And let's bring in now Peter Savatnik of the Free Press. Welcome, Peter. Thanks for joining us.
Thank you. This whole border czar thing is bizarre. They want us to believe she wasn't named border czar.
Even though she wanted to handle the root causes, she was asked to handle the border. That's on record already. Right. That's all on the record. This is March 2021 when the president tasked Harris with, you know, helming the kind of border surge, the surge of migrants at the border. It's all very public.
It was reported on widely by every outlet. Now we're quibbling over the terminology, which is weird because the term borders czar, as the piece notes that I wrote, is actually an informal term. No one's actually a czar of anything in the United States government.
It's just it's a reference to somebody who's in charge of something and she was in charge of it. So you point out too, and it's tongue in cheek, just to make sure readers understand that Axios in 2021 in no way intended to provide Republicans in 2024 with a talking point that might help Donald Trump. Axios has added editor's note on the bottom of this new piece that says this article has been updated and clarified to note that Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a border czar.
Well, that's interesting. Rewriting history and admitting to it. What's most bizarre about that actually is that Axios is claiming that it made a mistake when it didn't make a mistake. So in other words, it's tarnishing itself, its credibility, because it's more important apparently to Axios that it appear as if it's on the right side of history, so to speak.
It's with the right people. That seems to take precedence to reporting accurately. And so in other words, it's willing to trade in its credibility for the right political brand.
So what is it like at the free press? You see this bizarre situation where they're trying to rally behind a candidate and remake her image beginning with her biggest failure, and that's the border. It's not so much she had policies that didn't work. She just had no interest in doing it.
A couple of Zoom calls with the triangle countries, an in-person visit, and one cursory stop at a very sanitized El Paso outpost. She didn't want to do the job that Barack Obama asked Vice President Joe Biden to do, right? Yeah. I think, look, I don't know what Harris was thinking about the job or what her commitment to it was or was not. I just think that what all this conversation about whether she was or was not the border czar, which is kind of silly, obscures is that the border has been a mess. And what we should really be talking about is what is the border looking like right now? And we all know that if everyone agreed that the border were not a mess, if everyone thought that right now everything was going great on the U.S. southern border, she would be talking all about how she was the greatest border czar of all time. So we should dispense with the niceties or the this kind of silliness about sort of whether she was this thing that no one actually technically is, border czar, and really be asking questions like, why did things get to the point they did get to with the border where you had a quarter million illegal migrants entering the country in December and you have all this violence and you have the drug cartels and fentanyl and et cetera, et cetera. We can argue about the details about whether she was focused on root causes or whether her title is border czar.
All that kind of seems to me incidental, especially given the original reporting. More importantly is how things got so bad in the first place. It would have been a chance, you know, all these assignments difficult to not give you an opportunity to define yourself. I mean, if you go back in time, Herbert Hoover defined himself by getting aid after World War One to people in desperate need. He was so organized, so effective, such a great leader. He ends up president of the United States just on pure earning it.
You have a chance to define yourselves in these positions and rise from the ranks. She has seemed not to take that opportunity, but now she does have that opportunity to go forward. And we'll see where it goes from here. Peter, in your record, in your prediction, do you think they're going to try to also remake her beliefs, her standing on getting rid of personal insurance, health insurance? Is she going to get rid of her statement, no longer say I'm against fracking? Is she no longer going to say I'm against offshore drilling, that I want to abolish ICE? I mean, these are stuff she's on the record of saying. Yeah, and I think what's troubling about the story about the borders are thing, which is I think in the end, kind of, as I said, fatuous, it doesn't really matter that much. We all know that she was responsible for it. What's more troubling about the story is that it indicates how the campaign and its media subordinates are thinking about sort of, you know, Kamala Harris's record and how they might present it or approach it and think about it.
So, you know, we're seeing this kind of airbrushing this, this sprucing up this editing of history. And that's troubling that that, you know, that indicates that we're not really going to be able to have an honest conversation about, you know, her record or what she believes, because we don't really necessarily know, which we won't know. We won't be able to have a conversation. At least the public won't be able to, because even though there are screenshots of what was once said or tweeted, there are records or people who were in conversations, video, et cetera. There's going to be this effort to airbrush, to edit away, you know, things that now don't focus group well, don't poll well.
So it may be that she said something, did something that was very smart, successful way back in 2021, 2022. But now for whatever reason, we decided is not helpful. And I would expect those things to mysteriously be disappeared. That is the sound of an expensive car repair about to happen. And to prevent breaking the bank with your out of warranty vehicle, you should call CarShield, America's number one automotive protection company. CarShield has helped save drivers big dollars on car repairs.
Don't risk paying out of pocket for expensive repairs. For dollars a day, you can have protection coast to coast on up to 5,000 parts and systems. That's protection on your engine, transmission, entertainment system plus so much more. And your plan also comes with 24 seven roadside assistance, courtesy towing and rental options. Best of all, your rates will never go up as long as you cover your vehicle. That's money in the bank. All you have to do is call CarShield before a breakdown.
Get protection on your car, truck or SUV that comes with unlimited miles and the peace of mind you get with CarShield. Don't wait another minute. Call CarShield now. Call 8002040239.
That's 8002040239. Right. But we're not going to let it and you're not going to let it.
And that's part of the record. Are we going to pretend that Donald Trump's weaknesses didn't exist? I don't think anyone's looking at that. No one's saying that, you know, anything you didn't like about Trump and or you do like about Trump, the impeachments, January 6th, no one's going to say that never happened. They're going to say, look at it in balance about what he accomplished until he got the nomination.
So it's just weird on the other side. They plan on doing it. Do you remember, Peter, that four years ago when Joe Biden was running after these very left wing primaries, he stood forward and goes, guys, you know me, I'm a moderate. They go, I'm not I'm not against fracking. I know we talked about it on the stage, but I'm not against this and the new green deal.
I'm going to do it with it within reason. And I'm not going to do all those things. And people look back and say, you know, for the most part, for a Democrat, he's been a moderate. Kamala Harris can't say that. She could say a lack of record, but you can't say I have a record of being moderate. I mean, I think I think actually, you know, Harris has been very, very successful at not staking out too much ideological turf. So she's never really been very clear about exactly what her core beliefs or principles are.
I don't know myself. I know she's been called the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate, you know, and then she was, of course, part of the Biden administration. She is part of the Biden administration, which is more moderate. So I don't really, you know, that her position on crime, for example, when she was attorney general versus when she was DA, like there's there's there's been a lot of, you know, kind of evolution. I don't really know exactly sort of where she stands, what she thinks.
And I think what we're seeing now with the, you know, editing of of sort of the recent past is in keeping with that. It's it's sort of, you know, fixing things, so to speak, that that, again, don't conform to the political needs of right now. So so, you know, I don't I don't know what she believes exactly.
I don't want a Democrat. But would you say we're talking to Peter Savatnik, the senior editor of the Free Press. So, Peter, but you say you don't know what she thinks. But until further notice, we have to go by what she said.
I'm not even talking about some reporting, third party. So we have her on video talking to Norah O'Donnell. We have her doing town halls on CNN.
We have her sitting down one on one with Lester Holt. So I'll go by that until unless she wants to say, I know what I said and I've changed my mind, which everyone's entitled to. Yep. Yep.
No, you're right. I guess what I meant is that there have been changes, pivots a lot with her and on big issues, right. Big, meaty issues like, you know, starting with a crime in California.
But but but or now with regard to the border and how much responsibility he had or didn't have. You know, I think that that's that's, you know, I think that's a part of her style, her MO. And it's worked very well for her.
But but of course, it doesn't provide us with much of an indication of what kind of president she would be. So in your other column, I thought it was interesting, says Kamala, she's worse than Joe is now no doubt about it. The Republicans have to respond in a cohesive way. They have this unprecedented demand to change gears and stop focusing on Joe Biden and go for a different candidate with one hundred and four days until the election. So that's a challenge for them. And so far, their headline is what yours is.
She's worse than Joe. Right. That was a quote from one of the delegates at the convention. Kind of the kind of the mindset of their Trump, the Trump team.
Yeah, I think that's right. I think that they look at the obvious, you know, negative of Kamala Harris, as far as the Republicans are concerned, is that she has all of her faculties, as far as we can tell. So so, you know, she they're not, you know, running against, you know, an old, foggy, muddle-headed man. The Will Kane Show is now dropping five episodes a week. Join Fox and Friends weekend host Will Kane as he tackles the latest headlines from his unique perspective, along with thought provoking interviews with leading figures and live calls from viewers and listeners. Listen wherever you download your favorite podcasts. Listen to the show ad free on Fox News podcast plus on Apple podcast, Amazon music with your prime membership or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.
