is or was the NY Times Bureau Chief in LA. (He is also married to Dee Dee Myers who was the spokesperson for the Clinton White House for a couple of years.) His views are obviously worth considering, but I have two problems. 1) The essay also sounds like someone just parroting something other pundits (like Peggy Noonan!) have said. And 2) I will credit the idea that Harris isn't being specific enough about her policies when pundits and reporters start demanding the same level of detail from Trump and calling him out on every lie he utters. I'm not holding my breath.
I too am frustrated by nationally read pundits who keep asserting that Harris is not offering enough details on her policy plans. Dean points out that she has in fact made her position clear on the issues most important to most voters. By contrast, my local paper here in tiny Easton, MD reprinted an AP story about Trump's speech yesterday in North Carolina focusing on women. Here's what Trump said: "“I will protect women at a level never seen before. They will finally be healthy, hopeful, safe and secure,” Trump said. “Their lives will be happy, beautiful, and their lives will be great again. So women, we love you. We’re going to take care of you.” It goes on to say "The former president said women won’t have to think about abortion because decisions about regulating it are now left to the states." So, Trump asserts that women will be better off if he is elected. How? Why? Via what specific policies? The AP story does point out those problems. So, Peggy Noonan and your fellow pundits, will you write op-eds asking those questions? Any woman who walks away from that speech feeling reassured about a second Trump presidency is incapable of rational thought.
I just finished reading the NYT opinion page this morning. Todd Purdum writes, "Kamala Harris is great at asking questions. Answering them, not so much." Ross Douthat writes, "Harris avoids specifics."
Thanks for reading the piece.
Hi again, John, Thank you for alerting me to these two pieces. I know where Douthat is coming from and disagree with him about almost everything, so I tend to discount his views. However, I had never heard of or read anything by Todd Purdum although I read the Times daily, so I looked him up. Turns out that this is one of their "guest essays." A search reveals no earlier pieces published in the NY Times. Purdum either is or was the NY Times Bureau Chief in LA. (He is also married to Dee Dee Myers who was the spokesperson for the Clinton White House for a couple of years.) His views are obviously worth considering, but I have two problems. 1) The essay also sounds like someone just parroting something other pundits (like Peggy Noonan!) have said. And 2) I will credit the idea that Harris isn't being specific enough about her policies when pundits and reporters start demanding the same level of detail from Trump and calling him out on every lie he utters. I'm not holding my breath.