Once again, the Democrats are offering up a woman candidate for president. And once again it is an unlikeable candidate who owes her career to a far more skillful male politician. In Hillary’s case, it is her husband Bill, a charismatic personality adept at the game. In Harris’ case, it was her lover Willie Brown who boosted her up the ladder and showered her with expensive gifts.

To say that Kamala Harris had an affair with a man more than twice her age, leveraged his fundraising prowess and connections to launch her political career, and once in office did his corrupt bidding isn’t sexist. It’s well-grounded in fact.

When in 2019 Harris ran for president, she was highly promoted by the media but drew little support and dropped out quickly. The Los Angeles Times said she never should have even entered the race.

And she couldn’t connect with voters because of the core weakness in her candidacy: a lack of cohesive strategy and clear personal convictions. There was no evidence of the political soul needed to guide her toward public policy she felt strongly about.

“She didn’t exactly have a sense of who she was and what she believed and what she wanted to get done,” said a disappointed Harris insider who asked for anonymity. “And sooner or later that stuff gets exposed.”

“Her strategic plan wasn’t clear,” the insider continued. The campaign was confident she would win the votes of African Americans in South Carolina and from fellow Californians.

When that scenario didn’t seem to be working out, Harris belatedly began focusing on the first contest in Iowa. The senator was failing there, too, when she pulled the plug.

“She was all over the map on healthcare and criminal justice,” the insider said of the former San Francisco district attorney. “Was she a prosecutor or a public defender? It wouldn’t have made much difference which role she decided, but she started bouncing around to be all things to all people. Voters instinctively understand your heart’s not in it.”

Anyone who watched Harris as attorney general could have predicted this outcome. She refused to take positions on any state ballot proposition. Her excuse was that the attorney general writes the official ballot titles and summaries, and she didn’t want to appear biased. But that was nonsense. She was trying to avoid making political enemies, especially among law enforcement.

Most unacceptable was her refusal to take a stand on two propositions to abolish the death penalty, a cause that she claimed to have long supported. The measures narrowly lost. She also remained neutral on an initiative to expedite the death penalty. It passed. And she didn’t take a position on a measure to reduce prison sentences, which passed. Yet Harris leaped into the presidential race promising to be a “fighter for the people.” Clearly that message was gleaned from focus groups. The rhetoric didn’t match the record.

I see no difference in her substantial shortcomings five years later.

The paper also mentioned she had many conflicts with and difficulty retaining staff, a personality flaw which carried over into the vice presidency. 

she has earned a nasty reputation as an alleged 'soul-destroying' workplace 'bully'. Only four of the initial 71 staffers hired by Harris during her first year in office still remain in a job. The rest either quit or were fired, according to analysis by non-partisan watchdog Open The Books.

In the middle of this week’s honeymoon period after the surprise announcement that without a single vote from anyone, she’ll be the party’s nominee, this wonderful video surfaced. she’s a rich target and there’ll be more of these.

Despite her poor showing in 2019, President Biden named her as his running mate in 2020 after promising he’d name a woman of color to that position. 

In her righteously mocked word salads, she repeatedly talks about unburdening ourselves from the past, and the major media is doing its best to air brush out her history to keep it from burdening this run for office. My favorite was this is nonsense from Scientific American “As the daughter of a cancer researcher, Kamala Harris would bring a lifelong familiarity with science to the presidency, experts say.” Nevertheless, within days of the Biden switcheroo in which he coronated a person who had not received a single vote for the nomination, her history is being unveiled, and if your news sources are among the crowd spackling over it, here are some highlights of the past which she is burdened with, in no particular order:

She supports defunding the police, arguing, “more safety with cops is wrong”

She supports sanctuary cities.

She played a leading role in the disastrous hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan in which the U.S. left to the Taliban billions of dollars’ worth of military equipment, left behind Americans and Afghans who had assisted us, and lost 14 fine military personnel, after which she did not even attend the dignified transfer of their remains at Denver AFB.

She supports Marxism, arguing absurdly that we all have the same capacities and should end up in the same place, but since we didn’t start out in “the same place, some folks might need for equitable distribution.” (Her family’s private residence is valued at $5 million, if you aren’t in the same financial position, go lay claim to it.)

She wants to transform the criminal justice system by ending cash bail, eliminating minimum sentences, allowing convicted murderers and rapists the right to vote in federal elections.

She hasn’t a clue about or respect for the Constitution. When she participated in the presidential debates, she insisted over Biden’s dissent that she could institute gun control by executive order.

She called the border wall a ”vanity project,” says that illegal aliens aren’t criminals, and the surge of them across our borders is “not an emergency.” She even argued that U.S. taxpayers should provide health insurance coverage for illegal border crossers. (There have been under this Administration an estimated 11 million of them. Do the math on the cost of that.)

At a Democratic presidential debate in Miami in June 2019, then-Sen. Harris was among a number of candidates who affirmed support for both decriminalizing illegal border crossings and also requiring U.S. taxpayers to provide health insurance coverage to illegal border crossers. 

What root cause could be more powerful than an offer of free access to the U.S. medical system and a guarantee that legal consequences for unlawful entry would be minimal? Any prudent person without a good job south of the border would at least have to give serious consideration to this compelling offer. And it was coming from leading Democratic politicians, including a senator representing the most populous state in the U.S.

She was widely touted as Biden’s border czar, and now she and the lickspittle press try to memory hole that and claim her brief was far more limited. Axios, for one, actually removed its contemporaneous accounts of her appointment as border czar. GovTrack this week removed its early reports which named her as the most liberal person in the Senate.

As vice president she has the ceremonial function of representing the country as Senate president greeting foreign guests. She passed on greeting Benjamin Netanyahu, claiming that a prior engagement at a sorority confab took precedence. Then she had a seconds-long photo op with him in the White House after which the press was tossed out. In remarks to the press following the meeting she said she had “serious concerns about the scale of human suffering in Gaza” and claimed over two million people in Gaza are facing food insecurity. (Independent analyses indicates enough food is entering Gaza to provide over 3000 calories per person per day. I suppose the next claim will be that Israel is trying to kill Gazans by overfeeding them.)

“Kamala Harris admits she supports -- Raising taxes on 91% of Americans across every income bracket. -- A higher business tax rate than socialist Venezuela. -- Raising the death tax.” 

She opposed fracking (CNN presidential townhall) until a day or so ago when the Hill reported an unnamed campaign staffer (probably looking at internal polls from Pennsylvania) announced that she no longer supports fracking bans.

While Attorney General of California, she supported Proposition 47 which allows people to steal $950 worth of goods at a time without serious criminal penalty. (If you wonder why San Francisco’s downtown is empty of retail stores, you now know.)

She partnered with local officials of CAIR which has been at the forefront of anti-Israel activities, and is involved in fundraising for the Muslim Brotherhood to boost Hamas. She has consistently been anti-Israeli and indifferent to the attacks on Jewish college students.

She backed the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which bailed out criminals during the George Floyd riots which caused extensive property damage and some deaths. When she denied that this week, people pointed out her webpage seeking donations for the group was still online. Similarly still online as of this week was her full-throated support of hoaxer Jussie Smollett who was convicted for lying that he’d been assaulted by apparent trump fans. She called his easily discredited claims “a modern-day lynching.”

Her office framed an innocent man of a murder for which he spent seven years in prison and was ultimately awarded over 13 million dollars from the city in compensation.

As attorney general of California, she kept people in prison after their sentences expired to provide cheap labor for the state and when called on it claimed to be shocked. Which was either false or an admission of her lack of managerial capacity.

Harris "kept people in prison beyond their sentences to use them as cheap labor for the state of California."

This claim comes from a February Daily Beast article. It found lawyers in then AG Harris’ office argued in 2014 that, despite court orders to reduce state prison crowding, some non-violent offenders needed to stay in the prison system to help combat wildfires. It does not detail how many prisoners, if any, ended up staying longer than required. 

A spokesperson for Harris was quoted in the article saying, "Senator Harris was shocked and troubled by the use of this argument. She looked into it and directed the department’s attorneys not to make that argument again."

There’s much more to come and don’t be disheartened if during this honeymoon part of her campaign you see polls -- usually meaningless nationwide ones of registered (as opposed to likely) voters. The Polymarket, where people bet on the outcomes, shows Trump far in the lead. (On Saturday he led 59% to 39%) and the more visible she becomes, the worse she’ll poll.

92% of voters blame her for the Biden health coverup, and that means much of what she says will likely be discredited by them.

Importantly, consumer sentiment just fell to an eight-month low, according to the University of Michigan survey, and that has not changed this week.

No matter what the press says about economic data, people need to eat, find housing, obtain transportation and heath care, and as those prices have risen substantially, inflation is their biggest concern. There’s no reason for them to believe that Harris has the ability or inclination to turn that around, and every reason, including recent history, to believe that Trump does.

Image: Michael Ramirez

Source link