Democratic strategist Lis Smith dug into the “plant” remark, writing on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter: “The identity of the questioner is irrelevant.”
“Part of running for president and doing the whole early state thing is showing you have ‘what it takes’ to deal with everything that comes your way…including answering BASIC QUESTIONS about the cause of the Civil War,” Smith continued.
Republican strategist Liz Mair expressed her agreement with Smith on X, writing, “McCain knew he’d get an ‘Obama is a Muslim’ or ‘Obama is an Arab’ question. And he knew how to handle it.”
Mair argued political candidates need to be “aware” that there will likely be so-called plants in the audience.
“And you have to be able to answer their questions deftly. This wasn’t that,” she wrote on X.
I had reservations about Haley (before your excellent Confederate flag article ) and after the latest confusion on her part she is of no interest to me as a candidate. However, attempts by others in the Republican party to discredit her "fitness" is typical candidate bashing. I actual prefer my Presidential candidates to have prior executive experience, which, (for better or worse), Haley, Christie and DeSantis all have.
I don't see anything highly unusual about Haley's most recent mishap. Most politicians who have been in the arena long enough have experienced moments like this. As for the "candidate bashing" we've seen a clear break with the past given the candidates' unwillingness to go after Trump. How many indictments do you need before your opponents pounce. It's truly laughable. Thanks, James.
Feels like Nikki Haley is still pandering to Republicans voters who sympathize and believe in the Lost Cause when she’s supposed to be running as the normie/ center right GOP candidate. Also, she’s in New Hampshire, a Union state, which makes it even more interesting that she gafed.
DeSantis did respond, but largely in a reframing of the issue around Haley's fitness for having a role that requires being good under pressure. I can't find a good link to the video, but it was in an answer to reporters:
Haley “is not a candidate that's ready for primetime. And she's gotten a pretty free ride from a lot of the corporate press. The minute that she faces any type of scrutiny, she tends to cave and I think that that's what you saw yesterday.
“Not that difficult to identify and acknowledge the role slavery played in the Civil War, and yet that seemed to be something that was really difficult. And I don't even know what she was saying.
“I know she's trying to clean it up. I know she's tried to blame a Democrat plant…I mean, you're gonna get asked a lot of tough questions — that's just the nature of this business. And I think that she showed time and time again that when the lights get hot that she will wilt under pressure, and that was a good example last night.”
I think before long this all gets reframed this way, not just by DeSantis - not about the substance of what she said, or what that might mean for how she would govern, but in a 'she's bad under pressure' kind of way. Everyone else gets a free swing at her general credentials, and doesn't have to actually answer the substantive questions.
Thanks for the update. It's interesting that DeSantis didn't come right out and state that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, at least in the excerpts that you shared.
Yeah, it was very much a pivot to generic 'leadership qualities' and ability to think quickly under fire. Brushed right by the substance in the clip I saw. Which is not an abnormal tactic for a candidate to take, of course.
For myself I am glad you did not indicate your shock. I my instance I was wondering if what I was reading was actually the policy. Doing it in the comments, for me, enhanced what I thought I was reading and interpreting.
I wish I was shocked. It would have shocked me more if it wasn't straight out of generic campaign management 101. Attack the opponent and frame it in context of how they'll fail at the office in question. Content matters very little in that framing. And in that context, his campaign handlers are probably very happy with his response here, because he has a tendency to at least get his messaging wrong, or find a way to make himself look worse. Probably the most 'normal politician' statement he's given in awhile.
From The Hill:
Democratic strategist Lis Smith dug into the “plant” remark, writing on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter: “The identity of the questioner is irrelevant.”
“Part of running for president and doing the whole early state thing is showing you have ‘what it takes’ to deal with everything that comes your way…including answering BASIC QUESTIONS about the cause of the Civil War,” Smith continued.
Republican strategist Liz Mair expressed her agreement with Smith on X, writing, “McCain knew he’d get an ‘Obama is a Muslim’ or ‘Obama is an Arab’ question. And he knew how to handle it.”
Mair argued political candidates need to be “aware” that there will likely be so-called plants in the audience.
“And you have to be able to answer their questions deftly. This wasn’t that,” she wrote on X.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4380202-haley-takes-flak-for-blaming-civil-war-gaffe-on-plant/
I had reservations about Haley (before your excellent Confederate flag article ) and after the latest confusion on her part she is of no interest to me as a candidate. However, attempts by others in the Republican party to discredit her "fitness" is typical candidate bashing. I actual prefer my Presidential candidates to have prior executive experience, which, (for better or worse), Haley, Christie and DeSantis all have.
Hi James,
I don't see anything highly unusual about Haley's most recent mishap. Most politicians who have been in the arena long enough have experienced moments like this. As for the "candidate bashing" we've seen a clear break with the past given the candidates' unwillingness to go after Trump. How many indictments do you need before your opponents pounce. It's truly laughable. Thanks, James.
Feels like Nikki Haley is still pandering to Republicans voters who sympathize and believe in the Lost Cause when she’s supposed to be running as the normie/ center right GOP candidate. Also, she’s in New Hampshire, a Union state, which makes it even more interesting that she gafed.
Haley has flip flopped on this issue for years. This is just more of the same.
I am frankly surprised---in a good way---at how the South Carolina guidelines frame the Lost Cause narrative.
I should have done a better job of conveying my utter shock when I came across that section.
DeSantis did respond, but largely in a reframing of the issue around Haley's fitness for having a role that requires being good under pressure. I can't find a good link to the video, but it was in an answer to reporters:
Haley “is not a candidate that's ready for primetime. And she's gotten a pretty free ride from a lot of the corporate press. The minute that she faces any type of scrutiny, she tends to cave and I think that that's what you saw yesterday.
“Not that difficult to identify and acknowledge the role slavery played in the Civil War, and yet that seemed to be something that was really difficult. And I don't even know what she was saying.
“I know she's trying to clean it up. I know she's tried to blame a Democrat plant…I mean, you're gonna get asked a lot of tough questions — that's just the nature of this business. And I think that she showed time and time again that when the lights get hot that she will wilt under pressure, and that was a good example last night.”
I think before long this all gets reframed this way, not just by DeSantis - not about the substance of what she said, or what that might mean for how she would govern, but in a 'she's bad under pressure' kind of way. Everyone else gets a free swing at her general credentials, and doesn't have to actually answer the substantive questions.
Thanks for the update. It's interesting that DeSantis didn't come right out and state that slavery was the cause of the Civil War, at least in the excerpts that you shared.
Another reporter asked DeSantis how he would have responded, and his response is here: https://x.com/eggerdc/status/1740436604496605689
Yeah, it was very much a pivot to generic 'leadership qualities' and ability to think quickly under fire. Brushed right by the substance in the clip I saw. Which is not an abnormal tactic for a candidate to take, of course.
I should have done a better job of conveying my utter shock when I came across that section.
For myself I am glad you did not indicate your shock. I my instance I was wondering if what I was reading was actually the policy. Doing it in the comments, for me, enhanced what I thought I was reading and interpreting.
I wish I was shocked. It would have shocked me more if it wasn't straight out of generic campaign management 101. Attack the opponent and frame it in context of how they'll fail at the office in question. Content matters very little in that framing. And in that context, his campaign handlers are probably very happy with his response here, because he has a tendency to at least get his messaging wrong, or find a way to make himself look worse. Probably the most 'normal politician' statement he's given in awhile.
Sorry. I thought I was responding to Jim Epperson above.