Fox’s Dana Perino tends to be too staid when it comes to calling out the Democrats, in my opinion.
So when she does do it, you know it’s more than well deserved, and she just curb-stomped all over Kamala Harris’ Stephanie Ruhle interview and Pittsburgh speech that was supposed to lay out Harris’ “economic vision.”
PERINO: You just saw a huge contrast. Kamala does 1 interview with a friend. She can’t answer an actual question. Even the New York Times laughed at her interview. There’s nothing about her on the front page of the local paper in Pittsburgh today because there was nothing new.… pic.twitter.com/FiXiNDfhBd— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 26, 2024
“[Kamala] does one interview with a friendly interviewer,” Perino commented. She was referring to the interview with Stephanie Ruhle, who basically defended Harris avoiding questions on Bill Maher’s show.
But even that friendly interview was a train wreck, as Perino noted.
“She cannot answer a question with actual sentences and words and, you know, punctuation. And it kind of pains me to say it because I think what have you been doing for four years? Do you not have any set of principles or an understanding…She has not figured out how to separate herself from Biden. And then Biden yesterday said, ‘She was there every step of the way. She’s completely linked with me.'”
“Even the New York Times today basically laughed at her interview,” she said. We noted that she showed all the “seriousness of a fruit cup.”
Perino continued to lay into Harris, this time taking on her Pittsburgh speech.
“If you look at the local press…There’s nothing on the front page of the local paper about it because there was no news in the speech.”
READ MORE: Kamala Does Trainwreck Interview With Stephanie Ruhle, Who Admits Harris Didn’t Answer Questions
Then you go to President Trump, she said, who gave a long speech, then took questions on “all range of issues without a teleprompter, without notes, in a way that says he has a grasp of what he’s talking about.”
“He can answer the question; he has a set of principles from which he makes decisions. I think, at this point, the Democrats should just be hoping that she continues to hide in plain sight. I know she says she wants to debate him again. But I think that might be a really bad idea.”
It’s really that simple. You have someone who is competent and has shown it in the past. Or you have a person who’s known for cackling and incoherence more than any concrete principle. Who says anything she thinks she has to say to get elected; who says she no longer holds the radical positions that she’s held in the past while claiming her values haven’t changed. But at least she was a “middle-class kid” with “dreams and aspirations.” The more she talks, the more she shows how vacuous she is.
We’ve already suffered through three and half years of harmful incoherence, in addition to the harmful actions.
