By Dave Andrusko

In 1968, an embattled President Lyndon Johnson was reputed to have said after watching a newscast, “If I’ve lost [Walter] Cronkite, I’ve lost Middle America.” I thought of that account when I read the New York Times’s  Reid J. Epstein’s “3 Takeaways From Kamala Harris’s Interview on MSNBC.”

I am hardly saying that the Times’ critical account represents a turning point in the love fest the Legacy Media has showered on the Vice President. That is highly improbable—ok, impossible—given how much they loathe former President Donald Trump. But Stephanie Ruhle’s kid gloves treatment of Harris did include a number of revealing exchanges captured in this sub-headline: “In her first one-on-one cable TV interview since becoming the nominee, [pre-taped and just 25 minutes long] the vice president repeatedly dodged direct questions and stuck firmly on message.”

Epstein’s third paragraph was a preview of coming attractions:

In her discussion with a friendly interviewer, the vice president again presented herself as a champion of the middle class and hit many of the same themes from her pro-business economic speech earlier in the day. She largely avoided direct questions about how she would govern and why some voters remain fond of former President Donald J. Trump’s stewardship of the economy.

What were Epstein’s three takeaways?

#1 “Harris had roundabout answers to open-ended questions.”

This is a very nice way of saying that Ruhle gave Harris ample room to either evade the question or respond with now legendary word salad answers. The question Ruhle asked was how to explain “why voters tend to tell pollsters that Mr. Trump is better equipped to handle the economy.”

According to Epstein, “She said nothing about why voters think Mr. Trump and Republicans would be better on the economy. But she did say her policies are for everyone.”

“Nothing” is synonym for her responses to the other two questions.

#2. “She avoided a looming scenario: What if Democrats lose the Senate?”

Epstein wrote, “Ms. Harris skated past Ms. Ruhle’s question about where Democrats would find the money for such proposals without addressing her party’s Senate prospects.

“But we’re going to have to raise corporate taxes,” she said. “We’re going to have to make sure that the biggest corporations and billionaires pay their fair share. That’s just it. It’s about paying their fair share. I am not mad at anyone for achieving success, but everyone should pay their fair share.”

 

That is an argument she may find herself making to very skeptical Senate Republicans next year if she wins the White House.

And #3. “A hard-hitting Harris interview is still yet to come.”

You think? Epstein wrote

Since Ms. Harris began granting more interviews in recent days, her media strategy has been to sit with friendly inquisitors who are not inclined to ask terribly thorny questions or press her when her responses are evasive.

 

Nothing about that changed during her interview with Ms. Ruhle before her audience on MSNBC, the liberal cable channel whose viewers overwhelmingly favor Democratic candidates.

Epstein tip-toed up the obvious conclusion:

Last week, Ms. Ruhle openly showed her preference for Ms. Harris over Mr. Trump during an appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO program. And when she interviewed Mr. Biden in May 2023, Ms. Ruhle did not press him after his stumbling answers and praised him throughout the 14-minute discussion.

Byron York is a conservative commentator—but fair—who hammered Ruhle relentlessly. Without going into his very astute assessment, let’s just talk about how Ruhe got the interview:

The circumstances surrounding Vice President Kamala Harris’s interview with MSNBC anchor Stephanie Ruhle were remarkable. Last week — see this newsletter — Ruhle was on TV strenuously defending Harris’s right not to do interviews. “There are some things you might not know her answer to,” Ruhle said, but “in 2024, unlike 2016 for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy.” Given the stakes of the election, Ruhle concluded, Harris should not spend her time answering too many questions.

 

And then, a few days later, came an announcement from the Harris campaign. The candidate would do her very first one-on-one network interview, and it would be with…Stephanie Ruhle. To outside observers, it appeared that Ruhle got the nod by publicly assuring Team Harris that she didn’t really want to know Harris’s answers.

York ended with this:

The public deserves to see Harris facing a true interviewer, one who would question her statements, her premises, her assumptions, who would put her on the spot. But that will probably not happen. The candidate, after all, decides who gets an interview and who doesn’t. And there’s no reason to think Harris will submit to serious scrutiny anytime soon.

We’ll talk to you on Monday.