Pesca On The Free Press

Kamala on Fox, Debanking on Fleek

As a heads up to both my paid subscribers and my free-riders, here’s an appearance I made on

The Free Press

live show this morning.

Michael C. Moynihan

ably hosted; that guy’s got “it”. Jonathan Conricus provided analysis on the death of Yahya Sinwar, and the issue of “debanking” was discussed.

The Free Press Live: October 18, 2024

I did not get a chance to tell

Rupa Subramanya

, who wrote a truly excellent article, that I have a problem with debanking. It’s the name. Debanking. It puts me in the mind of those familiar critiques raised by Gavin Newsom or some other Democratic politician about the “unbanked” or the “underbanked”. “Debanking” doesn’t quickly communicate the issue it’s trying to communicate, which is the many people and entities who are unfairly denied the ability to process payments, or move money because they get flagged as terrorists, extremists, or simply uncouth. “Debanking” is also a neologism created via the mashing together of a prefix with a somewhat stilted verb, “banking”. “Debanking” could mean many things, most of them boring. So when you add it all up, I’d like to gussy up the name. How about “Ideological Immiseration”, or you could refer to the people as “Banking-While-Unpopular”. Maybe initials would help. IDCA, “Ideologically Disqualified from having a Checking Account”. Anyway, I know these ideas aren’t a huge leap forward from “debanking”, but if we don’t change the name, like a poorly priced 6 month CD, it’s not going to draw interest above the low single figures.

Knock Knock. Who’s There? The Interrupting Baier…

On the show we also talked about Kamala Harris’ interview on Fox which was said to be an interruption-fest but was actually fine.

Bret Baier did a good enough job, and Harris answered the questions reasonably well, or in some cases didn’t answer them reasonably well, a skill unto itself.

…the Interrupting Baier Who? GRRRRR

A few times however, Harris was far too obvious in her pivots, which makes an interviewer’s teeth hurt. Try to have a little artistry with the evasions, people. Harris was asked first to give a number on illegal migrants. This was the quantitative portion of the exam. Baier asked,” How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three-and-half years?”

Harris began her answer:

Well, I’m glad you raised the issue of immigration because I agree with you. It is a topic of discussion that people want to rightly have and you know what I’m going to talk about right now…

Harris answered the question by noting it was a question, and not just a question, but the kind of question that people might want an answer to and therefore was worthy of being answered .

Baier couldn’t take it. The man just wanted an answer. Look at Bret Baier. This is a man who deserves answers.

Grrrr. Stop circumloquating and give me a number.

But also a man who has, over the years, raised a few questions.

Mr. and Mrs. Baier in their prominent-citizens-of-Gotham-who-may-have-secret-identities phase.

Harris of course couldn’t actually answer the question with a number, given that the actual number would damage her campaign, and an acceptable number would be immediately detected as a lie. So she engaged in the Harrisonian preamble. Some call this a word salad, I think it is a defense mechanism relying on the jargon and filler that is de rigueur in the kind of spaces that think of themselves as “spaces.” Fox is not such a space. Baier is not such an interlocutor.

What followed was much parrying with so many answers consisting of the complaint that she wasn’t allowed to answer, and so many questions demanding an actual answer not just words marginally related to the topic being asked. It is tempting for me to call it all exhausting, but it wasn’t. It was the classic politician’s dodge of answering the question they want to answer not the one that was asked, but doing so in a not very skilled way to an interviewer who had zero-tolerance for these usual tactics. It was no disaster for the campaign it was just a bit muddled.

Let’s Be Clear

The one Harris vocal crutch that I really really notice is her frequent calls to clarity. During the interview she uttered these phrases:

(On immigration) “I’ve been clear, I think we all are, that it needs to be fixed.”

(On past policy position) Listen, that was five years ago and I’m very clear that I will follow the law.

We are very clear and I am very clear, as is Tim Walz.

(On decriminalizing border crossings,) Well, let’s be very clear. I’m the only person who’s running for president who has prosecuted transnational criminal organizations

It has been clear to those who study and understand how economic policy works that moving forward, because I do believe the American people are ready to turn the page on the divisiveness.

Let me be very clear. My presidency will not be a continuation of Joe Biden’s presidency.

Harris evokes clarity more than she provides it. Actually, reliance on this word is a bit of a tell. She’s most likely to emphasize a call to clarity regarding the stances she’s most vague on. Donald Trump has his tells, “everybody is saying” means only the callers to the Dan Bongino Show “are saying”. But with Trump, it’s the familiar affectation of a loon. With Harris it’s the annoying tick of a striver. Your vote, which is of course an expression of who you want to punish the most, tells us which you find more bothersome.