Janan Ganesh on Kamala Harris. Political Cynic comments

With all the Marque Pundits on vacation, it falls the Mr. Ganesh to offer up his commentary on the Biden pick of Harris, as his vice-president. He mentions in passing Harris’ threat to jail the parents of truant children. The Los Angeles Times offers this: 


On the de facto pardon of OneWest Bank’s Steven Mnuchin:


Harris’ pandering, not to speak groveling address at AIPAC, in which she claims that she didn’t sell Girl Scout Cookies, but raised funds for Israel. How does one ‘fact check’ such an assertion? 

Here is a link to Joe Biden’s address to the Ukrainian Rada: 

Joe Biden worked hard, at obtaining that sinecure, for Hunter Biden at Burisma Holdings!


The reader has to be patient, with Mr. Ganesh’s attempt at an apologetic for Biden, in its political meander, his History Made to Measure. But here, the Janan Ganesh the readers has no trouble recognizing breaks through: 

Just not, in part thanks to that vagueness of hers, unbeatable. In a reptilian passage of Tony Blair’s chatty memoirs, the former UK prime minister explains how to go about negative campaigning. The classic error, he says, with the sureness of the thrice-elected, is the lurid, over-the-top attack. Swing voters learn to tune these out. What moves them is the lesser charge, expressed more in sorrow than in anger.


The ‘Literary Ganesh’ married to the ‘Political Ganesh’ is no more insightful, but it reads ‘as if’ it were insight, rather than political chatter in a more decorous key. 

Political Cynic 


 In reply to Boris Zohnson
Joe Biden needed to cover his tracks, with a convincing narrative that highlighted his ‘anti-corruption’ activities. Yet the question remains that Hunter Biden was paid how much over two years for exactly what? What was his ‘expertise’ that made him the obvious candidate?

‘In 2014, the stepson of former Secretary of State John Kerry, Chris Heinz, gave Hunter a similar warning. The pair were partners in an investment firm, Rosemont Seneca, when Hunter Biden and a third partner, Devon Archer, were invited to join the board of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. Heinz, through a spokesperson, told the Washington Post that he strongly objected to Hunter Biden and Archer taking the board seats. “Mr. Heinz strongly warned Mr. Archer that working with Burisma was unacceptable. Mr. Archer stated that he and Hunter Biden intended to pursue the opportunity as individuals, not as part of the firm,” the Post reported. “The lack of judgment in this matter was a major catalyst for Mr. Heinz ending his business relationships with Mr. Archer and Mr. Biden.” Obama administration officials, too, were concerned. Amos Hochstein, the special envoy for energy policy, raised the question with Biden, the New Yorker reported. In April 2014, Hunter went ahead and accepted the invitation to join the board, along with a fee of at least $50,000 per month. Beau Biden and Chris Heinz both recognized what was plainly before their eyes: Cashing in on the Biden family name was wrong. Now, Democratic voters are faced with the same quandary. They can see the corruption in front of their eyes, and they have to decide whether that’s the argument they want to have with Trump in 2020 — or whether they want to nominate someone else who will allow the party to make the corruption argument cleanly. Hunter told the New Yorker he and his dad had a tacit understanding that they would never talk business. The Biden campaign claimed to the magazine that the two never spoke about his work in Ukraine, though Hunter says they did talk about it. “Dad said, ‘I hope you know what you are doing,’ and I said, ‘I do,’” Hunter told the New Yorker. (The Biden campaign declined to comment for this story.)’
Thank you for your comment.



About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.