During her interview with Bret Baier, Kamala Harris evaded tough questions about whether she still takes certain radical positions she advocated during her last presidential campaign.
A superb post. Harris is a phony and, when that doesn't work -- as, increasingly, it doesn't -- a liar. She's like Trump in one important way: The more you hear from her, the worse she seems. There's a reason her 2020 campaign for the nomination imploded so fast.
Apparently her managers have decided to put her out there because the public thought her positions were vague. And that's true (they're intentionally vague), but the cure of trotting her out on TV is worse than the disease. The more you hear from her, the more her sleaziness and dishonesty come through.
The big irony of this campaign is that Trump was initially ahead mainly because the public saw that Biden's senility made him per se unfit for office. When Biden was forced out, an important slice of the public switched away from Trump because they then saw HIM as the one unfit for office because of his too-frequent oafishness. But the Democrats are in the process of booting away that gift. They did this by anointing Kamala as their candidate, fearful that a (late) primary would produce division. It might well have done that, but now they're paying the price for their choice. The price is a candidate whose airheadedness and evasion are as obvious, and about as indigestible, as Trump's big mouth and narcissism. And like Trump, she can't fix it because that's who she is.
The result is that the Democrats are squandering what they gained by booting Biden. And the result of that is a race that increasingly resembles the one we had before Joe's exit, to wit, one where Trump has the advantage.
As I was saying in an earlier post this week, when the other side is bailing you out, just sit there and enjoy the show. As I suspect future generations of political science students will understand, primaries are a good and perhaps an essential thing, because they really do weed out candidates whose weaknesses the party needed to know about before handing her the nomination.
Seems to me that Nancy Pelosi, et. al, outsmarted themselves, and it might well cost them the election. This is not breaking my heart.
In many cases President Biden, like President Obama, didn't follow the law. In their immigration, regulatory and enforcement policies, they often fought the law and, thanks to the courts, the law won. There's no reason to believe Harris will have more fealty to the law than Biden does. Given her ideology and character, she will almost certainly ignore the constitutional command to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Indeed, if she follows Biden's lead, she will brag about policies that spurn the law. Jim Dueholm
Did her advisors really believe that Bret Baier was going to lob softballs at her so that he would not be accused of bias. The only prep she seemed to receive was to ignore his questions by answering with her long rote talking points and ditch everything to I am not Trump and he is bad, not a good way to inform voters who you are and what your positions are , but they can always go to her website. They arrive late and then pulled her early since the questions were not exactly what she was prepped for and she obviously cannot think either on her feet or sitting down. I think the debate with Trump for some unknown reason gave them confidence that she could handle Bret Baier.
A superb post. Harris is a phony and, when that doesn't work -- as, increasingly, it doesn't -- a liar. She's like Trump in one important way: The more you hear from her, the worse she seems. There's a reason her 2020 campaign for the nomination imploded so fast.
Apparently her managers have decided to put her out there because the public thought her positions were vague. And that's true (they're intentionally vague), but the cure of trotting her out on TV is worse than the disease. The more you hear from her, the more her sleaziness and dishonesty come through.
The big irony of this campaign is that Trump was initially ahead mainly because the public saw that Biden's senility made him per se unfit for office. When Biden was forced out, an important slice of the public switched away from Trump because they then saw HIM as the one unfit for office because of his too-frequent oafishness. But the Democrats are in the process of booting away that gift. They did this by anointing Kamala as their candidate, fearful that a (late) primary would produce division. It might well have done that, but now they're paying the price for their choice. The price is a candidate whose airheadedness and evasion are as obvious, and about as indigestible, as Trump's big mouth and narcissism. And like Trump, she can't fix it because that's who she is.
The result is that the Democrats are squandering what they gained by booting Biden. And the result of that is a race that increasingly resembles the one we had before Joe's exit, to wit, one where Trump has the advantage.
As I was saying in an earlier post this week, when the other side is bailing you out, just sit there and enjoy the show. As I suspect future generations of political science students will understand, primaries are a good and perhaps an essential thing, because they really do weed out candidates whose weaknesses the party needed to know about before handing her the nomination.
Seems to me that Nancy Pelosi, et. al, outsmarted themselves, and it might well cost them the election. This is not breaking my heart.
In many cases President Biden, like President Obama, didn't follow the law. In their immigration, regulatory and enforcement policies, they often fought the law and, thanks to the courts, the law won. There's no reason to believe Harris will have more fealty to the law than Biden does. Given her ideology and character, she will almost certainly ignore the constitutional command to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Indeed, if she follows Biden's lead, she will brag about policies that spurn the law. Jim Dueholm
Did her advisors really believe that Bret Baier was going to lob softballs at her so that he would not be accused of bias. The only prep she seemed to receive was to ignore his questions by answering with her long rote talking points and ditch everything to I am not Trump and he is bad, not a good way to inform voters who you are and what your positions are , but they can always go to her website. They arrive late and then pulled her early since the questions were not exactly what she was prepped for and she obviously cannot think either on her feet or sitting down. I think the debate with Trump for some unknown reason gave them confidence that she could handle Bret Baier.