Ms. Kamala Harris needs schooling in a number of different contexts, but perhaps one of the most important contexts of all includes not demonstrating a rather openly hypocritical stance on key issues.
Especially when such issues pertain to the balance of state power and federal power, a sticking point in national debates ever since the initial debates between federalists and anti-federalists.
Yet that’s precisely what Ms. Harris did during a recent appearance on MSNBC, in a rather humorous interview with MSNBC anchor Chuck Todd.
Todd pressed Harris on why the Democrats appear to be adopting dirtier campaign strategies, including funding advertisements for Republican candidates widely perceived as more “extreme.”
“I’m curious, when you see the Democratic Party and some parts of the party funding ads to promote election deniers whether it’s Michigan, the high-profile race there, Illinois, Colorado, New Hampshire, it looks like a cynical – you know, a little bit cynical,” Todd inquired.
In other words, the Democrats are valiantly attempting to swing the narrative back in their favor with under two months to go before midterm elections.
“The president went out of his way to say there are good Republicans here. Should you leave the good Republicans alone in a primary? Is the Democratic Party making a mistake here? Those people could win if you’re not careful,” Todd continued on, with “those people” largely consisting of individuals who align more with the MAGA realm of the GOP.
Harris, however, apparently refuses to criticize any more devious Democrat tactics.
Instead, she deflected by hilarious defending states’ rights, rights that she didn’t seem terribly concerned with as the pandemic raged through the nation.
“Listen. I’m not going to tell people how to run their campaigns,” Harris began.
Let’s hope not.
After all, Harris’s running mate spent most of 2020 campaigning from his basement while she spent most of her time campaigning for violent criminals to be released from jail, especially if they demonstrated antipathy towards the police.
“I’m not going to tell people how to run their campaigns, Chuck,” Harris continued, “let them make the decision based on what they believe is in the best interest of their state. I’m not going to tell people what to do.”
Oh, wow, imagine that! Allowing people to do “what they believe is in the best interest of their state.”
It’s a real shame such consideration does not seem to be extended to Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who clearly did what was in the best interest of Floridians as far as the pandemic and parental rights are concerned.
Not to mention Texas Governor Greg Abbott, who is drawing national attention to the crisis at the border Harris declined to address, despite being the so-called “Border Czar.”
All titles, no substance in this particular administration.
Which is evident in Harris’s continuously empty replies.
“I think what we have to focus on is that within 60 days of this interview, in less than two months, we are looking at a midterm election in which so much is on the line,” Harris intoned.
Perhaps focus on solutions rather than division, Ms. Harris, and the Democrats may not be beaten as resoundingly as most forecasts suggest.
In the meantime, Democrats are clearly thriving on what’s “best” for their states by breeding greater governmental dependence, as in California.
Consider the $500 monthly payments that have started to “qualified” families, all of which are clearly designed for shameless vote buying.
“When you provide resources to families that are struggling, it can give them the breathing room to realize goals that many of us are fortunate enough to take for granted,” Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti intoned.
How about providing resources to law enforcement so all Los Angeles citizens can have “breathing room” from rampant crime?
Plus, such an investment would be a heck of a lot more sustainable than bleeding out cash to people … for no reason other than perpetual vote buying.
Oren Cass, who serves as the executive director of right-leaning think tank American Compass, declared that government-guaranteed income, especially indefinite income, is hardly the ingredient needed for a free, innovative society.
Instead, Cass blasts the scheme as “a permanent and society-wide system [that] would destroy fundamental elements of the social contract and create the wrong incentives for people as they make choices about their life’s course.”
Much in the same way the White House is clearly destroying the fundamental elements of checks and balances, designed to prevent this nation from teetering straight into a wholly authoritarian state.
Author: Jane Jones