It's been more than two months since Vice President Kamala Harris was deeded the Democratic presidential nomination. During that time, she has not held a news conference or sat with many mainstream journalists to answer serious questions about how she would lead the country and who she would choose as her advisers. On Saturday, riding high on her first debate win against Trump, Harris accepted CNN's offer of a second presidential debate on Oct. 23. Trump declined the offer to appear on the Harris-friendly and anti-Trump CNN saying, "it's too late."
Harris has promised to bring down the cost of everything, though costs still remain high partly because of the spending policies of her and President Biden's administration. Will those policies continue and if not, what policies will replace them? She has said she wants to impose price controls, but they have never worked. Wouldn't it be better to address and change the policies that have caused prices and inflation to rise?
How would she handle the war in Ukraine? Should China invade Taiwan on her watch, would she commit U.S. troops and resources to defend the democratic nation? Would she support laws already on the books to keep migrants who are not U.S. citizens from voting in federal elections? How would she do this?
Does she still intend to tax unrealized capital gains, meaning people would pay on assets, like their homes, 401K's and other retirement savings that have increased in value but whose owners have not benefited from them?
The Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump, has promised to bring in outside auditors to reduce the size, cost and reach of the federal government. Is this something she endorses? If not, what would she do to reduce the debt which is a record $35 trillion. According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation: "In 2023, the federal government spent $658 billion on net interest costs on the national debt. That total grew by 38 percent from $476 billion in 2022."
All of this - and more - could be discussed if Harris would stop engaging in a stealth strategy that keeps her from having to answer hard questions the public has a right to know.
Real journalists, not the kind who used to work for politicians and activist organizations ("Mr. President, what is your favorite ice cream flavor?") should be demanding she start holding long news conferences.
Every other president for the last century has done so before and after elections. John F. Kennedy held his in the State Department auditorium. Lyndon Johnson had a different approach, answering reporters' questions as he walked around the White House driveway, sometimes pulling the ears of his dogs. Barack Obama was a master of the news conference. Ronald Reagan, too, projected strength and good humor.
Are Harris and her campaign staff afraid she will revert to her incoherent word salads? Americans have a right to know what kind of president they are voting for and how she will lead. This shouldn't be an "arranged marriage" in which neither side knows much about the other.
This is the 100th anniversary year of Calvin Coolidge's ascension to the presidency following the death of Warren Harding, Coolidge's oldest son, John, once told me his father invented the modern news conference. John showed me transcripts of those meetings with reporters, which were off the record, but which gave reporters information they could use without attributing it to Coolidge.
Even while traveling, Coolidge made sure the press had information of at least some value. The favor was returned in mostly positive coverage and not the cynicism and one-sided "reporting" that characterizes so much of what's left of real journalism today. Reporters sought facts and did not cheerlead for one candidate or another.
Come on Kamala and hold a news conference. If you are incapable of doing them, the public has a right and a need to know now.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member